The "Need To Believe;" It Cuts Both Ways

[ehbowen]

Mr. Randi has spoken--and spoken well--about the "need to believe" upon the part of some people and how it can cloud their minds and hinder them from coming to a true and correct view of a situation. I would like to turn that around with the hope of showing skeptics that their own preconceived notions can color their perceptions of and responses to situations, and perhaps persuade one or two of them to bear that in mind as they consider situations and claims which run against the grain of their world view.

I knew a lady at my former church. Her name was Mrs. Howard. She was a quiet, self-effacing lady, the wife of a deacon, who served unobtrusively in the church nursery.

Mrs. Howard has seen an angel.

She has received no recognition or compensation for this. The pastor of the church did not know about it. The church members at large did not know of it. She told no one about it except her closest friends. But one of them was my piano teacher, and she told me the story. A few months later, I had the chance to speak with Mrs. Howard privately, and I asked her about it. Embarrassed, she confirmed what my piano teacher had told me. She had in fact seen an angel, very close, very clearly, in the middle of the church kitchen.

Now I ask those of you who consider yourselves skeptics to carefully consider your initial, gut reaction to hearing that story, and compare it to mine. I know Mrs. Howard to be an intelligent, mature woman. She had nothing to gain from telling this story, one way or the other. She has a reputation for modesty and honesty. I have sat upon two criminal juries, and by the standards of the court I would in every way consider her a credible witness. Having heard her story and knowing what I do about her conduct and character, I compare her story to others involving angelic appearances and find it to be consistent with those which I consider to be most credible. The conclusion I draw is that Mrs. Howard’s story is unusual, but by no means impossible. I consider that the simplest and most straightforward conclusion is that Mrs. Howard is telling the truth. I believe that Mrs. Howard has, in actual fact, seen an angel.

I can understand that a number of you are nearly apopleptic at this point. Very well; I encourage you to express yourselves. However, I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me. I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me. While you are mulling over your responses, I invite you to consider yet another story:

The Stewardess (http://ibelieveinangels.com/Stories/51-100/53.htm)

Once again I ask you to carefully consider your initial, gut reactions. I do not know Rev. Cathey, so I am unable to give a personal assessment of his character. Too, this story initially appeared in a published magazine, and so there is the element of personal and possibly financial recognition. But what I see in this story is entirely consistent with my best understanding of the work of angels and of the nature and character of God. I assess this story as being entirely credible. Once again, you are free to disagree with me, and I would like to see your arguments and reasoning. I am curious, though, to see how many of those arguments will boil down to, in essence, "These stories cannot be true, because if they are true it would mean that my worldview is wrong."

I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics. I have no psychological stake in either individual story--I will here stress "individual"--and so I am able to compare them to other reported stories of their type and consider whether they are compatible and consistent. I am free to reject either story--and I would if information came to light which cast doubt upon the credibility of the source or the facts of the case. In point of fact, on the web site from which the story of the stewardess came, there are over a hundred other stories which I have looked at. There are only a bare handful which I consider to be highly probable, and none which I consider to be compelling in the same way as I feel Rev. Cathey’s is. I have the psychological freedom to examine and consider each individual story on its content and merits, and I feel no pressure to accept or reject any individual story; should any one prove to be false, it calls for no great change in my beliefs. Now if anyone were to be able to show globally that each and every such story was false, it would call for a fundamental revision in my world view. Frankly, though, I do not believe that anyone is able to show this; however, you are welcome to try.

Those of you who see yourselves as skeptics, though, do not have this kind of freedom. I ask you to consider, again, your initial, gut reactions to the stories I presented. Did you conclude that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey were lying, or that they were mentally unstable? Upon what evidence was this conclusion based? If your answer is, "because they saw angels," then your reasoning is circular; you are assuming the point under debate. I ask you to carefully consider how much of your response stemmed from a fundamental, underlying belief that, "these things are impossible; therefore, any other explanation is preferred." Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a "need to not believe"--you have in the assessment of such a story.

What are the implications if Mrs. Howard is in fact mentally competent and completely truthful? Suppose Rev. Cathey is in fact telling the whole truth? What if even one of the thousands of other such stories is in fact true? It would require a complete revision, even an upheaval, of fundamental beliefs which you have held dear for years or even decades. For the skeptical mindset to be true, each and every one of these stories must be false—and so you must realize that you have ingrained a set of primal responses, deeper than logic or reason, which color your every response to such a question. I do not ask you to attempt to change these responses; nobody will ever be argued into abandoning prejudices. I simply ask you to be aware that you have them, that you attempt to remain aware of the ways in which they influence your actions, and that you keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong.

[Hazelip]

While I'm sure Mrs. Howard is a very nice lady of fine moral character, it in no way is indicative of her inability to suffer a hallucination. That being said, I can't tell you that she had a hallucination. I can't tell you that she had drugs in her system. I can't tell you anything, because, your story,it's an anecdote. I don't have any evidence. Being a nice person doesn't make your right and accurate about everything.

Neither do you, nor Mrs. Howard, for that matter.

Testimony is not evidence.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Testimony is not evidence.

In any court of law, it is.

I believe that you do err when you insist upon scientific/mathematical standards of proof for what is more correctly a legal/historical question. How would you--to a scientific and mathematical degree of certainty--prove my existence if I were to decide to remain silent and avoid you for two years (let alone two thousand). Think about it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen


In any court of law, it is.

I believe that you do err when you insist upon scientific/mathematical standards of proof for what is more correctly a legal/historical question.The nature of reality is a legal question? The law is a man-made creation and open to interpretation. Reality hardly is. Popular opinion does not make something True (big "T").How would you--to a scientific and mathematical degree of certainty--prove my existence if I were to decide to remain silent and avoid you for two years (let alone two thousand). Think about it. IP logs and traces. DNA samples. Historical records including photographs, audio files, and movie clips. Things you had written. Addresses of where you could be found, both in the past and currently. Where you went to school. Who your parents and friends were.

There is no end to the amount of physical evidence for ehbowen. So far, angels only have human eye-witness accounts. And even in the legal systems, eye-witness accounts must be cooberated with physical evidence.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by ehbowen
I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics.

I will respond fully later today - but right now suffice it to say that you are assuming a bit too much - as you obviously have some preconcieved notions about us, "the skeptics". Speaking for myself now (as I can only speak for me), I can tell you that;
a. I am not apoplectic about these stories - nor am I impressed
b. There are many holes in your logic
c. You fail to consider non-superatural explanations
d. Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence - which you - and those directly involved have failed to present (where are the copies of those medical reports????).


Until later then,
Barkhorn.

[Darwin]

We need not assume that she is "out of her mind" or mentally incompetent even if she happens to see an angel.
Us skeptics cannot go around falsifying what someone sees or does not see,it´s their brain after all.
And the answer I believe,can be found from the very same lump.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Hazelip
While I'm sure Mrs. Howard is a very nice lady of fine moral character, it in no way is indicative of her inability to suffer a hallucination. That being said, I can't tell you that she had a hallucination. I can't tell you that she had drugs in her system. I can't tell you anything, because, your story,it's an anecdote. I don't have any evidence. Being a nice person doesn't make your right and accurate about everything.

Neither do you, nor Mrs. Howard, for that matter.

Testimony is not evidence.

Then you do not understand what the word evidence means. Nor do the vast majority of people on this board. I'm sick of explaining what it means, and I do not intend to do so any more.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
[B]

I will respond fully later today - but right now suffice it to say that you are assuming a bit too much - as you obviously have some preconcieved notions about us, "the skeptics". Speaking for myself now (as I can only speak for me), I can tell you that;
a. I am not apoplectic about these stories



Bol*ocks. I know what Skeptics are like.


d. Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence -



Claiming it is an extraordinary claim presupposes the essential correctness of your worldview, and therefore begs the question.

[Martin]

Originally posted by ehbowen
Mrs. Howard has seen a goblin.

She has received no recognition or compensation for this. The pastor of the church did not know about it. The church members at large did not know of it. She told no one about it except her closest friends. But one of them was my piano teacher, and she told me the story. A few months later, I had the chance to speak with Mrs. Howard privately, and I asked her about it. Embarrassed, she confirmed what my piano teacher had told me. She had in fact seen a goblin, very close, very clearly, in the middle of the church kitchen

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The nature of reality is a legal question? The law is a man-made creation and open to interpretation. Reality hardly is.Yes, but evidence isn't offered in courts to resolve questions of law, but rather questions of fact. Testimony is indeed evidence (as distinct from proof), but how much weight we accord (or ought to accord) to such evidence depends on a number of different factors.

Interestingly, despite their flaws, judicial rules of evidence have been refined over hundreds of years into a highly adapted system of principles for methodical, skeptical inquiry into factual reality. Due to the extraordinary number and variety of factual claims that have been and and continue to be disputed in the judicial context, modern legal evidentiary principles supply highly evolved, almost universally applicable tools for ascertaining relevance, detecting bias, establishing credibility and so forth. It would be great if such principles were more rigorously observed in this forum.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Martinm
Mrs. Howard has seen Santa Claus.

She has received no recognition or compensation for this. The pastor of the church did not know about it. The church members at large did not know of it. She told no one about it except her closest friends. But one of them was my piano teacher, and she told me the story. A few months later, I had the chance to speak with Mrs. Howard privately, and I asked her about it. Embarrassed, she confirmed what my piano teacher had told me. She had in fact seen Santa Claus, very close, very clearly, in the middle of the church kitchen

Generations of children are also reported to have seen Santa Claus :rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Mrs. Howard has seen an angel.

What did it look like..

Did it have wings?

Why do you suppose angels have wings?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by ehbowen

...with the hope of showing skeptics that their own preconceived notions can color their perceptions of and responses to situations
Certainly none of us is immune to this. In fact, I would consider that quite an understatement. Preconcieved notions can go far beyond coloring perceptions; they can fabricate them out of thin air. I think many skeptics are fully aware of this fact, which causes them to be reserved in accepting simple perception alone as evidence.

Many people, convicted of crimes based primarily on testimony of witnesses, have had thier convictions overturned when DNA evidence later showed that they were innocent.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The nature of reality is a legal question?

Legal/Historical. That is how I refer to the class of events which cannot readily be replicated at will in a laboratory setting. And the question of whether God as a person or angels as his agents exist and whether or not they have acted in human history is such a question.

IP logs and traces.
I have chosen to remain incommunicado--to all except my friends--for the past two (thousand) years.

DNA samples.
You are unable to find me in order to collect them.

Historical records including photographs, audio files, and movie clips. Things you had written.
Ever hear of something called the Bible?

Addresses of where you could be found, both in the past and currently.
An address means nothing, if I have left no traces behind, unless you are willing to accept the testimony (there's that word again!) of those who knew and interacted with me while I was there.

Where you went to school.
The records are sealed to you.

Who your parents and friends were.
Ah, now we arrive at the crux of the matter. You must seek out and find those people with whom I have chosen to interact and obtain the information from them.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen
I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics. I have no psychological stake in either individual story--I will here stress "individual"--and so I am able to compare them to other reported stories of their type and consider whether they are compatible and consistent.
I beg to differ. You do have a personal stake in each idividual story. True, should one be shown to have a natural cause, it would not disprove your worldview. However, if it is not shown to have natural causes, it reinforces your worldview, thus providing at least some validation for it.

As you, yourself say:I have the psychological freedom to examine and consider each individual story on its content and merits, and I feel no pressure to accept or reject any individual story; should any one prove to be false, it calls for no great change in my beliefs.While disproving each individual story dosen't necessarily hurt your case, not disproving only surves to support it. You are not unbiased in this situation because you assume the premise, "angels exist." Were you truly unbiased and actually looking to answer the question "do angels exist?" you would be looking for substantive evidence for the existance of angels rather than relying on uncooborated heresay (to stick to the legal jargon from before).

