As a skeptic, do you ever pray?

[Open Mind]

By 'pray' I do not mean meditation, I mean a mental request to something outside ourselves

Go vote........ it only takes a few seconds ....

Edited to define 'pray'

[Yahweh]

Unless you mean involuntarily saying to myself "please dont let this happen" or "hey, this is pretty awesome", otherwise no.

[Kumar]

I have no option here. Btw, can prayer give some positive effects alike meditation or alike thinking for yourself/others something good or with good motive? Can there be some positive psychlogical effects by praying? Why prayers are common in schools--i.e. at basic level?

[CurtC]

See, as soon as a poll is published with no "I am from Planet X" option, someone needs it.

BTW, I voted "no" - to whom would I pray? It would be like someone saying to you "I believe in a three-headed dragon who lives under my bed, and sometimes I talk to him. Now I know that you, Openmind, don't believe in dragons under your bed, but do you ever catch yourself talking to it?"

[CFLarsen]

Open Mind,

Define "something".

You are aware that one can be a skeptic and still believe in God, aren't you?

[fishbob]

To: Open Mind - Get real.

To: CFLarson - How??

[Aussie Thinker]

Open Mind,

Prayer was a created as a resort to fill in the area where Man REALLY wanted something to happen but his ability to control it was limited.

The less control man had the more likely he was to “pray�.

As man has grown up (well some of us) and realised that there probably is no such thing as God or the Easter Bunny, prayer has become pretty pointless.

[Traveller]

Originally posted by fishbob
To: Open Mind - Get real.

To: CFLarson - How??

I can't speak for Mr Larsen but as far as I am concerned it's quite easy.

The existence of God is unproven and in my view unprovable, so I am free to believe in Him or not, as I choose. In contrast the existence of a paranormal function such as telepathy is provable by properly designed tests. So as a skeptic I would need to be shown such proof before I accepted the reality of telepathy.

So it is with the existence of God. If someone were to devise a way in which His existence could be experimentally verified beyond doubt then I would not have a choice of whether to believe or not; I would have to abide by the result of such tests.

[-42-]

There are various factors involved.


Is there a hot bible chick present?



If so, Ok. Jesus... Loch Ness, hey, whatever gets you started.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Traveller,

I can't speak for Mr Larsen but as far as I am concerned it's quite easy.

The existence of God is unproven and in my view unprovable, so I am free to believe in Him or not, as I choose. In contrast the existence of a paranormal function such as telepathy is provable by properly designed tests. So as a skeptic I would need to be shown such proof before I accepted the reality of telepathy.

So it is with the existence of God. If someone were to devise a way in which His existence could be experimentally verified beyond doubt then I would not have a choice of whether to believe or not; I would have to abide by the result of such tests.
The question of whether or not god exists is not a matter of opinion, and the fact that you have no way of knowing whether he does or not does not make it a matter of opinion. Treating it as though it were, by saying that it is your "choice" whether to believe it or not, makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what George Washington had for lunch on February 7, 1765, and there is no experiment I could conceivably do to find out, but that does not mean that it would be rational for me to simply choose to believe that he had a ham sandwich.

In fact, if we were to logically expand on your line of reasoning, since the scientific evidence which you claim you must abide by concerning other sorts of paranormal beliefs, itself depends on assumptions about the nature of reality which can neither be proven nor disproved, it follows that it is your choice whether or not to believe in that, too. In this case, all skepticism goes out the window.

In fact, this is exactly the approach which many religious people take. They reject the very axioms of the scientific method. How is their choice to disbelieve this any different than your choice to disbelieve or believe, in god?

This entire view of epistemology is simply not coherent.

Skepticism means believing only that for which their is supporting evidence, and believing it only as much as is justified by the evidence. Which epistemological methodology you choose for assessing what does and does not constitute "supporting evidence" for a belief will then determine what your actual beliefs are.

Scientific epistemology is one such epistemological method, and this is what most modern people have in mind when they talk about skepticism. But it is not the only one possible. I will say, however, that it is the only one I know of which is both coherent, and useful.


That said, I nevertheless agree with Claus that it is possible for a skeptic to believe in god. I was once such a skeptic myself. The reason was simple, I was working based on false information, and I was mistakenly in agreement with logical arguments which were not sound. It is precisely because I was, even then as a believer, a skeptic, that I came to question these "facts" which I had previously believed to be justified, and to investigate the logical arguments which seemed to support my beliefs. When I found them to be lacking, and found that my belief in god was not justified, I stopped believing.

It is quite easy for somebody to believe something which is unjustified, or even false, and still be a skeptic. All that it requires is that he mistakenly think that the belief is justified. Garbage in, garbage out.


Dr. Stupid

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by fishbob
To: CFLarson - How??