Instead you take the passive route:Now if anyone were to be able to show globally that each and every such story was false, it would call for a fundamental revision in my world view. Frankly, though, I do not believe that anyone is able to show this; however, you are welcome to try.Of course no one would be able to show this. It's called trying to prove a negative. If I prove that 10 are false, you don't reject your assumption. If I prove that 1,000 are false, you don't reject your assumption. if I prove that 100,000,000,000 are false, you don't reject your assumption because there is always a chance that it is still true. It's called "unfalsifiable", but unfalsifiable doesn't mean "true".

It would be very similar (and pardon for my using a tired example) to me asking you to prove that I don't have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.
Those of you who see yourselves as skeptics, though, do not have this kind of freedom. I ask you to consider, again, your initial, gut reactions to the stories I presented. Did you conclude that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey were lying, or that they were mentally unstable? Upon what evidence was this conclusion based?I consider that the case has not been made for "angels exist" based on two pieces of "evidence". The first is that the only evidence are the memories of Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey and that there is no supporting evidence. The angels left no fingerprints. Performed no miracles that couldn't have been accomplished in any other way. No DNA samples from discarded wing feathers. Nothing. Nada.

The second are the psychological studies that human memory is easily malliable and fallible, even for the most sincere and mentally stable people. The phenomenon is known as "false memory" and is not all that uncommon. It's my opinion that we all experience it at one time or another. You can read about it here (http://www.fmsfonline.org/) and here (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/mem.html) and here (http://www.rickross.com/groups/fsm.html).

My favorite example of false memory comes from my fiancee's little brother. When he was younger, they went to a fair of some kind where they shot off a cannon. At the time, his parents told me that it scared the bejesus out of him. But by the time he got home, he was telling people that he had shot that cannon off. And he believed it too. Was he lying? No. Was he mentally unstable? Reports vary ;), but no. Was he telling the Truth? No.
If your answer is, "because they saw angels," then your reasoning is circular; you are assuming the point under debate. I ask you to carefully consider how much of your response stemmed from a fundamental, underlying belief that, "these things are impossible; therefore, any other explanation is preferred." Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a "need to not believe"--you have in the assessment of such a story.I think you are confusing skepticism with athiesm and, even then, I think you are overstating the athiestic case. Tell a skeptic that there is a lamp in the next room. The skeptic will look for himself to determine if, in fact, there is a lamp in the next room. It isn't a need not to believe you, but rather a need to know if what you are saying is correct or not. The trouble is, with pure anycdotal evidence, like that which you have presented, there is no way to check. There is no camera set up to show what actually happened. I can't say for sure wether events occured as Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey says they did or not. Neither can you, for that matter. And really, neither can Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey since they don't have anything to say it did happen other than their own memories and we know that memories are fallable.
What are the implications if Mrs. Howard is in fact mentally competent and completely truthful? Suppose Rev. Cathey is in fact telling the whole truth? What if even one of the thousands of other such stories is in fact true? It would require a complete revision, even an upheaval, of fundamental beliefs which you have held dear for years or even decades.
Again, I think you are overstating the case that skeptics hold beliefs as "dear" to them. If they are 100% accurate and could it could be shown that they are, of course I would have have to revise my world view. It wouldn't be that hard because, by golly, there it would be right in front of me. The thing is, it never has, by golly, been right there in front of me or anyone else in a repeatable, dependable way. If it had, the world would be a very different place.
For the skeptical mindset to be true, each and every one of these stories must be falseOne could easily counter that for the "angel believer" mindset to be true, only one of those stories must be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is there one?
and so you must realize that you have ingrained a set of primal responses, deeper than logic or reason, which color your every response to such a question. I do not ask you to attempt to change these responses; nobody will ever be argued into abandoning prejudices. I simply ask you to be aware that you have them, that you attempt to remain aware of the ways in which they influence your actions, and that you keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong. It's very possible that my repsonse is ingrained, but doesn't that just show that the need for evidence, one way or the other, is just that much more necessary? I say you have your beliefs about the situation. You say I have my beliefs about the situation. Why don't we research it in an organized fashion and reach a conclusive result?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen


Legal/Historical. That is how I refer to the class of events which cannot readily be replicated at will in a laboratory setting. And the question of whether God as a person or angels as his agents exist and whether or not they have acted in human history is such a question.Again, I diagree. If God and angels exist in the here and now, it does not matter what they have done in the past. If they exist, they should have a physical impact on the world that is not of non-God/angel origins.
I have chosen to remain incommunicado--to all except my friends--for the past two (thousand) years.Are we talking about ehbowen or are we talking about God? ehbowen exists and can be found whether he wants to be or not.
Ah, now we arrive at the crux of the matter. You must seek out and find those people with whom I have chosen to interact and obtain the information from them.Ah, but you will also notice that this isn't the only piece of evidence I rely upon.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ehbowen


Legal/Historical. That is how I refer to the class of events which cannot readily be replicated at will in a laboratory setting. And the question of whether God as a person or angels as his agents exist and whether or not they have acted in human history is such a question.


I have chosen to remain incommunicado--to all except my friends--for the past two (thousand) years.


You are unable to find me in order to collect them.


Ever hear of something called the Bible?


An address means nothing, if I have left no traces behind, unless you are willing to accept the testimony (there's that word again!) of those who knew and interacted with me while I was there.


The records are sealed to you.


Ah, now we arrive at the crux of the matter. You must seek out and find those people with whom I have chosen to interact and obtain the information from them. Or, due to the total lack of non anecdotal evidence that you ever existed, we assume you are ' made up ' and stop wasting our time.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Then you do not understand what the word evidence means. Nor do the vast majority of people on this board. I'm sick of explaining what it means, and I do not intend to do so any more. Yes, Ian. Very good, Ian. That's nice, Ian. :rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Then you do not understand what the word evidence means. Nor do the vast majority of people on this board. I'm sick of explaining what it means, and I do not intend to do so any more.

I'm curious about the effective difference between ' Majority ' and Vast Majority ' ?:confused:

[Graham]

Eric,

I've just remembered who you are!

In this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11824&perpage=40&pagenumber=9) you claimed to have heard a different sermon to everyone else during a church service.

As someone who has experienced "supernatural" events of the supposedly godly variety, would you not agree that you have a vested interest in proving that people who experience such things are really God/angels/whatever rather than hallucinations/schizophrenic episodes/things of that nature?

As you said yourself:

Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a "need to not believe"--you have in the assessment of such a story.

Graham

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Bol*ocks. I know what Skeptics are like.

Listen guy - I have never responded/corresponded to/with you - so that is quite a set od stones you are toting around when you presume to judge my views.

Claiming it is an extraordinary claim presupposes the essential correctness of your worldview, and therefore begs the question. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Yea sure - when angles appear everyday to everyone - when they go on talk shows - then you'll have a valid point.

Barkhorn.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
Bol*ocks. I know what Skeptics are like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Listen guy - I have never responded/corresponded to/with you - so that is quite a set od stones you are toting around when you presume to judge my views.[/B]

You've never heard of inductive logic?

[Monketey Ghost]

When I was a kid in Catholic school, there were two others in my class who claimed to have seen the "ghost" of a former classmate who had recently died. They were in the chapel at the time, and were presented to the rest of us by a priest who recounted the story. As I recall, he prtrayed these two kids as especially "blessed" for having seen her ghost.

Reasons to lie about it? Yah.

Psychological disturbance brought on by the death of a friend? Yah.

I never gave it much thought after asking the witnessing kids. They claimed it, but I didn't put the weight of my belief into it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You've never heard of inductive logic? You've never heard of inductively weak arguments?

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by ehbowen


She had in fact seen an angel, very close, very clearly, in the middle of the church kitchen.


The one question that pops into my mind is this, and the whole question of whether or not she saw an angel rests on it:

How does she know that what she saw was an angel?

I know what they are traditionally supposed to look like, but there is no more basis for this "model" than there is for that of Santa Claus. The Bible doesn't describe what angels look like in general, although from the reactions of people visited by them, their appearance is very alarming.

Was there anyone else present? Did she scream bloody murder? I would have.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


The one question that pops into my mind is this, and the whole question of whether or not she saw an angel rests on it:

How does she know that what she saw was an angel?

[snip]

although from the reactions of people visited by them, their appearance is very alarming.
Excellent point. Of those accounts of angels in the Christian Bible, angels never appeard without a reason. Did anyone ask Mrs. Howard why the angel was there or what its message was?

[Yahzi]

ehbowen
I would like to turn that around with the hope of showing skeptics that their own preconceived notions can color their perceptions of and responses to situations
All of us have preconceived notions that color our perceptions. That is how the human mind works. The only difference is that skeptics have the right preconceived notions: that is, the ones that actually reflect what reality is like.

I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me.
You have committed a very simple logical fallacy here. You have overlooked a possibility: that Mrs. Howard is not lying, but is simply wrong about what she saw. You seem to have utterly forgotten the commonplace observation that people are frequently wrong about what they thought they saw or heard. The fact that you have so readily discarded this option tells us that you are not a neutral observer, but already have a formed opinion which dictates your response.

Which would be ironic if it weren't so utterly tiresomely common.

By the way, James Randi, and all those other magicians, have made a career out of the fact that people are often wrong about what they thought they saw. Which explains why they get so huffy when people like you act as if such mistakes never occurred.

It would require a complete revision, even an upheaval, of fundamental beliefs which you have held dear for years or even decades
Centuries, actually. It's not just my preconceptions: it is the preconceptions of the entire body of science. It is a cultural legacy of preconceptions handed down over centuries, each one hard won and paid for in blood, sweat, and tears. Generally people refer to it as "knowledge" rather than preconceptions, but I imagine you would find such a categorization perjorative to your agenda.

As you have rightly observed, for your delusions to be true, much that we know has to be false. Now you are asking me to take Mrs. Howard's single experience over the principled, consistent, constant experiences of thousands of very smart people called scientists. Suddenly the scales don't seem quite so even, do they?

For us to believe Mrs. Howard, we must disbelieve Einstein, Darwin, Fermi, Feynman, Watson, Crick, Copernicus, Newton... the list goes on and on and on.

But in your simple little world, one Mrs. Howard is worth a thousand people whom you've already decided are wrong.

[Yahzi]

Legal/Historical. That is how I refer to the class of events which cannot readily be replicated at will in a laboratory setting.
You have just demoted Astronomy to a Legal/Historical discipline instead of a science. Of course, your real intent was to promote old wive's tales to a science.

Whether or not something can be readily replicated at will in a laboratory setting has nothing to do with its status as a science. This is obvious to people who are not consumed with an agenda that blinds them to simple fact.

[Upchurch]

Yahzi,

I'm with you on what you said except this part:
Originally posted by Yahzi
All of us have preconceived notions that color our perceptions. That is how the human mind works. The only difference is that skeptics have the right preconceived notions: that is, the ones that actually reflect what reality is like. I'm sorry, but even a near-sighted mole can see that this is a "I'm right because I say so" argument. I think the point you may have trying to make isn't that skeptics have the right preconceived notions but that skeptics have a methodology for correcting their own incorrect preconcieved notions.

For example, when I first joined this board, I was convinced that athiesm could never be taken on faith or religiously. The reality is that it can and sometimes is. The methodology of skepticism (i.e. exploring the truth of a claim, even your own, rather than taking it for granted) allowed my to correct an incorrect preconcieved notion I held.

<hr>
That aside.

ehbowen has asked the skeptics on this board to consider whether we have a "Need To Not Believe" or not that, somehow, actually constitutes the opposite "Need to Believe". Kind of like being a conforming non-conformists (e.g. Punks, the social genre, who hang out and buy there clothes at Hot Topics in the mall).

This comes, I believe, from a misconception of ehbowen's that skeptics always really are just conforming non-conformists rather then genuinely those who do not take much, if anything, for granted. It is a misconception held by many, for lack of a better term, "believers" which I have often heard stems from an inability to understand how anyone can not believe in something. The other explination I have often heard is that believers redefine skepticism as just another belief system taken on faith reduce any extra credibility skepticism may have based on its more objective position on things. I don't know which, if either, is the basis of ehbowen's post.

So, ehbowen, I would counter-challenge you to consider your own preconceptions of skepticism. What is it, in your view, and why is it ill-equiped to understand certain phenomena?

[Sanamas]

It may very well be that Mrs. Howard believes that she saw an angel. Let's assume that she is entirely honest about what she thinks she saw. The real question is whether whatever it is that she saw was really an angel. Maybe it was a trick of the light, maybe it was a joker in a halloween costume, maybe it was a hallucination, or maybe it was something else entirely. I note here that one does not need to be crazy to see or here something that isn't really there. Have you ever thought you heard someone call your name when nobody did or saw a person out of the corner of your eye when there was really nobody there? We are all subject to the occasional sensory glitch.

If you want us to believe, then don't give us people who think that they've seen angels. Instead give us the angels themselves.

[Yahzi]

I'm sorry, but even a near-sighted mole can see that this is a "I'm right because I say so" argument.
This is an "there is an objective reality" argument. It presupposes that in the spectrum of ideas about how the real world actually is, some of those ideas will be closer than others. Those ideas are to be considered "righter" than others.

Woo-woos will take offense at my arbitrary and high-handed categorization of mere concordance with reality as truth, but woo-woos pretty much take offense at everything, so I don't care.

Fundies, on the other hand, agree with me: to be real is to be right. They just think God is real.

Skeptics agree with me, too, even if they sometimes object to the language. Suffice to say that what I said and what you said are not incompatible.

[Barkhorn1x]

Here is my response in full – my apologies to all posters who have covered the same ground.

Originally posted by ehbowen
[quote]Mrs. Howard has seen an angel.

I know Mrs. Howard to be an intelligent, mature woman. She had nothing to gain from telling this story, one way or the other. She has a reputation for modesty and honesty. I have sat upon two criminal juries, and by the standards of the court I would in every way consider her a credible witness. Having heard her story and knowing what I do about her conduct and character,…
Mrs. Howard can be all that you say – I have no reason to doubt your assessment.
As a self appointed criminal court expert you must know that even the most credible eyewitness can in fact be in error – but still be telling what they believe to be the truth.

…I compare her story to others involving angelic appearances and find it to be consistent with those which I consider to be most credible. The conclusion I draw is that Mrs. Howard’s story is unusual, but by no means impossible. I consider that the simplest and most straightforward conclusion is that Mrs. Howard is telling the truth. I believe that Mrs. Howard has, in actual fact, seen an angel.
So you feel that you may pick and choose those that are credible and discard the rest?
Again, Mrs. Howard telling what she (and you) believe to be the truth does not necessarily mean that she actually saw an angel. She could have been hallucinating. YOU cannot know for sure that she wasn’t just as I can’t know that she was – but you haven’t proven anything either.

However, I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me. I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me.
As stated above – and by others – there is a third choice, Mrs. Howard is mistaken or suffering from a mental disorder.

While you are mulling over your responses, I invite you to consider yet another story:

The Stewardess

Once again I ask you to carefully consider your initial, gut reactions. I do not know Rev. Cathey, so I am unable to give a personal assessment of his character. Too, this story initially appeared in a published magazine, and so there is the element of personal and possibly financial recognition. But what I see in this story is entirely consistent with my best understanding of the work of angels and of the nature and character of God. I assess this story as being entirely credible.
This story ran in a Southern Baptist Convention magazine – which makes it immediately suspect - and none of the facts can be verified.
And now you set yourself up as an expert on the character of God?

I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics.
Why? All you offer are stories and your opinions/interpretation. You have not offered any evidence that these incidents in fact happened and you are predisposed – as a believer – to grant them credence.

In point of fact, on the web site from which the story of the stewardess came, there are over a hundred other stories which I have looked at. & Now if anyone were to be able to show globally that each and every such story was false, it would call for a fundamental revision in my world view. Frankly, though, I do not believe that anyone is able to show this; however, you are welcome to try.
Not impressed by the anecdotes as they are worthless as evidence – as others have pointed out.
You do realize that you can’t prove a negative don’t you? And that the onus is on the one making the claim (that would be YOU) to offer evidence that angels exist. How about it?

I ask you to carefully consider how much of your response stemmed from a fundamental, underlying belief that, "these things are impossible; therefore, any other explanation is preferred." Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a "need to not believe"--you have in the assessment of such a story.

No “these things” cannot be proven to be impossible – but there is no credible evidence that “these things” occur. And “these things” by their very (extraordinary) nature violate observable natural laws. See below…

What are the implications if Mrs. Howard is in fact mentally competent and completely truthful? Suppose Rev. Cathey is in fact telling the whole truth? What if even one of the thousands of other such stories is in fact true? It would require a complete revision, even an upheaval, of fundamental beliefs which you have held dear for years or even decades.
I think that the “at will” violation of the physical laws that govern the universe by supernatural beings will require a complete revision, even an upheaval, of fundamental beliefs which ALL OF US hold dear.
How can you fail to see how crack brained your wonderful summation is?? :rolleyes:

…and that you keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong.

Two final points;
a. I do have an open mind for evidentiary based beliefs
b. Your evidence and your arguments have not convinced me that there really are super natural beings who help out us poor benighted mortals.

Barkhorn.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
occurred.


Centuries, actually. It's not just my preconceptions: it is the preconceptions of the entire body of science.



Science does not have any metaphysical preconceptions. Materialism hinders the progress of science rather than aids it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch

So, ehbowen, I would counter-challenge you to consider your own preconceptions of skepticism. What is it, in your view, and why is it ill-equiped to understand certain phenomena? Oh No!!:eek:

DejaVu all over again....

Does scientific rigity lead to false negatives in the field of paranormal testing ? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10090)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Oh No!!:eek:

DejaVu all over again....
Heh. Yeah, I know.

Moral of the story: The "Need To Believe" does not cut both ways.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Heh. Yeah, I know.

Moral of the story: The "Need To Believe" does not cut both ways.

It would have made since if it had been posed as a question..

The "Need To Believe;" It Cuts Both Ways?


I believe it has been answered..


I enjoyed your detailed response......:)

[Darwin]

I can´t believe this thread is still alive.
Perhaps the person in question could take a photo of this angel the next time it shows up,if it does.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Darwin
I can´t believe this thread is still alive.
Perhaps the person in question could take a photo of this angel the next time it shows up,if it does. Mr. Darwin, a pleasure.

The thing is, the thread isn't really about whether angels exist or not, but rather how one approaches the question about whether angels exist or not.

Short aside, why is it I keep wanting to spell "angles" instead of "angels"? Maybe I have a deep seated problem with the existance of geometry? :D

<hr>
Originally posted by Diogenes
I enjoyed your detailed response......
Thanks, Diogenes.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Science does not have any metaphysical preconceptions. Materialism hinders the progress of science rather than aids it.

I agree 100%! :D

[Darwin]

I disagree with equal force.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Science does not have any metaphysical preconceptions. Materialism hinders the progress of science rather than aids it.


I agree 100%! :D huh. I missed this when Ian posted it. But that's not surprising since I tend not to put any confidence in anything he says.

Since science is based on the observation of repeatable phenomena, materialism seems like a pretty natural fit for science. What other philosophical basis do you think would be more beneficial for science, LCBOY?

[Sanamas]

Oy vey. Does every thread in this forum have to turn into a debate on materialism? I clicked on this thread for the angels!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Sanamas
Oy vey. Does every thread in this forum have to turn into a debate on materialism? I clicked on this thread for the angels! If Ian had his way it would. ;)

I take it back, LCBOY, I really don't care about why you think science is limited by materialism, no offense. It's really outside the scope of the thread anyway.

[Barkhorn1x]

I was watching the local news here in South Florida (during a sweeps period) and they did a report on a woman who claimed that she woke up one morning to find an Angel sitting on the edge of her bed. The interview was conducted in her bedroom and the reporter was taking the woman very seriously and treating her w/ the utmost credulity. While the Q&A was going on the camera panned the woman’s bedroom to reveal a large picture of Angels cavorting on the wall over her bed and matching Angel lamps on the nightstands.

Now it doesn’t take a psychologist to figure out that this woman had Angels on the brain. Combine this w/ her quasi-sleep/wake state and I’m sure she thought she saw what she claimed - because she wanted to of course! One would have hoped that the reporter could have called her on her Angel affectation but this was not to be.

Barkhorn.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by ehbowen


In any court of law, it is.

I believe that you do err when you insist upon scientific/mathematical standards of proof for what is more correctly a legal/historical question.

No, it is not. Testimony is fine and dandy. It takes a preponderance of such, without physical evidence, to be considered accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I'm not sure if it has been, even then.

Regular eye-witness testimony is typically worthless unless it is accompanied by physical evidence. You can say you saw him murder his aunt, but unless you can produce the body (habeas corpus) and circumstantial evidence that places him at the scene of her murder, for example, it's just a he said/she said.

Try again.

Existence is not a legal question. It is a scientific one. Therefore, scientific evidence is required. And...once again, it must be said that a lack of physical evidence does not mean that magic is the answer.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Bol*ocks. I know what Skeptics are like.



Claiming it is an extraordinary claim presupposes the essential correctness of your worldview, and therefore begs the question.

You completely miss the friggin point when people come in here and pass along these tales. I know absolutely nothing about this poster. Even you must draw a distinction between a twice told tale and a personal experience or that of trusted friend. When you start encountering angels or those you personally deem trustworthy start encountering them, then it might be worth seriously considering that there might be some common basis for the experience.

[DialecticMaterialist]

In any court of law, it is.

No, that is spectral evidence and that has been banned from courts for good reason.

I'm sure the woman may be honest, mature and sane, yet become confused, lie or make mistakes. Or perhaps a combination of the above.

This happens more then you realize. Far more. Generally good people make mistakes all the time about such matters.

The issue is though what explanation is more parsimonious and in-line with background knowledge: a claim to the supernatural or a person being wrong about what they saw?

I've seen many people who are wrong about what they saw, but I've yet to see one supernatural event.

So while the supernatural sighting is possible it is not probable. Extraordinary claims require more then mere testimony to be accepted.

If someone in a court of law for example said "I saw the murderer....it was a four armed martian". Nobody would believe him. Nobody, I doubt even his own mother, no matter how otherwise clean the man's record was. No matter how honest, sane, upstanding, and good natured the man was said to be. Nor would I believe such a claim from a friend or published in the paper without more evidence. That is because, given what we know it's more likely this otherwise model citizen is confused or suffered a hallucination, then that someone was actually murdered by a four-armed martian.

[chance]

ehbowen what if Mrs Howard has stated that she had seen a UFO. Is this not the same situation using a different belief set? How would you react to her story then?

Another possibility is Mrs Howard wants recognition only if it ‘appears’ that she does not want it, hence her ‘leaking’ the story.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by ehbowen
Mr. Randi has spoken--and spoken well--about the "need to believe" upon the part of some people and how it can cloud their minds and hinder them from coming to a true and correct view of a situation. I would like to turn that around with the hope of showing skeptics that their own preconceived notions can color their perceptions of and responses to situations, and perhaps persuade one or two of them to bear that in mind as they consider situations and claims which run against the grain of their world view.

I knew a lady at my former church. Her name was Mrs. Howard. She was a quiet, self-effacing lady, the wife of a deacon, who served unobtrusively in the church nursery.

Mrs. Howard has seen an angel.

She has received no recognition or compensation for this. The pastor of the church did not know about it. The church members at large did not know of it. She told no one about it except her closest friends. But one of them was my piano teacher, and she told me the story. A few months later, I had the chance to speak with Mrs. Howard privately, and I asked her about it. Embarrassed, she confirmed what my piano teacher had told me. She had in fact seen an angel, very close, very clearly, in the middle of the church kitchen.