It is possible to believe in a god that does nothing that can be detected by man.

[pauldmin]

I pray often, to various gods:
God of programmers, traffic lights, lottery..

I don't expect an answer, but it makes me feel a little better when things go in my favour.

[Hawk one]

The first option is clearly misleading, considering it's the only "no" option. Prayer is but one of the many paranormal claims. Even if one doesn't believe in prayer, it does not automatically follow that if one doesn't pray, one does not believe any paranormal phenomena exists.

I suspect that OM knew about this when he made the poll, but chose to make a misrepresenting poll that will by default be inaccurate as it lacks several necessary options, like the one I just described ("No, because I don't believe in prayer"). At the very least, an "other" option would be absolutely crucial. And OM was most likely aware that the "other" option should be included. But he still didn't. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Traveller]

Stimpson J. Cat
I shouldn’t have tried to be concise. Let me see if I can explain in a little more detail.
I agree, either God exists or He does not. I could believe either, or as a skeptic doubt that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. But this would not preclude my believing Him because, as you say, skepticism means believing only that for which there is supporting evidence, and believing it only as much as is justified by the evidence.
But what evidence is there? None, certainly, that can be scientifically demonstrated. But the fact remains that we are here and the whole Universe is here. Now since nothing causeless happens the Universe must have had a cause. There are only three possibilities: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe was created by something or someone.
I don’t want to go through all the arguments for and against those propositions in this thread – whole books would be required to do that, but I have read and considered these arguments and the proposition which makes the most sense to me is the third. I am aware that this is, to an extent, because I would prefer that to be the case and to that extent I admit to a degree of irrationality. But then, the same could be said whichever I choose to believe.

Like you, I have investigated the logical arguments which support my belief, as well as those which did not. Unlike you, I did not find them lacking or, to put it another way, I found no more reason to believe in the counter arguments. But I would not have characterised my assessment as a mere matter of opinion. If and when more evidence for the first or second proposition above is produced then I will evaluate that and my beliefs will change or not, depending upon how compelling I find it.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Open Mind,

Define "something".

You are aware that one can be a skeptic and still believe in God, aren't you?

Yeah but they wouldn't necessarily agree on what God is. To some it will be an external intelligence beyond earthly human ape brain understanding, to some it might be a collective unconscious we are all part of, to some it is the traditional manlike being, then there are Catholics praying not just to God but Mary or angels, etc. That is what a I mean by 'something' greater outside oneself

I am not religious, I seldom pray but I would pray for someone if seriously ill that medical treatment cannot help, I would assume it is worth a try whether it works or not. I’m not sure science has evolved enough to measure the benefit or lack of benefit of prayer. For example can science measure any emotional benefit accurately yet? It seems to rely on the person in misery saying ‘I feel better’, we might only be measuring a person in suffering, ability to admit improvement in mind or body.

For example if doctors conducted a trial to pray for someone without their knowledge, even if the person had been feeling slightly better, the patient thinking the doctor had done nothing might claim 'I feel just the same' .. a nocebo like effect. So the trial would need to give a placebo and see if the prayer + placebo beats the placebo only group ..... then you are adding placebo (to deceive) + prayer (that must be sincere?) is that a fair trial of prayer? Or how do we know those praying aren't just useless at praying?

I have told the story on this forum before where my grandmother was healed from blindness by a priest, similar claims are in many religions, not just Christianity. Science measures what normally occurs and in doing so might miss what very seldom occurs i.e. paranormal. The rarely normal, unless easily detected and regularly occurring could always be given an loosely undefined 'something else' such as psychological benefit or misdiagnosis.

Originally posted by fishbob
To: Open Mind - Get real.


What is real? Must the real only be a clear strong effect, a weak very consistent effect or produce only predictable outcomes?

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Open Mind,

Prayer was a created as a resort to fill in the area where Man REALLY wanted something to happen but his ability to control it was limited.

The less control man had the more likely he was to “pray�.

As man has grown up (well some of us) and realised that there probably is no such thing as God or the Easter Bunny, prayer has become pretty pointless.

Do skeptics ever watch sport thinking ‘miss’ or ‘come on, score!’ :)

Actually I’m surprised so many said they will never pray again in this topic, life tends to get more unpleasant with age, when all in life goes logically wrong and is beyond current human ape science to improve, does one just commit suicide and be done with it? Or is the belief life has a greater purpose of greater comfort? I don’t see the great benefit of atheism upon the miserable

Originally posted by Hawk one
The first option is clearly misleading, considering it's the only "no" option. Prayer is but one of the many paranormal claims. Even if one doesn't believe in prayer, it does not automatically follow that if one doesn't pray, one does not believe any paranormal phenomena exists.