Now I ask those of you who consider yourselves skeptics to carefully consider your initial, gut reaction to hearing that story, and compare it to mine. I know Mrs. Howard to be an intelligent, mature woman. She had nothing to gain from telling this story, one way or the other. She has a reputation for modesty and honesty. I have sat upon two criminal juries, and by the standards of the court I would in every way consider her a credible witness. Having heard her story and knowing what I do about her conduct and character, I compare her story to others involving angelic appearances and find it to be consistent with those which I consider to be most credible. The conclusion I draw is that Mrs. Howard’s story is unusual, but by no means impossible. I consider that the simplest and most straightforward conclusion is that Mrs. Howard is telling the truth. I believe that Mrs. Howard has, in actual fact, seen an angel.

I can understand that a number of you are nearly apopleptic at this point. Very well; I encourage you to express yourselves. However, I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me. I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me. While you are mulling over your responses, I invite you to consider yet another story:

The Stewardess (http://ibelieveinangels.com/Stories/51-100/53.htm)

Once again I ask you to carefully consider your initial, gut reactions. I do not know Rev. Cathey, so I am unable to give a personal assessment of his character. Too, this story initially appeared in a published magazine, and so there is the element of personal and possibly financial recognition. But what I see in this story is entirely consistent with my best understanding of the work of angels and of the nature and character of God. I assess this story as being entirely credible. Once again, you are free to disagree with me, and I would like to see your arguments and reasoning. I am curious, though, to see how many of those arguments will boil down to, in essence, "These stories cannot be true, because if they are true it would mean that my worldview is wrong."

I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics. I have no psychological stake in either individual story--I will here stress "individual"--and so I am able to compare them to other reported stories of their type and consider whether they are compatible and consistent. I am free to reject either story--and I would if information came to light which cast doubt upon the credibility of the source or the facts of the case. In point of fact, on the web site from which the story of the stewardess came, there are over a hundred other stories which I have looked at. There are only a bare handful which I consider to be highly probable, and none which I consider to be compelling in the same way as I feel Rev. Cathey’s is. I have the psychological freedom to examine and consider each individual story on its content and merits, and I feel no pressure to accept or reject any individual story; should any one prove to be false, it calls for no great change in my beliefs. Now if anyone were to be able to show globally that each and every such story was false, it would call for a fundamental revision in my world view. Frankly, though, I do not believe that anyone is able to show this; however, you are welcome to try.

Those of you who see yourselves as skeptics, though, do not have this kind of freedom. I ask you to consider, again, your initial, gut reactions to the stories I presented. Did you conclude that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey were lying, or that they were mentally unstable? Upon what evidence was this conclusion based? If your answer is, "because they saw angels," then your reasoning is circular; you are assuming the point under debate. I ask you to carefully consider how much of your response stemmed from a fundamental, underlying belief that, "these things are impossible; therefore, any other explanation is preferred." Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a "need to not believe"--you have in the assessment of such a story.

What are the implications if Mrs. Howard is in fact mentally competent and completely truthful? Suppose Rev. Cathey is in fact telling the whole truth? What if even one of the thousands of other such stories is in fact true? It would require a complete revision, even an upheaval, of fundamental beliefs which you have held dear for years or even decades. For the skeptical mindset to be true, each and every one of these stories must be false—and so you must realize that you have ingrained a set of primal responses, deeper than logic or reason, which color your every response to such a question. I do not ask you to attempt to change these responses; nobody will ever be argued into abandoning prejudices. I simply ask you to be aware that you have them, that you attempt to remain aware of the ways in which they influence your actions, and that you keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong.


Testimony, though I am fully aware of it, is not the same as proof. Try again. Bring an angel feather or droppings next time.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by ehbowen

Mrs. Howard has seen an angel...

She had in fact seen an angel, very close, very clearly, in the middle of the church kitchen.



Perhaps it was an angel food cake she saw in the middle of the church kitchen. People just did not hear "food" and "cake" when she told her story.

therefore the story was, before details were forgotten by the listeners that passed the story by word of mouth:


Mrs. Howard has seen an angel food cake.

She had in fact seen an angel food cake, very close, very clearly, in the middle of the church kitchen.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch

As you, yourself say:While disproving each individual story dosen't necessarily hurt your case, not disproving only surves to support it. You are not unbiased in this situation because you assume the premise, "angels exist." Were you truly unbiased and actually looking to answer the question "do angels exist?" you would be looking for substantive evidence for the existance of angels rather than relying on uncooborated heresay (to stick to the legal jargon from before).

I will agree that I am biased. I would submit to you that there is no one who could truly be considered unbiased. I try to be aware of my biases and how they color my responses. The entire point of my posts is to persuade you to do the same.

I consider that the case has not been made for "angels exist" based on two pieces of "evidence".

You misunderstand my purpose. I am not trying to convince the unbelievers that angels exist. I believe they do exist, but that is for the moment beside the point. I am trying to show that, in spite of your facade of impartiality and neutrality, there are ingrained primal responses which hinder your ability to be objective about any story which might tend to contradict one of your fundamental core beliefs. I am trying to bring that bias to light so that you may be aware of it and take it into consideration.

The trouble is, with pure anycdotal evidence, like that which you have presented, there is no way to check. There is no camera set up to show what actually happened. I can't say for sure wether events occured as Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey says they did or not. Neither can you, for that matter. And really, neither can Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey since they don't have anything to say it did happen other than their own memories and we know that memories are fallable.

Sorry, I don't buy your reasoning. It's boiling down to, "Their story can't be true because if it's true then I am wrong." You are grasping at straws and presupposing your conclusions. If you are trying to say that you do not believe that they are telling the truth, whether from outright prevarication or mental disability, then fine. You are entitled to hold your belief. What I am saying is that you need to be aware that it is a belief, it is not based upon any facts, and that you hold to it as a drunken man holds a lamppost; for support, not illumination.

Again, I think you are overstating the case that skeptics hold beliefs as "dear" to them.

I think not.

It's very possible that my repsonse is ingrained, but doesn't that just show that the need for evidence, one way or the other, is just that much more necessary? I say you have your beliefs about the situation. You say I have my beliefs about the situation. Why don't we research it in an organized fashion and reach a conclusive result?

Now this is a statement with which I can agree. Message me privately with your ideas.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Graham
Eric,

I've just remembered who you are!

In this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11824&perpage=40&pagenumber=9) you claimed to have heard a different sermon to everyone else during a church service.

Yes, that's me.

As someone who has experienced "supernatural" events of the supposedly godly variety, would you not agree that you have a vested interest in proving that people who experience such things are really God/angels/whatever rather than hallucinations/schizophrenic episodes/things of that nature?


You may call it a "vested interest" if you like, but my purpose is not to prove that these experiences are real; my purpose is to seek the Truth. Truth with a capital T. One of my fundamental, core beliefs is that truth must necessarily be absolute, else it be not truth. I also believe that this universe has been designed in such a way that it is rational and knowable, even though I believe that there are deeper layers to it of which we are at the present unaware. That is why, in the earlier thread, I brought up the example of the church service. My conclusion from that experience was that alternate realities or "time tracks" in fact exist. Any other explanation requires that I disregard the evidence of my own senses, which is a step I am unwilling to take.

I have no hatred or suspicion of science or the scientific method; I was a straight-A student in science and mathematics. At the same time, I recognize its limitations in resolving questions such as the existence of God or angels; how does one analyze a superior being who has decided that he does not want to be treated as a lab rat? And so I regard scientific investigation and divine revelation as being two aspects of the search for the real, overarching, absolute truth. In seeking to converge the two, I have come to conclusions which, while sometimes bizarre, I consider to be logically consistent and not in conflict with established facts

There was a time when I actively considered a career in physics or chemistry. But for the past twenty-one years now I have been actively engaged in searching for the truth of and seeking to know God. I said above that I believed the universe was fundamentally rational and knowable; I feel the same way about God. And in the past few years I have begun to see indications that God does in fact desire to be known. It will be worth waiting for.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
Mrs. Howard can be all that you say – I have no reason to doubt your assessment.
Hold that thought---

So you feel that you may pick and choose those that are credible and discard the rest?
Essentially, yes. I look for stories which are consistent with previous accounts, particularly accounts in Scripture, and which give insight as to the nature, personality, and character of God and his angels.

Again, Mrs. Howard telling what she (and you) believe to be the truth does not necessarily mean that she actually saw an angel. She could have been hallucinating. YOU cannot know for sure that she wasn’t just as I can’t know that she was – but you haven’t proven anything either.
Nor have you. Keep that in mind.

As stated above – and by others – there is a third choice, Mrs. Howard is mistaken or suffering from a mental disorder.
You may choose to believe this. But what is your reason for believing it? Upon what factual basis does it rest? You may consider it more "likely" than the possibility that she did, in fact, see an angel, but as Ian noted earlier, that presupposes the answer to the point in contention.

This story ran in a Southern Baptist Convention magazine – which makes it immediately suspect
Why?

- and none of the facts can be verified.
Be honest now. Would it make a difference to you if they could?

And now you set yourself up as an expert on the character of God?
[/modest] Why, yes, actually, I do. [modest]

No “these things” cannot be proven to be impossible – but there is no credible evidence that “these things” occur.
Wrong. The stories of Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are evidence. They are entirely credible. What there is a lack of, at this point in time, is definitive and conclusive evidence. At some point in the future, I am convinced, that lack will be rectified. In the meantime, though, you would be well advised to ponder the question of whether or not the standard of proof you require of God and the spiritual world is consistent with the standard of proof you require for things of the physical world.

[Dymanic]

Upchurch?:
The trouble is, with pure anycdotal evidence...
...we know that memories are fallable.

ehbowen:
Sorry, I don't buy your reasoning....
...What I am saying is that you need to be aware that it is a belief, it is not based upon any facts, and that you hold to it as a drunken man holds a lamppost; for support, not illumination.So you're saying that the claim that anecdotal evidence is not reliable is not based on facts?

You are grasping at straws and presupposing your conclusions.At some point, it ceases to be worthwile to continue to point fingers at one another on this. Suppose we agree that we all tend to rely on predrawn conclusions, and we all tend to be reluctant to abandon our worldview. Can we call it even on that and just look at what you are presenting as evidence? Do you really expect anyone to abandon his worldview based on what you say some lady said she saw, or thought she saw, in her kitchen?

Any other explanation requires that I disregard the evidence of my own senses, which is a step I am unwilling to take.Likewise the reported 'evidence' of someone else's senses, apparently.
Have you seen any of the previous threads on optical illusions, btw?

The stories of Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are evidence. They are entirely credible.You may choose to believe this.What there is a lack of, at this point in time, is definitive and conclusive evidenceWhat then is your reason for believing it? Upon what factual basis does it rest?

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Dymanic
At some point, it ceases to be worthwile to continue to point fingers at one another on this. Suppose we agree that we all tend to rely on predrawn conclusions, and we all tend to be reluctant to abandon our worldview. Can we call it even on that and just look at what you are presenting as evidence? Do you really expect anyone to abandon his worldview based on what you say some lady said she saw, or thought she saw, in her kitchen?

This is, actually, the point that I am trying to make. I am not seriously expecting that I will change anyone's viewpoint based upon two stories, even credible ones. My purpose, as I tried to state in the opening post, is to get people to be aware of their presumptions and prejudices, and to take into account the way in which they can color your view of reality.

[JesFine]

I can't begin to speak for all skeptics but I would like to throw my 2 (or more) cents into the mix.

1. It is impossible to live your life in any practical sense of the word without making some assumptions, and without having some preconceived notions. No one can really deny this. For example, there is no (practical) way for me to know if any of the posters in this thread are real, or if they are all made up by some hacker d00d who lives in a submarine. Sure, I could invent some kind of teleporter and time machine, wait till I read a post, then teleport/time-port to every location on earth until I found the one location of the person who actually made the post, then hide in the corner (using the invisiblity cloak I also invented) and watch them post. But seriously, I am at least 5 years away from perfecting this technology. Also, I would have to assume the post function worked as it is intended. So fine then, we make assumptions. It is impossible not to.