The poll question is for skeptics, perhaps I should have said ‘paranormal’ skeptics…. It wasn’t a poll for believers. You are correct there will be some, I would guess extremely few, who believe in some paranormal phenomena but not necessarily prayer, I almost fall into that category myself. However as I said above I would pray for someone whether I think it works or not being open minded to the possibility it might do something beneficial.


I suspect that OM knew about this when he made the poll, but chose to make a misrepresenting poll that will by default be inaccurate as it lacks several necessary options

Name these other options


At the very least, an "other" option would be absolutely crucial.

I don’t think it is likely to be crucial but I now wish I had added that too. Point accepted, I could have missed something .... personally I like ‘other’ categories to be further defined ...... also people usually pray or not and have intentions of continuing to do so or not (I don’t mean self program or meditate) so there isn’t much ‘other’ options in there IMHO

I wanted to find out if skeptics had ruled out ever praying again and it seems they have largely done so ....

[Donn]

I don't pray, but I do eat vegetables. Therefore before dinner I usually say:
"Lettuce prey"


:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Yeah but they wouldn't necessarily agree on what God is. To some it will be an external intelligence beyond earthly human ape brain understanding, to some it might be a collective unconscious we are all part of, to some it is the traditional manlike being, then there are Catholics praying not just to God but Mary or angels, etc. That is what a I mean by 'something' greater outside oneself

You cannot decide for other people what they believe in, and how. There doesn't need to be agreement at all.

Originally posted by Open Mind
I am not religious, I seldom pray but I would pray for someone if seriously ill that medical treatment cannot help, I would assume it is worth a try whether it works or not. I’m not sure science has evolved enough to measure the benefit or lack of benefit of prayer. For example can science measure any emotional benefit accurately yet? It seems to rely on the person in misery saying ‘I feel better’, we might only be measuring a person in suffering, ability to admit improvement in mind or body.

If you can show the evidence that prayer works, we would be delighted to see it. Just don't give us the same old "science hasn't evolved enough" song. It's old, it's tired, and it's a waste of time.

Originally posted by Open Mind
For example if doctors conducted a trial to pray for someone without their knowledge, even if the person had been feeling slightly better, the patient thinking the doctor had done nothing might claim 'I feel just the same' .. a nocebo like effect. So the trial would need to give a placebo and see if the prayer + placebo beats the placebo only group ..... then you are adding placebo (to deceive) + prayer (that must be sincere?) is that a fair trial of prayer? Or how do we know those praying aren't just useless at praying?

It is highly unethical to try and cure someone without them knowing.

Originally posted by Open Mind
I have told the story on this forum before where my grandmother was healed from blindness by a priest, similar claims are in many religions, not just Christianity. Science measures what normally occurs and in doing so might miss what very seldom occurs i.e. paranormal. The rarely normal, unless easily detected and regularly occurring could always be given an loosely undefined 'something else' such as psychological benefit or misdiagnosis.

Your story is worthless, because it cannot be verified. You need to understand this.

Originally posted by Open Mind
What is real? Must the real only be a clear strong effect, a weak very consistent effect or produce only predictable outcomes?

If you had studied an inkling of science, you would know the answer to that one. An effect can be very weak - extremely weak, in fact, but what separates real effects from paranormal ones is that real effects can be detected.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Actually I’m surprised so many said they will never pray again in this topic, life tends to get more unpleasant with age, when all in life goes logically wrong and is beyond current human ape science to improve, does one just commit suicide and be done with it? Or is the belief life has a greater purpose of greater comfort? I don’t see the great benefit of atheism upon the miserable

What is better: Real knowledge or fake hope?

Originally posted by Open Mind
The poll question is for skeptics, perhaps I should have said ‘paranormal’ skeptics…. It wasn’t a poll for believers.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have chosen a religious theme.

Originally posted by Open Mind
I wanted to find out if skeptics had ruled out ever praying again and it seems they have largely done so ....

Perhaps because skeptics look at the evidence and draw the consequences?

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You cannot decide for other people what they believe in, and how. There doesn't need to be agreement at all.


Yes, so you are now agreeing with me, it was you who said define 'something', I deliberately left the definition of what they are praying to open



Your story is worthless, because it cannot be verified. You need to understand this.

I doubt it could be verified to you, even if it was verified by other witnesses you would probably still dismiss it. It has to be regular, predictable laboratory effect ...... I'm not sure that is a reliable guide to what can possibly occur and what cannot.


If you had studied an inkling of science, you would know the answer to that one. An effect can be very weak - extremely weak, in fact, but what separates real effects from paranormal ones is that real effects can be detected.

When the effects are weak these are more open to various alternate explanations. When it involves the paranormal skeptics are more apt to assume fraud as being much more likely than an anomalous effect.


What is better: Real knowledge or fake hope?

I'm not sure, when the emotions of other humans beings are involved. I personally would not remove someone's hope if in circumstances considered hopeless by medical science. I wouldn't be certain enough to think some good might come from their hope.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Open Mind
By 'pray' I do not mean meditation, I mean a mental request to something outside ourselves

Go vote........ it only takes a few seconds ....

Edited to define 'pray'
Would you say then that to "hope for" something is equivalent to praying?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Yes, so you are now agreeing with me, it was you who said define 'something', I deliberately left the definition of what they are praying to open

Leaving it too open means the findings of the poll will be useless.


I doubt it could be verified to you, even if it was verified by other witnesses you would probably still dismiss it. It has to be regular, predictable laboratory effect ...... I'm not sure that is a reliable guide to what can possibly occur and what cannot.

Eyewitness testimony is useless because human beings all have similar failings. The point of the "laboratory" controls is to make sure the countless ways in which humans deceive themselves don't affect the result.

When the effects are weak these are more open to various alternate explanations. When it involves the paranormal skeptics are more apt to assume fraud as being much more likely than an anomalous effect.

I have yet to see any effects, period. So far, most of the reports on psi I've seen are attributable to mundane explanations. They make no effort to rule out those mundane explanations, therefore there's no need to come up with a paranormal explanation. Additionally, fraud is only one of many explanations: Self-delusion, statistically insignificant luck, and confirmation bias are some others that come to mind.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Yes, so you are now agreeing with me, it was you who said define 'something', I deliberately left the definition of what they are praying to open

As it has been pointed out, that leaves the question meaningless.

Originally posted by Open Mind
I doubt it could be verified to you, even if it was verified by other witnesses you would probably still dismiss it. It has to be regular, predictable laboratory effect ...... I'm not sure that is a reliable guide to what can possibly occur and what cannot.

Yes, I would, the exact same way I would dismiss a case of Santa spotting, even though it was verified by other witnesses. You have to understand that testimonials are not compelling in science. If you trust witnesses of this case, would you also trust witnesses of alien abductions? If not, why not?

Originally posted by Open Mind
When the effects are weak these are more open to various alternate explanations.

Wrong. It simply means that the effects are weak. Effect size has nothing to do with the existence of an effect.

Originally posted by Open Mind
When it involves the paranormal skeptics are more apt to assume fraud as being much more likely than an anomalous effect.

Yes and no. You have to admit that the world of superstition is paved with frauds, cheats, charlatans and what-have-you. But it is also very much a case of missing evidence. After centuries of search, we have found nothing. And the body of evidence against any paranormal phenomenon grows, while the body of evidence in favor of paranormalcy is still what it has always been: Non-existent.

Originally posted by Open Mind
I'm not sure, when the emotions of other humans beings are involved. I personally would not remove someone's hope if in circumstances considered hopeless by medical science. I wouldn't be certain enough to think some good might come from their hope.

Nobody is certain. Nothing is certain.

[Nyarlathotep]

No, because I am also an atheist and see praying as being about as useful as wishing upon a star. I might hope something happens, I might even verbalize that hope to no one in particular (i.e sitting at a stoplight and saying "turn, dang it, turn" to the stoplight) but that isn't praying, imo, because I don't really expect my verbalization to have any effect on anything.

[Harlequin]

I see no point in believing in something that is unnecessary, undetectable, and deceptive.

If there is a god, he/she/it is jealous, vengeful, deceitful, and childish.

Truly we are made in his image...in which case, why do I need him if I've already got all that myself?

In fact, I'm omnipotent and omniscient myself. I just choose not to demonstrate it.

[Mercutio]

There are times (in truth, extremely few) I find myself almost wishing I could pray. A friend or relative is sick, or hurt, or sad, and there is nothing I can do to make it all better, and I really really want it all better...But I cannot bring myself to pray, even as a "just in case" measure. I sincerely want to help, or to make things better, but I sincerely do not believe that my prayers are going to be listened to, let alone answered. My words fly up, my thoughts remain below:
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.
Ham, III iii So I try to use that time to actually do something for that person. That way, I know I am doing something for them, not something that will make me feel better (perhaps) but do nothing for them.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I sincerely want to help, or to make things better, but I sincerely do not believe that my prayers are going to be listened to, let alone answered. So I try to use that time to actually do something for that person. That way, I know I am doing something for them, not something that will make me feel better (perhaps) but do nothing for them.

Well said.

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, I hope and I pray that maybe some day you'll walk in the room with my heart.