2. I believe all kinds of "weird" and "crazy" things. I believe in relativity and that is all kinds of crazy. I believe in evolution and that too is strange and whacky. I have no problem believing in this stuff though because of the evidence that backs it up.

So where does the skeptic draw the distinction? When does a skeptic accept something as true without checking the evidence, and when must evidence be presented? That can sometimes be a tough call, but not too many people would argue that the importance of the question must be weighed.

If someone told me they had the cure for cancer, or could create cold fusion, or that I might have already won 8 million dollars, then yes, I would be skeptical. These statements are too important for me to believe just because they said so. Likewise, any example in which someone professed to talk to God or one of his servants. That seems too important to me to allow any possiblity that they might be mistaken.

On the other hand, if someone told me they had the cure for hiccups, or could create cold sandwiches, or that I might have already won the 'world's greatest neighbor' award, or that they could talk to some guy named Fred, then I wouldn't be too skeptical, because in the long run, who really cares.

So in my case, at least, I am willing and able to believe anything that anyone might suggest, however, I am not willing to believe it simply because they told me to.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ehbowen
..............................

This is, actually, the point that I am trying to make. I am not seriously expecting that I will change anyone's viewpoint based upon two stories, even credible ones.

Interesting you should say this, since presenting someone with a credible story that opposes their worldview, would be a reasonable impetus for them to change it...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ehbowen
.................you would be well advised to ponder the question of whether or not the standard of proof you require of God and the spiritual world is consistent with the standard of proof you require for things of the physical world.



You've got to be kidding...:confused:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic
[B]So you're saying that the claim that anecdotal evidence is not reliable is not based on facts?



Indeed, this is why it's still possible to deny the existence of ball lightning. Why state the obvious?



Have you seen any of the previous threads on optical illusions, btw?



I have, and I enraged everyone in the particular thread concerned LOL You think that optical illusions differ in kind from all other perceptions? I'm afraid you're mistaken.

[Graham]

Originally posted by ehbowen
Yes, that's me.

Welcome back, I hope you are well!

You may call it a "vested interest" if you like, but my purpose is not to prove that these experiences are real; my purpose is to seek the Truth. Truth with a capital T. One of my fundamental, core beliefs is that truth must necessarily be absolute, else it be not truth. I also believe that this universe has been designed in such a way that it is rational and knowable, even though I believe that there are deeper layers to it of which we are at the present unaware. That is why, in the earlier thread, I brought up the example of the church service. My conclusion from that experience was that alternate realities or "time tracks" in fact exist. Any other explanation requires that I disregard the evidence of my own senses, which is a step I am unwilling to take.

Do you have no doubt, Eric? Don't you ever think "Maybe I'm wrong" or "Maybe I'm mistaken".

A person should always doubt, in my opinion. Doubt what they are told and even doubt their own senses. we are, after all, only human, flesh and blood and prone to error. Take a look at this picture (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html) , which was featured in Randi's commentary some time ago. Do those two squares look the same colour to you? They don't to me. If we can be mistaken about something so simple as coloured squares, shouldn't we doubt more the complex constructions of religion?

Your conclusion from the church service is that alternate time tracks exist. They may or may not exist, I don't know either way but it seems to me that you can't reach a firm conclusion either way, based solely on such subjective evidence.


I have no hatred or suspicion of science or the scientific method; I was a straight-A student in science and mathematics. At the same time, I recognize its limitations in resolving questions such as the existence of God or angels; how does one analyze a superior being who has decided that he does not want to be treated as a lab rat? And so I regard scientific investigation and divine revelation as being two aspects of the search for the real, overarching, absolute truth. In seeking to converge the two, I have come to conclusions which, while sometimes bizarre, I consider to be logically consistent and not in conflict with established facts

A theory can be logically consistent and in line with the facts snd still be wrong, Eric. It may never have happened to Sherlock Holmes but it is perfectly possible for a theory to explain every little thing and still be incorrect.

Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong. It seems to me more likely that you're wrong, I confess, but that's just my opinion.

The trouble with divine revelation is that it's usually neither repeatable or testable. The beauty of science is that you can perform the same experiment over and over again and get the same results.

What would you do, Eric, if you had another divine revelation that told you exactly the opposite fo the first? Which one would you believe?

There was a time when I actively considered a career in physics or chemistry. But for the past twenty-one years now I have been actively engaged in searching for the truth of and seeking to know God. I said above that I believed the universe was fundamentally rational and knowable; I feel the same way about God. And in the past few years I have begun to see indications that God does in fact desire to be known. It will be worth waiting for.

If the universe is fundamentally rational and knowable, then IMO it does not involve God.

If the universe is fundamentally rational and knowable, then IMO through science we will one day know it.

Graham

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Graham
A person should always doubt, in my opinion. Doubt what they are told and even doubt their own senses. we are, after all, only human, flesh and blood and prone to error. Take a look at this picture (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html) , which was featured in Randi's commentary some time ago. Do those two squares look the same colour to you? They don't to me.



This is because they aren't. So that Randi guy thinks they're the same color as well? Doesn't surprise me. :rolleyes:

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Yahzi
ehbowen

You seem to have utterly forgotten the commonplace observation that people are frequently wrong about what they thought they saw or heard.

This reminds me of a great story.

A friend of mine told me of an elderly relative who was visiting another relative's house. In this house was a simple piece of sculpture that spelled out the name "Jesus" in extremely stylized letters that were difficult to make out. Everyone was able to see the name except this elderly woman, who continued to squint and stare at it for the next hour as the others conversed on a number of different topics. Finally, without warning, she sprung to her feet and yelled, "I SEE JESUS, I SEE JESUS!"

It took them a while to figure out what she was talking about. They were very relieved that they didn't have to have her committed.

:)

[Barkhorn1x]

ehbowen;

We really have little basis for discussion here as you;
a. Don't understand why anecdotal evidence is not sufficient proof for the extraordinary - no matter what the nature of the person doing the telling.
b. Don't think that spiritual issues can be assessed using the scientific method in any case - as they fall into a "Legal/Historical" category - whatever that means.
c. Claim that skeptics have thier minds made up - yet produce no CREDIBLE evidence to change those minds.
d. Pick and choose those stories - which are consistent w/ your beliefs - and discard the rest.
e. Can't see that extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by ehbowen


Wrong. The stories of Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are evidence. They are entirely credible. What there is a lack of, at this point in time, is definitive and conclusive evidence. At some point in the future, I am convinced, that lack will be rectified.

We have been waiting THOUSANDS of years for this "lack" to be rectified!!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Go to this link;
http://skepdic.com/occam.html
Then read the related entries at the bottom - then do some critical thinking.

Barkhorn.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is because they aren't. So that Randi guy thinks they're the same color as well? Doesn't surprise me. :rolleyes:

Look again:

Relevant squares only. (http://www.geocities.com/reesejm.geo/puzzle.bmp)

[Graham]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


Look again:

Relevant squares only. (http://www.geocities.com/reesejm.geo/puzzle.bmp)

Your link does not appear to work but I think what he's getting at is that colour is a subjective experience (according to some) and that, if they don't look the same colour, then they're not.

Right or wrong, I don't think that harms my point.

Graham

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Go to this link;
http://skepdic.com/occam.html
Then read the related entries at the bottom - then do some critical thinking.

Barkhorn. [/B]

As I have just mentioned in the thread about death bed apparitions in the paranormal forum, the guy who wrote the skeptics dictionary is awe inspiringly stupid. Just like other Skeptics in fact.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


Look again:

Relevant squares only. (http://www.geocities.com/reesejm.geo/puzzle.bmp)

I don't want to. I saw it the first time.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


As I have just mentioned in the thread about death bed apparitions in the paranormal forum, the guy who wrote the skeptics dictionary is awe inspiringly stupid. Just like other Skeptics in fact.

I don't want to. I saw it the first time

Why do you have to be such an ass?

[thaiboxerken]

Bwahahahhah! Yet another "testimonial". When will the believers come to realize that testimony is hardly reliable in the world of science?



"As I have just mentioned in the thread about death bed apparitions in the paranormal forum, the guy who wrote the skeptics dictionary is awe inspiringly stupid. Just like other Skeptics in fact."

Yea, stupid skeptics! Who are they to want evidence and science involved with claims? Damn them, damn them all!!!



:rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Graham


Your link does not appear to work but I think what he's getting at is that colour is a subjective experience (according to some) and that, if they don't look the same colour, then they're not.

Right or wrong, I don't think that harms my point.

Graham

The mind actively creates reality when we perceive. Here is what I wrote before on this topic:

By labelling certain of our perceptual experiences as optical illusions you are by implication drawing a distinction between these so called "illusions" and the rest of our perceptual experiences. But the truth of the matter is that "optical illusions" are not particularly special in this regard. What we actually perceptual experience, whether you label them "optical illusions" or not, is largely a product of our minds. Yes our perceptual experiences have their origin in an external world. But what we actually see is not just a passive assimilation of the information flowing through our senses. No, what we see is shaped and molded by the mind. Reality as we perceive it is very largely a product of the mind.

Reality is a construct. All our perceptual experiences implicitly incorporate low level theory, and we are deluded in supposing that we can somehow percieve the world in abstraction from any theoretical framework. Optical "illusions" illustrate this very nicely.

But what was the response of all the materialists when confronted with these optical "illusions"? Something like "Eeeeee isn't that great, we're seeing something that isn't really there!"

I forlornly tried to rectify people's error in this regard only to be accused of being a troll by everyone. So much for the intellectual capacity of the vast majority of people on this forum ie the materialists :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Graham




Why do you have to be such an ass?

Don't you understand? He's superior to all of us poor skeptics. While we're limited to believing in reality, he is not. Fiction and reality mix, according to Ian. There is no objective reality, if one keeps their mind openly gullible. We're simply inferior to him because we are not gullible. To Ian, gullibility is a virtue.

;)

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


As I have just mentioned in the thread about death bed apparitions in the paranormal forum, the guy who wrote the skeptics dictionary is awe inspiringly stupid. Just like other Skeptics in fact.

Yea sure Ian - as opposed to your babble.

BTW, your nic is an oxymoron IMO - but I'm sure that I'm not the first to point that out to you.

Barkhorn.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The mind actively creates reality when we perceive. Here is what I wrote before on this topic:

*snip*

I forlornly tried to rectify people's error in this regard only to be accused of being a troll by everyone. So much for the intellectual capacity of the vast majority of people on this forum ie the materialists :rolleyes:

Well, I won't derail this thread any further except today that, IMO, no-one ever convinced anyone of anything by telling them what a bunch of morons they are.

Graham

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

By labelling certain of our perceptual experiences as optical illusions you are by implication drawing a distinction between these so called "illusions" and the rest of our perceptual experiences. But the truth of the matter is that "optical illusions" are not particularly special in this regard. What we actually perceptual experience, whether you label them "optical illusions" or not, is largely a product of our minds. Yes our perceptual experiences have their origin in an external world. But what we actually see is not just a passive assimilation of the information flowing through our senses. No, what we see is shaped and molded by the mind. Reality as we perceive it is very largely a product of the mind.
So essentially, you're saying that all perceptions are illusions. I agree with this completely. This is why I mentioned the optical illusions threads in the first place.You think that optical illusions differ in kind from all other perceptions? I'm afraid you're mistaken.Of course I don't -- that's precisely the point; that our perceptions are not reliable.

Our view of the world is essentially an internal simulation -- this is what enables us to quickly come up with reasonable guesses as to what is going on, and what will happen next. In the environment in which this equipment evolved, perfect accuracy was a luxury that was too expensive; a guess with 50% accuracy in the first 200 milliseconds gives half the guessers a chance to live another day, while waiting 2000 milliseconds for 90% accuracy means certain death in many situations.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen


I will agree that I am biased. I would submit to you that there is no one who could truly be considered unbiased. I try to be aware of my biases and how they color my responses. The entire point of my posts is to persuade you to do the same.And my counter point is to show you that skeptics, by the nature of being skeptical, do their best to not let any preconception, including their own, stand in the way of facts. As such, those who are skeptical are the only ones who are truely open minded because they are open to the posibility that they are wrong.