Other than that, I pray for the death of trolls.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Actually I’m surprised so many said they will never pray again in this topic, life tends to get more unpleasant with age...
Myself, I cannot believe the posters up to now let you get away with this... what possible reason could you have for thinking "life gets more unpleasant with age"? Studies show that younger people are more prone to higher levels of happiness at short lengths, but that older people are happy for longer periods of time. It is not as though all old people end up sick and unable to take care of themselves at the end of their lives. Old people = miserable? Pfft. I suggest you go meet a representative sample of them.


Originally posted by Harlequin
If there is a god, he/she/it is jealous, vengeful, deceitful, and childish. Err. If there was a god, then it is highly unlikely that the Bible would be a correct description of it. Be careful not to pigeonhole all theism into one flawed book.

[Aussie Thinker]

Open Mind,

Do skeptics ever watch sport thinking ‘miss’ or ‘come on, score!’

Yep… that is not prayer to some inane Deity though.. it is just HOPE !

Stimpson,

You very eloquently summed up why a sceptic should not believe in God (or anything without evidence). I would add one thing though as an arch sceptic.. I think it is fair to believe in something that makes logical sense (regardless of lack of evidence). Eg.. I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe.. based on odds if nothing else.. but we have NO evidence for it (except that fact it exists here) and we haven’t even established HOW it arose here.

Traveller,

You also eloquently outlined how God does make logical sense to you (the old first cause thing) although I would add in the old conundrum as to what first caused God ?

I have to ask though do you adhere to one of the (illogical to me) standard versions of God put forward by a mainstream religious group ?

[Kiless]

I think my biggest revelation about the silliness of prayer happened in a car full of theologians who did the Hail Mary in order to get a parking space. Something that was ticking over in my mind for a long time, sort of clicked then. :)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Tricky
Would you say then that to "hope for" something is equivalent to praying?

Not quite, perhaps prayer is a ritual to assist something hoped for to occur (by paranormal means).



Do skeptics ever watch sport thinking ‘miss’ or ‘come on, score!’


Yep… that is not prayer to some inane Deity though.. it is just HOPE !

Probably, unless superstition accompanies it.

[CurtC]

Originally posted by Kiless
I think my biggest revelation about the silliness of prayer happened in a car full of theologians who did the Hail Mary in order to get a parking space. Something that was ticking over in my mind for a long time, sort of clicked then. :) I had a similar revelation, when I was in college. Someone I knew was getting married, in a church with a large stained glass window that faced the West, which was beautiful when the sun shone through, but in New Mexico which is often draught-ridden. She mentioned that she thought that her prayer helped it not to rain that evening. I'm sure many people who heard that didn't remember it five minutes later, but it made a big impression on me, since that was 22 years ago and it was a memorable event in my life.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Kiless
I think my biggest revelation about the silliness of prayer happened in a car full of theologians who did the Hail Mary in order to get a parking space. Something that was ticking over in my mind for a long time, sort of clicked then. :) A friend of mine, driving in Boston, had a more efficient method: he would roll down the window and throw a dollar bill out, to be caught by the winds and carried away, as "a sacrifice to the parking gods".

Yes, I am serious. I doubt that he was; I think he just thought the joke was worth a dollar each time.

[-42-]

In my younger days, I had asked for a 'sign' from a deceased friend.

It was simple, I would turn on a light in the bathroom and all you gotta do is turn it off. Blow it out. Whatever. It was a new lightbulb.

I woke up the next morning, to my utter amazement the light bulb was off. I got the creepy skin tingling sensation and went to the bathroom. Flipped the switch, nothing.

Then I noticed my alarm was out too. The whole neighborhood was out. A power transformer was down. If it was beyond the grave, this is the kind of thing this friend would do just to be funny.

I was not in the habit of asking for 'signs' it was really a first.

The point being, coincidence can have a powerful effect on people.


(No, I do not believe the above event was paranormal in any way. I believe it now to be simply a pretty funny coincidence)

[Aussie Thinker]

-42-

Ok I'll bite.. 6x9= 42 ???

[Brown]

Originally posted by Mercutio
There are times (in truth, extremely few) I find myself almost wishing I could pray. A friend or relative is sick, or hurt, or sad, and there is nothing I can do to make it all better, and I really really want it all better...But I cannot bring myself to pray, even as a "just in case" measure. I sincerely want to help, or to make things better, but I sincerely do not believe that my prayers are going to be listened to, let alone answered. So I try to use that time to actually do something for that person. That way, I know I am doing something for them, not something that will make me feel better (perhaps) but do nothing for them. I concur in this. I tried praying and found that, despite claims to the contrary, it didn't change things. I finally decided that I was not being true to myself if I prayed, and so I discontinued the practice. (I had no feedback about whether I was doing it the right way, anyway.)