Let me ask you this: Every time an angel sighting has been shown to be a false memory or trick of the light or from some other natural cause, how often do you ask yourself if the belief "angels exist" might not be true? This is the nature of skepticism, questioning your own beliefs as well as that of others.
You misunderstand my purpose. I am not trying to convince the unbelievers that angels exist. I believe they do exist, but that is for the moment beside the point. I am trying to show that, in spite of your facade of impartiality and neutrality, there are ingrained primal responses which hinder your ability to be objective about any story which might tend to contradict one of your fundamental core beliefs. I am trying to bring that bias to light so that you may be aware of it and take it into consideration. I understand perfectly what your purpose is, as I eventually mentioned in a later post. What I'm trying to point out is that you don't understand what skepticism actually is. You seem to view skepticism as a rival, close minded viewpoint that is based on nothing more than non-conformism or the need to be different. There is no facade of impartiality and neutrality. Many skeptics, when shown the evidence, will change their minds about a topic. The key, however, is that no claim goes unchallenged for long.
Sorry, I don't buy your reasoning. It's boiling down to, "Their story can't be true because if it's true then I am wrong." No, Mr. Bowen, that is decidedly not what I am saying. Please read what I said again.The trouble is, with pure anycdotal evidence, like that which you have presented, there is no way to check. There is no camera set up to show what actually happened. I can't say for sure wether events occured as Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey says they did or not. Neither can you, for that matter. And really, neither can Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey since they don't have anything to say it did happen other than their own memories and we know that memories are fallable.I'm not saying it can't be true, I'm saying we can't know if these particular stories are true because there is no cooroberating evidence.
You are grasping at straws and presupposing your conclusions. If you are trying to say that you do not believe that they are telling the truth, whether from outright prevarication or mental disability, then fine.I didn't say they weren't telling the truth (i.e. not lying). I said we don't know if they were telling the Truth (i.e. reporting events as they actually occured). Are you so tied to your beliefs that you cannot admit that it is possible that they made a mistake or error? Are you open to the possiblity that maybe angels really don't exist? Who is being closed-minded now?
You are entitled to hold your belief. What I am saying is that you need to be aware that it is a belief, it is not based upon any facts, and that you hold to it as a drunken man holds a lamppost; for support, not illumination.You seem to have trouble distinguishing between not believing and suspension of belief. You ask me, for example, to believe that angels exist. You present testimonials from people saying they saw an angel. But those people were testifying from memory, which we know is falablem, of how they perceived the event, which we know can be in error. So, we need to validate the testimony. But how can we do that? The question has been left unanswered, so the original premise "Do angels exist?" remains unanswered.

I hope you truely are asking yourself how your own beliefs are coloring your views of skepticism.
Again, I think you are overstating the case that skeptics hold beliefs as "dear" to them.
I think not.Case in point. Why is it that you think skeptics hold beliefs so dear that they do not want to let them go? Do you think they hold them more dear than theists do? Why or why not?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is because they aren't. So that Randi guy thinks they're the same color as well? Doesn't surprise me. :rolleyes: Yes, Ian. Very good, Ian. That's nice, Ian. :rolleyes:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by ehbowen
Mr. Randi has spoken--and spoken well--about the "need to believe" upon the part of some people and how it can cloud their minds and hinder them from coming to a true and correct view of a situation. I would like to turn that around with the hope of showing skeptics that their own preconceived notions can color their perceptions of and responses to situations, and perhaps persuade one or two of them to bear that in mind as they consider situations and claims which run against the grain of their world view.
I knew a lady at my former church. Her name was Mrs. Howard. She was a quiet, self-effacing lady, the wife of a deacon, who served unobtrusively in the church nursery.
Mrs. Howard has seen an angel.
She has received no recognition or compensation for this. The pastor of the church did not know about it. The church members at large did not know of it. She told no one about it except her closest friends. But one of them was my piano teacher, and she told me the story. A few months later, I had the chance to speak with Mrs. Howard privately, and I asked her about it. Embarrassed, she confirmed what my piano teacher had told me. She had in fact seen an angel, very close, very clearly, in the middle of the church kitchen.
Now I ask those of you who consider yourselves skeptics to carefully consider your initial, gut reaction to hearing that story, and compare it to mine. I know Mrs. Howard to be an intelligent, mature woman. She had nothing to gain from telling this story, one way or the other. She has a reputation for modesty and honesty. I have sat upon two criminal juries, and by the standards of the court I would in every way consider her a credible witness. Having heard her story and knowing what I do about her conduct and character, I compare her story to others involving angelic appearances and find it to be consistent with those which I consider to be most credible. The conclusion I draw is that Mrs. Howard’s story is unusual, but by no means impossible. I consider that the simplest and most straightforward conclusion is that Mrs. Howard is telling the truth. I believe that Mrs. Howard has, in actual fact, seen an angel.

I can understand that a number of you are nearly apopleptic at this point. Very well; I encourage you to express yourselves. However, I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me. I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me. While you are mulling over your responses, I invite you to consider yet another story:...."

I am a liberal Christian and a skeptic. My first question would be....of what profit was her visitation from the Angel? Angels in the bible appeared mostly as messengers. They appeared to serve a purpose. They spoke a message from God or performed a task..such as ministering to Jesus after he had fasted so long and had the meeting with Satan. Did the Angel speak to her? Did it perform some sort of task?

I do not doubt that this lady is upright and honest. I do question the possibilty that her mind played tricks with her. I've had similar experiences. I know how easy it is to think, feel, hear or see things when there is a suggestion. I have never, to this day, ever shared to the depth of what I experienced in a *supernatural* sense as a Christian....not even to close friends. I am surprised she even told close friends. Things have a way of circulating once even one friend has been told something....especially within a church.

One thing is certain, she is sure she saw something. It's hard to disprove someone's account on a situation that you were not a witness to, and cannot corroborate.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Ruby


One thing is certain, she is sure she saw something. It's hard to disprove someone's account on a situation that you were not a witness to, and cannot corroborate.

No, it's impossible. And - w/o tangible, credible evidence that can be corroborated it's IMPOSSIBLE for this nice lady to prove that she DID see something.

Barkhorn.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by ehbowen
I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics. I have no psychological stake in either individual story--I will here stress "individual"--and so I am able to compare them to other reported stories of their type and consider whether they are compatible and consistent

Originally posted by Upchurch

I beg to differ. You do have a personal stake in each idividual story. True, should one be shown to have a natural cause, it would not disprove your worldview. However, if it is not shown to have natural causes, it reinforces your worldview, thus providing at least some validation for it.


I have to agree with you. Being a Christian myself, I know how easy it is for a Christian to accept and justify almost any and every *supernatural* experience. It's impossible for many to remain objective. This is something I battle within myself. It is also a source of frustration for me when I come up against other Christians who see *demons* under every rock and live in a *flaky* state of mind. But you don't have to be flaky to think you see Angels. You can sane and still operate under suggestion.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Yea sure Ian - as opposed to your babble.

BTW, your nic is an oxymoron IMO - but I'm sure that I'm not the first to point that out to you.

Barkhorn.

And you're a f*cking cretin.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


By labelling certain of our perceptual experiences as optical illusions you are by implication drawing a distinction between these so called "illusions" and the rest of our perceptual experiences. But the truth of the matter is that "optical illusions" are not particularly special in this regard. What we actually perceptual experience, whether you label them "optical illusions" or not, is largely a product of our minds. Yes our perceptual experiences have their origin in an external world. But what we actually see is not just a passive assimilation of the information flowing through our senses. No, what we see is shaped and molded by the mind. Reality as we perceive it is very largely a product of the mind.



Wow , I agree with II, isn't that cool, how long will it last?

Reality as we percieve it is mainly the product of the learning our organic computer experiences. We are limited to the organic computer which can be fooled very easily.

Wow, I am not sure hwta this thread is about but I agree with Ian!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

By labelling certain of our perceptual experiences as optical illusions you are by implication drawing a distinction between these so called "illusions" and the rest of our perceptual experiences. But the truth of the matter is that "optical illusions" are not particularly special in this regard. What we actually perceptual experience, whether you label them "optical illusions" or not, is largely a product of our minds. Yes our perceptual experiences have their origin in an external world. But what we actually see is not just a passive assimilation of the information flowing through our senses. No, what we see is shaped and molded by the mind. Reality as we perceive it is very largely a product of the mind.


Beautifully said/typed!:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


No, it's impossible. And - w/o tangible, credible evidence that can be corroborated it's IMPOSSIBLE for this nice lady to prove that she DID see something. I have to disagree to an extent. That she remembers having seen something is not really in question (it is possible that she could be lying, but let's assume she isn't). What is in question is the cause of that memory.

The possibilites, as I see them, are as follows:
She saw an angel.
She had a waking dream.
She has a false memory.
She was fooled by a trick of the light.
(I'm sure there must be others) Frankly, based on the information given, there is no way to know for sure which of these is actually the case. But, I see no reason to believe that she didn't see an angel-like form. We just can't know why she saw it.

[Barkhorn1x]

Upchurch;

I was not clear.


Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


No, it's impossible. And - w/o tangible, credible evidence that can be corroborated it's IMPOSSIBLE for this nice lady to prove that she DID see something.

Barkhorn.

No, it's impossible to prove that she didn't see somthing. And - w/o tangible, credible evidence that can be corroborated it's IMPOSSIBLE for this nice lady to prove that she DID see something.

There - that's more like it.

Barkhorn.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


And you're a f*cking cretin.

Cretin, skeptic - what's the difference?

Barkhorn.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
I was not clear.
Oh. heh. nevermind

[gets off soap box]

[Darwin]

I recall there is a fairly common,let´s say neuro-ophtalmological disorder that occurs mostly in aged population (unfortunately I cannot recall the name)
It is not remarkable at all considering daily life but functioning with limited vision,it causes brain to "draw" images of matter that really is not there.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


And you're a f*cking cretin. Ian,

I realize you aren't the only one doing it on this thread, but you certainly seem the most belligerent, so I'll address this to you.

The main issues of this thread are (1) are skeptics close-minded in their viewing of issues (specifically religious phenomenon) and (2) are theists close-minded in their viewing of issues (specifically skepticism). Please don't pull this into yet another "materialism is garbage" hijacking. If you have a point to make, please start a new thread and make it there, referencing this thread if you feel you must.


Thanks.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

............
By labelling certain of our perceptual experiences as optical illusions you are by implication drawing a distinction between these so called "illusions" and the rest of our perceptual experiences. But the truth of the matter is that "optical illusions" are not particularly special in this regard. What we actually perceptual experience, whether you label them "optical illusions" or not, is largely a product of our minds. Yes our perceptual experiences have their origin in an external world. But what we actually see is not just a passive assimilation of the information flowing through our senses. No, what we see is shaped and molded by the mind. Reality as we perceive it is very largely a product of the mind............


Very good..

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Darwin
I recall there is a fairly common,let´s say neuro-ophtalmological disorder that occurs mostly in aged population (unfortunately I cannot recall the name)
It is not remarkable at all considering daily life but functioning with limited vision,it causes brain to "draw" images of matter that really is not there. Regardless, it is not necessary to assume that Mrs. Howard is anything but in tip-top mental condition with no mental disorders of any kind to consider the possibility that Mrs. Howard did not actually see what she remembers seeing.

That, I think, is one of the minor points Mr. Bowen is trying to make. Not all people who experience supernatural phenomena do so because of mental disorder, and I agree. We skeptics do tend to play the "mental disorder" card rather often and I can see how it would be frustrating to a non-skeptic like Mr. Bowen.