From time to time, I go to church services (e.g., for a funeral or to see my friend, a minister, in action), but when the minister says "Let us pray," I end up reflecting rather than praying. I find reflecting to be more valuable. In the case of a funeral, I might remember something the deceased said or did, or how the deceased might react to what is being said. In the case of a prayer pertaining to a religious message, I might reflect upon the merit--or lack thereof--of the message, and whether the message has any applicability to my life.

When I'm with friends or family, and someone offers a table prayer before a meal, I remain silent and lower my eyes. I don't join in on the prayer, but neither do I disrupt it. Instead, I reflect on the fact that friends and family have come together, which is a cause for celebration in itself.

What I'm about to say may sound like a joke, but it is the truth: About the closest thing to praying that I do today is wish really earnestly, perhaps adding "Oh, God" for emphasis. I might do this in a case of extreme need. For example, I have found myself wishing, "Oh, God, PLEASE let there be an open stall!" I hold no illusions that this wish changes the state of the real world in any significant way.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is possible to believe in a god that does nothing that can be detected by man. Why??

Possible - OK. But why would anybody do that?

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
-42-

Ok I'll bite.. 6x9= 42 ???

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[malbui]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Well, I hope and I pray that maybe some day you'll walk in the room with my heart. Add and subtract but as a matter of fact...

Should we crosspost this to the Science and Maths forum now?

[Traveller]

Traveller,

You also eloquently outlined how God does make logical sense to you (the old first cause thing) although I would add in the old conundrum as to what first caused God ?

I have to ask though do you adhere to one of the (illogical to me) standard versions of God put forward by a mainstream religious group ? [/B]

To answer the second question first, no I don't. I regard the standard versions of God as simply anthropomorphic personifications of something beyond our comprehension. But that need not mean that we cannot describe some of its characteristics, for a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see intelligence, love and morality so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities. Of course it also possessed their opposites, which is why traditional religions have to postulate an Adversary.

The old conundrum has an equally old answer. The Universe is a contingent entity, that is, it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. God is a non contingent entity and as such requires no cause. I can't say I am entirely happy with this argument, perhaps because I don't really understand it, but I'm not entirely happy with the notion of a self created universe, which I know I don't understand.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by fishbob
Why??

Possible - OK. But why would anybody do that?

I don't know - people have their reasons. But that's a different issue, though ;)

[DrMatt]

The option "no, I don't believe paranormal phenomena exist and I cannot be bothered with tactics unsupported by evidence" isn't offered. If it were, it might give "no, I believe..." some serious competition.

[Francois Tremblay]

The existence of a sky-fairy that popped existence out of nothing (i.e. a god) is an extraordinary claim. A skeptic by definition cannot believe in it, unless he is simply a hypocrite. There seems to be plenty of those.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
The existence of a sky-fairy that popped existence out of nothing (i.e. a god) is an extraordinary claim. A skeptic by definition cannot believe in it, unless he is simply a hypocrite. There seems to be plenty of those. If you have what you believe to be good evidence, and act in accordance with that evidence, have that evidence hold up to critical scrutiny time and again within a community of people engaged in the investigation of that evidence, are you a hypocrite because the evidence does not hold up to the critical investigation of a different community? Even if you are unaware of that shortcoming?

I think you are too quick to claim hypocrisy, and too broad-brushed in your inference that this belief is held in the absence of evidence (broadly defined, and viewed from the perspective of the believer).

In a different sense...if the vast majority of your culture believes in said sky-fairy, how "extraordinary" is it for you to be swayed by the testimony of respected members of that culture?

(Mind you, I do think that a full understanding would lead to the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence of a god; I simply think that a charge of hypocrisy does not necessarily follow from "skeptic who believes in god".)

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
-42-

Ok I'll bite.. 6x9= 42 ???

Don't Panic!

[Aussie Thinker]

Traveller,

To answer the second question first, no I don't. I regard the standard versions of God as simply anthropomorphic personifications of something beyond our comprehension. But that need not mean that we cannot describe some of its characteristics, for a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see intelligence, love and morality so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities. Of course it also possessed their opposites, which is why traditional religions have to postulate an Adversary.

Excellent.. it is great to see logical intelligent theologians do exist.

The old conundrum has an equally old answer. The Universe is a contingent entity, that is, it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. God is a non contingent entity and as such requires no cause. I can't say I am entirely happy with this argument, perhaps because I don't really understand it, but I'm not entirely happy with the notion of a self created universe, which I know I don't understand.

I tend to lean the other way. If everything ever has been shown to have a natural beginning it is fair to assume that the unknown will also end up having a natural beginning.

A good argument for God has always been that something extremely weird by any notion we have had to have happened for a universe to spring from nothing.

I have always argued.. why should this have been a God.. or at least why something sentient ?

[Francois Tremblay]

Originally posted by Mercutio
If you have what you believe to be good evidence, and act in accordance with that evidence, have that evidence hold up to critical scrutiny time and again within a community of people engaged in the investigation of that evidence, are you a hypocrite because the evidence does not hold up to the critical investigation of a different community?

There is no evidence for the existence of sky-pixies that break the laws of logic. And unless you can explain what the word "god" means, no evidence is possible either.

[mayday]

I sometimes pray for guidance, that I won't do things I will regret, but I don't always pray soon enough.
For example, this morning I went through the drive through at Burger King. This guy took my order. I pulled around to the window and was waiting, I heard this dork with the headset on mocking other customers behind their backs, so when the girl hands me my order out the window I say, "He doesn't need to be mocking people."
She says, "Excuse me?"
I point to the dork (who happens to have his back turned putting napkins in a sack) and repeat, "He doesn't need to be mocking the customers, he sounds goofy enough on his own."
The girl gets pissy and says "Excuuuuuse meee???? " I just drove off. Then I remember that I paid for the food with my debit card, and they have my name. If my bank account ends up drained I will know who to come after.

I am praying for guidance for April 26 when I have to appear in court. It is a mandatory court appearance because a cop saw my 6 yr. old son out of his seatbelt, pulled me over and then cited me for not just the one child but all three, said they were not properly restrained. I've already determined what I'm going to say in court if the judge slaps me with a big fine, I've rehearsed it good. I'm going to mention that $400 or $600 or whatever fine he slaps me with WOULD BUY SOME AWFUL NICE CARSEATS FOR THE KIDS...BUT THIS WHOLE DEAL REALLY ISN'T ABOUT KIDS, I CAN SEE THAT.
I figure this will elicit a smart alec response from the judge, which will result in giving him more of my mind, which may result in contempt of court charges and jail time. But I'm almost looking forward to it. Maybe I can finally get some rest.

[El_Spectre]

I'm feeling psychic right now...

I'm gonna suggest that mouthing off to a judge (who has done you no wrong) is going to cause you trouble.

[El_Spectre]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
-42-

Ok I'll bite.. 6x9= 42 ???

(for the geeks out there)

The universe apparently has an order of operations error, or else it runs on base 13 :)

[Ceinwyn]

In times of pressure I will say "Please turn out the way I want it to" but I don't invoke a deity.

If if does turn out, I'm pleased. If it doesn't, I go "well *****" and move on.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by mayday
I figure this will elicit a smart alec response from the judge, which will result in giving him more of my mind, which may result in contempt of court charges and jail time. But I'm almost looking forward to it. Maybe I can finally get some rest. Your life is fascinating. To you.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Traveller
The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see intelligence, love and morality so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities.Try this:

"The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see greeness, octagonality and fluffiness so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities."

Or:

"The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see stupidity, hatred and immorality so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities."

You see the problem here?The old conundrum has an equally old answer. The Universe is a contingent entity, that is, it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. God is a non contingent entity and as such requires no cause.I don't see how the riddle is solved by declaring the universe "contingent" and God "non-contingent". Suppose I said it the other way round. Would that prove anything? I can't say I am entirely happy with this argument, perhaps because I don't really understand it, but I'm not entirely happy with the notion of a self created universe, which I know I don't understand. No-one has ever said that we live in a "self-created universe". So I'm not surprised that you're "not entirely happy" with something which no-one has ever believed.

[Ceinwyn]

I can't say I am entirely happy with this argument, perhaps because I don't really understand it, but I'm not entirely happy with the notion of a self created universe, which I know I don't understand.

Welcome to the real world, Neo.

"I'm not entirely happy" blah blahblah who asked you. Did you think the world was created for you and your life? The world is what it is. Fit in it or don't. It wasn't created for you and it doesn't care if you live or die.

Make your life, enjoy it, leave it. That's the world.

[FortuneHunter]

Do I Ever Pray.....

No...

But caught myself.

I went to corner store and buddy who owns the place gave me a deal on rental DVD's that night. Says - Hey Shannon! You need to buy lottery ticket for tonight!

I paused and said, "Oh you think so?"

He said,"You seem lucky gal today."

I spent 5 bucks on a the 649 lottery draw (goodness!). At the same time, I said pray to the gods I win eh?

Opps...!

I woke up the next morning. Go back to the vid store and found out I won 10 bucks.

Talk about chance eh! I never win on those things!

[pyewhackett]

Meditation or mentally listing a desired outcome isn't prayer. To pray is to specifically petition a deity or religious figure, for intercession. It doesn't necessarily suggest that the person has no control over the situation.