However, that being said. If what Darwin says is true, than this certainly might also explain the event that Mrs. Howard experienced. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Bowen?

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't want to. I saw it the first time.


Eyes wide shut. Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Upchurch

However, that being said. If what Darwin says is true, than this certainly might also explain the event that Mrs. Howard experienced. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Bowen?

It could very well be that she merely saw something mundane and merely decided that it was an angel. Light reflections and other such mundane phenomena are often the culprits behind such visions.

[Skeptical Greg]

The wings? What about the wings?:confused:

Why do angels need them?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The main issues of this thread are (1) are skeptics close-minded in their viewing of issues (specifically religious phenomenon) and (2) are theists close-minded in their viewing of issues (specifically skepticism).
Right. Addressing that is bound to involve some discussion about the nature of human perception, but since this falls equally on believer and skeptic alike, such debates won't really help to answer this question.

It really isn't about angels, either.

Are skeptics more rigid in their thinking than believers?

The skeptical stance is: be reluctant to accept that for which there is no evidence, test any evidence that is presented, and be reserved even about that for which there is evidence.

The believer stance is: believe anything you want, if it feels good, or if somebody else says it's the thing to do.

My conclusion: skeptics are more rigid in their thinking.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree. Skeptics will change their opinions based on evidence and reliable data. Believers will believe what they will despite contradictory evidence, a lack of evidence or being shown the fallacy of an arguement.

The skeptical stance allows for flexibility in opinion.

The believers commit themselves to believe no matter what. If you don't think this is true, just go check out any creationist website.

[Yahzi]

ebhowen
Any other explanation requires that I disregard the evidence of my own senses, which is a step I am unwilling to take.
Have you never seen a magician? Have you never been drunk or stoned? Have you never simply been mistaken?

The Pope is not infallible, and neither are you. The fact that neither of you understands this explains why both of you believe in things that are demonstrably untrue.

Just like Synthesia said - idealism (and religious belief) require the elevation of the self to an infallible primary source of knowledge. I don't understand how you got past kindergarten without learning why this is stupid.

[Dancing David]

Well stated Funkmeister!

I am willing to believe that she thinks she saw an angel, doesn't mean it wasn't Santa dressed up like an angel.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Me

My conclusion: skeptics are more rigid in their thinking.
Perhaps I should have added: And believers are soft in the head.


Originally posted by thaiboxerken

The skeptical stance allows for flexibility in opinion
Observing the same phenomenon, the non-skeptic has far more flexibility in choices of explanations than the skeptic, who must eliminate those explanations that require angels, fairies, extraterrestrials, skydaddy, and the like.

Ok...ok...maybe what it is is that non-skeptics are less rigid in their requirements for explanations initially, and thereafter quite firm about maintaining their position, whereas the skeptic is less flexibile at the beginning, and thereafter more willing to replace the explanation with one that is better supported. The order is just reversed.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Are skeptics more rigid in their thinking than believers?

The skeptical stance is: be reluctant to accept that for which there is no evidence, test any evidence that is presented, and be reserved even about that for which there is evidence.

The believer stance is: believe anything you want, if it feels good, or if somebody else says it's the thing to do.

My conclusion: skeptics are more rigid in their thinking. The thing with taking something on faith is once you've dicided what you're taking on faith, nothing will change your mind about it. Thus, the use of the term "faith". Skeptics, on the other hand, tend not to have faith and, as such, are not restricted by it.

I used the word "tend" in the previous sentince because principles are rarely absolute when put into practice. I'm sure you can find a self-proclaimed "skeptic" who is unthinking in his/her skepticism. However, at the risk of being accused of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, an unskeptical skeptic really isn't a skeptic, is s/he?

[Loki]

JesFine,

But seriously, I am at least 5 years away from perfecting this technology.
When you get the bugs worked out, call me...I may have a business proposition for you!

[Loki]

Eric,

I must say, the point of this thread seems fairly obvious - we filter "evidence" through our current worldview to decide how credible it is. This of course means that evidence that contradicts that worldview is (at least initially) likely to be assigned a "low credibility". Is there any thing else you were trying to say? This hardly seems like "news", nor does it seem all that controversal?

[SortingItAllOut]

Hi,

Just some questions and comments I had about the story.

First I'll say that it sounds like she's a nice lady and all and is probably a pillar in the community, etc. etc.... but...

1. How would she know that it was an *angel* that she saw? Substitute "space alien" for "angel" and you've got the same problem. What does one look like anyhow? If she'd seen a cat or the Maytag repair man, odds are that she'd be able to say with some confidence that she recognized what she saw... but why not a ghost or a demon or a time traveling creature from the future or a vistor from another part of the Universe? I'll be honest, if an angel showed up right now in my kitchen, I'd probably be startled (especially since the security system didn't detect its entrance), possible frightened, but able to say "now that's an angel!"... well, no. I've never seen one so I've got no way to ID it.

2. Why is it that these sightings never happen to me? I'm a fairly sensible individual and open-minded enough not to discount the possibility that I *might* be wrong about life, its origin, and all that stuff. Why doesn't an angel just up and appear one day in my office?

3. How much proof is really necessary to *prove* that it was an angel? I submit it might be impossible to do so.

Take care,
Sort:)

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The mind actively creates reality when we perceive.

Well yes, of course, but not in the way you mean it. The tree that sits in the yard outside of my window continues to exist and continues to be a tree with or without me. I have learned to interpret the sensory data I receive from the tree and recognize that data as a tree, but my conciousness did not bring the tree into existence.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Dymanic

So essentially, you're saying that all perceptions are illusions. I agree with this completely.

Can't you see the ridiculousness of this statement? It suggests that there is some other, more genuine way to percieve than though perception. By implication there is NOTHING but illusion. Well, where the hell does that leave you? Perception is often faulty, often unreliable, of course, but to say that all perceptions are illusion is just nutty. Fact is, our perception, through any combination of our assorted senses is pretty darn reliable. I think our branch of the family tree would have broken off a long time ago if it were not so.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Diogenes
The wings? What about the wings?:confused:

Why do angels need them?

Thanks for asking twice.
I was looking for a response also.
W'assup w/the wings?

[Dymanic]

(ME):So essentially, you're saying that all perceptions are
illusions. I agree with this completely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by billydkid

Can't you see the ridiculousness of this statement?If you don't agree, just say why; if your argument is compelling, this sort of comment is unnecessary. It suggests that there is some other, more genuine way to percieve than though perception.Actually it doesn't.

By implication there is NOTHING but illusion.
The word 'illusion' carries some possibly misleading emotional connotations. The information we recieve from the world we live in -- like the reflected light we call sights and the variations in air pressure we call sounds -- is processed into forms that our brains find convenient to work with. Insects with multi-faceted eyes, and bats with their echolocation, collect information from the same world, but it's a pretty safe bet that what they see is a lot different from what we see. The point is that our perception is as much an artifact of our brains and our senses as it is anything to do with the actual world.

Fact is, our perception, through any combination of our assorted senses is pretty darn reliable. I think our branch of the family tree would have broken off a long time ago if it were not so.Agreed. It is certainly reliable in the sense that it maps closely enough to elements in the world to enable us to formulate our actions. This only means that elements must be represented in some way that is consistent with the rules of the internal simulation.

But our perceptive/cognitive apparatus was designed for specific tasks. In our struggle for understanding, we often wish to exceed the original design specifications, and it is in these areas that we encounter the limitations of the equipment -- whether we acknowledge that or not.

[thaiboxerken]

Hi,
1. How would she know that it was an *angel* that she saw?

If you saw an angel, you'd know. You just would. Quit trying to apply rational thinking into this claim.


2. Why is it that these sightings never happen to me?

Because you lack faith.


3. How much proof is really necessary to *prove* that it was an angel? I submit it might be impossible to do so.

An agreed upon definition of an angel. Then physical evidence to support the claim that one was there. Or... you can just have faith. With enough faith, you can believe in any nonsen... i mean you can be saved from hell.

[EdipisReks]

i don't meant to threadjack, but why does Ian bother posting on this forum? aren't there gullible forums that he can post to that counteract this skeptics forum? i like reading about different viewpoints, but the belligerence of his posts is totally unneeded. keep in mind that i have him on my ignore list, so my exposure to him is solely though other people having quoted what he says. despite this, i find him to be unnecessarily abrasive.

on the topic, i am a skeptical person, and a secular humanist. i have preconcieved notions, but i try to set them aside when i am looking at something that i don't necessarily think is true. i am not always successful, but i think that the attempt is at least worth something. at the very least, i can try to recognize where my own bias is present and try to remove it from the equation.

i also do not think that what we percieve is an illusion, it is simply reality as filtered through an imperfect and fundamentally sluggish biological system. since everyone's bilogical system is some what different in construction, it is natural that there is going to be some deviation in the results of the filtering.

[Dancing David]

mmm... barbeque...mmm...wings...mmm

How big are angel wings?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

i also do not think that what we percieve is an illusion, it is simply reality as filtered through an imperfect and fundamentally sluggish biological system.
Again, the word 'illusion' may not be ideal to describe the way we percieve things, but our perceptive/cognitive apparatus does a lot more than filter reality, and a lot more than distort it.

What we percieve is the output of a simulation. The simulation is updated with real-world data as often as is possible, but this mostly consists of selectively sampling those aspects of the surroundings that seem most likely to be the source of important data. What I think is interesting and important is what happens when real data is not available. What the brain does in these situations is to fabricate some data using default assumptions (in a manner that is anything but sluggish).

If I tell you that I had to stop on the side of the road to fix a flat tire while I was on my way to grandma's house, a little picture will form in your mind which may include a default car, roadside, grandma, and house. If we meet regularly, and I speak of grandma's house often, the madeup mental image you have may become fairly detailed, yet may be completely innacurate. If you had a chance to actually visit grandma's house, you might be surprised enough at the difference to remark, "This is nothing like I pictured it".

These fabricated data gap-fillers are integrated so seamlessly with the 'real' (though, remember, filtered) data that we may not always be able to tell (or remember) which is which.

We can choose what standard of evidence we will apply in evaluating things, but much of what we percieve we will accept automatically -- before this process of discernment even begins. Many things we accept without even noticing that we are accepting them. We will always be most limited by the assumptions that it never occurs to us to question.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Dymanic
(ME):So essentially, you're saying that all perceptions are
illusions. I agree with this completely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't agree, just say why; if your argument is compelling, this sort of comment is unnecessary.Actually it doesn't.


It fact, to suggest that somethings, our perceptions for example, are illusions, suggests that there are other things that are not. Things can only be illusions relative to more real versions of other things. If, as is in fact the case, the only way in which the world is knowable is through our perceptions then it is nonsensical to say that our perceptions are illusions. I simply find it irritating to hear people parroting back that kind of pat and sophomoric metaphysical "reality is an illusion" crud. Truth be told, compared to Ian and a number of the others in here I am pretty darn mild mannered.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
i don't meant to threadjack, but why does Ian bother posting on this forum? aren't there gullible forums that he can post to that counteract this skeptics forum? i like reading about different viewpoints, but the belligerence of his posts is totally unneeded. keep in mind that i have him on my ignore list, so my exposure to him is solely though other people having quoted what he says. despite this, i find him to be unnecessarily abrasive.

on the topic, i am a skeptical person, and a secular humanist. i have preconcieved notions, but i try to set them aside when i am looking at something that i don't necessarily think is true. i am not always successful, but i think that the attempt is at least worth something. at the very least, i can try to recognize where my own bias is present and try to remove it from the equation.

i also do not think that what we percieve is an illusion, it is simply reality as filtered through an imperfect and fundamentally sluggish biological system. since everyone's bilogical system is some what different in construction, it is natural that there is going to be some deviation in the results of the filtering.