Karen.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
There is no evidence for the existence of sky-pixies that break the laws of logic. And unless you can explain what the word "god" means, no evidence is possible either. From your point of view, there is no evidence, this is true. Now, take a child who is questioning the stories he has heard in sunday school. He goes to a trusted authority, who tells him there is a whole book full of evidence; no, not a physics book, but the bible. He is skeptical of some of what he reads there, so returns to that authority, and perhaps another, questioning the claim skeptically. We certainly have no shortage of science teachers who are creationists (to take just one example), and there are even universities where pre-med students are taught creation science! (It stuns me, too, but I had a childhood friend who went to Oral Roberts University for pre-med...)

It is entirely possible that, because of the prevalence of belief in our culture, a skeptical and inquiring young person may, in a search for evidence, be exposed only to information that would not fulfill your criteria for "evidence". I have had students whose very first exposure to Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was in my intro psych course at the University level! One student in particular was absolutely shocked at what she heard; she had been exposed only to a strawman version in her Kansas school. She was not a fool, nor was she intentionally turning from evidence; she was actively seeking evidence and skeptically examining what she found, but was being fed misinformation. She thanked me for challenging what she had always been taught.

By your logic, innocent people could never be found guilty--there is no evidence, nor could be, that they committed the crime they are found guilty of! In the real world, standards of evidence, and criteria for examining that evidence, vary tremendously. Innocent people are sometimes found guilty. Skeptical, critical thinkers do sometimes conclude that god exists.

[jmercer]

Well said, Mercutio. While I'm not going to go through an entire thread debating it again, skepticism doesn't require atheism. It may lead to athiesm, but it's neither a prerequisite or a guaranteed end-result.

People seem to often cite skepticism almost as some kind of philosophy. (Which it can be for some folks, I guess.) I view skepticism as an extremely effective methodology to dealing with the world and discovering truth. (Or at least preventing acceptance of untruths.) It's not the only possible methodology; and like anything else, if carried to extremes, it can be detrimental. One cannot be 100% skeptical over everything at all times without becoming dysfunctional. Some assumptions are necessary; some trust is necessary; and some belief without proof is necessary to function in society, business and within personal relationships as well.

Nor is it necessary for someone to demand evidence regarding every nonphysical (or physical) aspect of existence in order to still be a skeptic.

In example, I would suspect that only a handful of people on these forums can understand the mathematical proofs involved in physics theories - particularly the complex ones. I also suspect that the number of people that believe in Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity is much higher than the number of people that can actually understand the mathematical proofs in the theory itself. (I include myself in the group of people who believe in theory without being able to understand the math. :))

These people believe in the theory because they trust in others who do understand it to tell them the truth, and to not be mistaken. They also believe in it because some physical experiments have been done that support the theory... but again, most of them are accepting what is being said by the people who did the experiment, and interpreted the results. They don't have access to the raw data, and even if they did, wouldn't know how to process the data to determine if the results intepreted by others is accurate. They (we) are essentially relying on others to ensure that what is being done is correct, and we are assuming that the expertise and ethics of the people involved are both sufficient to prevent any misinformation being presented.

But even before experiments were done, many physics theorists believed in Einstein's theory based on the mathematical proofs within them. Moreover, a great number of "lay-people" also came to believe in Einstein's theory because of the views held by these trusted experts.

All very similar to the well-written descriptions of how some skeptics came to (and perhaps still) believe in God. :) By the logic of some posters here, this would make all of these people "non-skeptics" - including the physicists that believed in the theory prior to experimental evidence supporting it - because they've all accepted something without direct access to evidence.

Granted, there are significant differences between believing in deities and belief in theoretical physics; but the underlying mechanism of belief, trust and crediblity of the "experts" without real proof are the same, regardless of whether or not that trust is misplaced. It's simply a necessary part of how society functions.

[Francois Tremblay]

Originally posted by Mercutio
By your logic, innocent people could never be found guilty

Most people are irrational and make errors. That does not disprove facts.


Skeptical, critical thinkers do sometimes conclude that god exists.

Yes, of course. They have an emotional interest in making such a conclusion, even though it contradicts their professed skepticism. We should condemn these people whole-heartedly as hypocrites and liars, and reject their claim of being skeptics.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay

Yes, of course. They have an emotional interest in making such a conclusion, even though it contradicts their professed skepticism. We should condemn these people whole-heartedly as hypocrites and liars, and reject their claim of being skeptics. No, we should not. We should work to provide the information so that their skeptical inquiry finds it. The examples I gave do not describe hypocrisy, but rather an impoverished (or merely a biased) intellectual environment. Save your label of hypocrite for people like Duane Gish, who lectures on creation science, and who has been corrected so many times that he cannot be unaware of his lies. He is in a position to know better; my student was not.

You are treating all believers as if they have had full access to all available information before making their choice. In our current society, it is perfectly possible for someone to have searched for evidence for quite some time and only found one side. That's why the "E" in JREF is so important.