Saying "reality as filtered through our imperfect and fundamentally sluggish biological system" is misleading. You make the error of supposing there is a reality in itself, the true reality so to speak, in addition to the reality as is realised through our perceptions. But there is only the latter. And the latter's characteristics are moulded to a large extent by many psychological factors. But that doesn't make that reality any less real. Indeed how could it since it is the only reality we have?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid


It fact, to suggest that somethings, our perceptions for example, are illusions, suggests that there are other things that are not. Things can only be illusions relative to more real versions of other things. If, as is in fact the case, the only way in which the world is knowable is through our perceptions then it is nonsensical to say that our perceptions are illusions. I simply find it irritating to hear people parroting back that kind of pat and sophomoric metaphysical "reality is an illusion" crud.

I agree.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Again, the word 'illusion' may not be ideal to describe the way we percieve things, but our perceptive/cognitive apparatus does a lot more than filter reality, and a lot more than distort it.

What we percieve is the output of a simulation. The simulation is updated with real-world data as often as is possible, but this mostly consists of selectively sampling those aspects of the surroundings that seem most likely to be the source of important data. What I think is interesting and important is what happens when real data is not available. What the brain does in these situations is to fabricate some data using default assumptions (in a manner that is anything but sluggish).

If I tell you that I had to stop on the side of the road to fix a flat tire while I was on my way to grandma's house, a little picture will form in your mind which may include a default car, roadside, grandma, and house. If we meet regularly, and I speak of grandma's house often, the madeup mental image you have may become fairly detailed, yet may be completely innacurate. If you had a chance to actually visit grandma's house, you might be surprised enough at the difference to remark, "This is nothing like I pictured it".

These fabricated data gap-fillers are integrated so seamlessly with the 'real' (though, remember, filtered) data that we may not always be able to tell (or remember) which is which.

We can choose what standard of evidence we will apply in evaluating things, but much of what we percieve we will accept automatically -- before this process of discernment even begins. Many things we accept without even noticing that we are accepting them. We will always be most limited by the assumptions that it never occurs to us to question.

thank you for the clarification. what you are saying seems reasonable.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by billydkid

It suggests that there is some other, more genuine way to percieve than though perception.Here is why I say it doesn't suggest that:

Regardless of what instruments we use to examine the world, any information we gather will ultimately have to be assessed by a human brain, and will therefore be subject to the limitations of that device.
to suggest that somethings, our perceptions for example, are illusions, suggests that there are other things that are not.
Think of the difference between a photograph and the subject of the photograph.
By implication there is NOTHING but illusion.
I don't believe for a second that no reality exists outside our minds. If that is what you mean, I completely agree that such a conclusion is 'metaphysical crud'. I simply say mean that our view of that will always be subjective.
I simply find it irritating to hear people parroting back that kind of pat and sophomoric metaphysical "reality is an illusion" crud. Truth be told, compared to Ian and a number of the others in here I am pretty darn mild mannered.
I am glad to see that you are enthusiastic about discussing this. I don't relish upsetting you, but I guess I would prefer that to boring you.

[plindboe]

I haven't read the entire thread so I apoligize if this has been covered already. In that case, just ignore me. ;)

I don't think that the need to believe cuts both ways. Religions are often happy fantasies, about us being reunited with our families in Heaven, where we will spend the rest of eternity. The Truth is not always pleasant. Personally I would love to believe that I wouldn't need to worry about death, losing my loved ones, and having a caring superbeing to watch over me, but I just find it too improbable to believe such, just because of a book. I have heard theists before say that they find the thought that this is the only life we have unbearable, which I find very saying.

Peter :)

[TillEulenspiegel]

EdipisReks :"i also do not think that what we perceive is an illusion, it is simply reality as filtered through an imperfect and fundamentally sluggish biological system"
Imperfect? Yes. Sluggish? Every school bus driver that picks up your kids ( for the sake of argument you have a family weather you like it or not) does trigonometry and calculus on the fly hundreds of times a day. Every time they go around a turn or when they approach a light and must slow down to stop or pass a slow car with opposing traffic . At the same time they are thinking that thier butt itches and the argument that they had with thier spouse was dumb and damn those kids thier sooo loud. Slow ? I'm not sure a Thinking Machine or a Cray 2 could do that in the same amount of time.
Dynamic :"output of a simulation"
Altho the definition in this case could be ., "a non perfect model presented as an approximation of reality", I prefer "representation" in regards to the final product of our observation of whatever stimulus.
The cause of science, and really most disinterested , neutral form of inquires , is to define the universe around us in an effort to understand the nature of the place that we exist in. The simple step of allowing or disallowing any outcome is anathema to the sense of inquiry at best and complete self-deception/fraud at worst.
Now as to existence of angels , gods,ghosts, etch. The proclamations of the believers are on "Holy Ground" as long as they embrace that thier beliefs stem from Faith that for me is fine . One cannot prove a negative hypothesis, so we cannot say with certainty that X does not exist , but as my late great friend Carl Sagan ( even tho I never met him ) said " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ". There ARE more things in heaven and on earth then are drempt of in all of our philosophies. So as far as I'm concerned a person that calls themselves a skeptic and who would be faced by a case that defies thier worldview and dismisses that , are as guilty of ignoring the truth as any voodoo which doctor or marginalised pastoral quack. The whole credo for the skeptic should be the Missouri licence plate motto ..."show me"

[Max560]

Saying "reality as filtered through our imperfect and fundamentally sluggish biological system" is misleading. You make the error of supposing there is a reality in itself, the true reality so to speak, in addition to the reality as is realised through our perceptions.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that there is a reality which we percieve through our imperfect and fundamentally sluggish biological system.

thinking that there is one reality, and another "reality as is realised through our perceptions." is of course incorrect:

"the reality as is realised through our perceptions" = our perceptions

our perceptions about a thing do not equal the thing percieved

bearing this in mind, lets look at the rest:

But there is only the latter. And the latter's characteristics are moulded to a large extent by many psychological factors. But that doesn't make that reality any less real. Indeed how could it since it is the only reality we have?

when properly read, this becomes:

But there is only our perception. And perceptions are moulded to a large extent by many psychological factors. But that doesn't make our ability to percieve any less real. Indeed how could it since it is the only perception we have?

So other than making the odd assertion that there is only our perception, you are stating that it is "moulded to a large extent by many psychological factors", which really is very similar in meaning to "reality as filtered through our imperfect and fundamentally sluggish biological system"

How strange

[BobK]

Which definition of illusion are you using?

From merriam-webster
Main Entry: il·lu·sion
Pronunciation: i-'lü-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin illusion-, illusio, from Latin, action of mocking, from illudere to mock at, from in- + ludere to play, mock -- more at LUDICROUS
Date: 14th century
1 a obsolete : the action of deceiving b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : MISAPPREHENSION (2) : an instance of such deception
2 a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : HALLUCINATION 1 (3) : a pattern capable of reversible perspective
3 : a fine plain transparent bobbinet or tulle usually made of silk and used for veils, trimmings, and dresses

The door to my apt. isn't an illusion. If try to leave my apt. without opening the door I get hurt.

[BobK]

Come on people. I thought everyone knew why angels have wings.

Their only capable of teleporting from heaven to the top of the atmosphere.

At that point they have to give themselves mass in order to be seen.

I think we all know what happens to an object with mass at the top of the atmosphere.

That ground comes up awful fast if you don't have wings.:D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Max560


our perceptions about a thing do not equal the thing percieved

[/B]

And your whole argument rests on this claim. A claim which you do not seek to defend.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


And your whole argument rests on this claim. A claim which you do not seek to defend.

I suppose I will have to rely on the entire body of science in the interim.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I didn't say they weren't telling the truth (i.e. not lying). I said we don't know if they were telling the Truth (i.e. reporting events as they actually occured). Are you so tied to your beliefs that you cannot admit that it is possible that they made a mistake or error? Are you open to the possiblity that maybe angels really don't exist? Who is being closed-minded now?

I'm going to answer you by making another claim, again, one which is totally baseless and anecdotal--and one which, in my world view, ranks on the "improbable scale" at roughly the same order of magnitude as Mrs. Howard's and Rev. Cathey's claims: I have met George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu. I met him at dinner at the theme restaurant in the center of LAX airport.

Now, speaking theoretically, is it possible that I was hallucinating? Is it possible that I suffered from false memory syndrome? Theoretically, I suppose it is. Is it possible that I mistook some other oriental-looking chap for Mr. Takei? I suppose so, but if I did then four teenage girls made the same mistake. Is it possible that my memory is flawed? Oh, yes, more than possible: I could not tell you what Mr. Takei was wearing or what date this encounter took place upon, although I am certain it came after the release of Star Trek IV and before filming began on Star Trek V. Am I, then, open to the possibility that I never actually met George Takei at all?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, HELL NO, A THOUSAND TIMES: NO!!! I am a lifelong Star Trek fan; I have seen virtually every one of the original series shows; I have Star Trek I-VI on tape; one of my best friends in high school is a past president of the "Starbase Houston" fan club. This was a life experience for me; it is something which I fully expect that I will never forget. I was there, I saw and talked with George Takei, I went back to his table and asked him a question which he was gracious enough to answer, I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! For this, then, do you label me "close-minded?" If so, then bring on the label gun!

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between not believing and suspension of belief. You ask me, for example, to believe that angels exist. You present testimonials from people saying they saw an angel. But those people were testifying from memory, which we know is falablem, of how they perceived the event, which we know can be in error. So, we need to validate the testimony. But how can we do that? The question has been left unanswered, so the original premise "Do angels exist?" remains unanswered.

And the problem with that is that too many people are content to let it remain unanswered or, even worse, to presume an answer which is in conflict with what testimony we have, both ancient and modern. I have seen people in this thread bring up pixies, Santa Claus, and the invisible pink unicorn in their effort to make this subject look ridiculous; the difference is that there is not a three thousand year tradition and record of serious and credible encounters with pixies, Santa Claus, and the IPU!

Once again, I am not trying to compel belief with my stories. I am trying to show that prejudice and presumption color response to them. As you correctly note, the question of angels remains unanswered. If they do in fact exist, then why would an encounter like Rev. Cathey's be any more improbable then my encounter with George Takei? Presuming that it is, and presuming that hallucinations, false memory syndrome, or any of the other straws at which you grasp are more likely explanations than the plain facts as stated by Rev. Cathey is presuming the conclusion to the point in question.

[Globert]

the difference in ones willingness to accomodate supposed illogical evidence remains moot as long as one at least looks at said divine/heretical/only-because-i-filtered-it evidence. It would be unacceptable to reject anything out of hand.

And as far as who rejects out of hand more than who could not be more juvenile.

Note: I did say evidence, speculation/hearsay may be rejected without occular proof (no slight to the blind).

I do wonder how many skeptics are 2nd or 3rd generation critical thinkers, perhaps some one could direct me to a relevant thread.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Max560

And your whole argument rests on this claim. A claim which you do not seek to defend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I suppose I will have to rely on the entire body of science in the interim.

{Shrugs}

I'm afraid it won't help you one iota.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


{Shrugs}

I'm afraid it won't help you one iota.

I'm afraid it has.

(adjusts self)

[Loki]

Eric,

Claim 1 : "I have met George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu. I met him at dinner at the theme restaurant in the center of LAX airport."

Claim 2 : "I have met George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu. He simply appeared unannounced in the middle of the kitchen of my local church one day. No one else saw him, and when I turned around he was gone. He said nothing."

Now, I'm prepared to accept Claim 1, but I'm struggling a little with Claim 2. Neither involves anything paranormal or spiritual, so my potential "bias" against such topics is not a concern here. Any idea why I find Claim 2 less credible??

Claim 3 : "Mrs Howard, a lovely women from my church encountered an Angel in the theme resturant in LAX airport one day. She chatted with this Angel, and 4 teenage girls had their photo taken with the Angel."

Claim 4 : "Mrs Howard, a lovely women from my church encountered an Angel . No one else saw this Angel, and the Angel said nothing. When she turned around, the Angel was gone."

Now, I find both Claim 3 and Claim 4 hard to accept (good old worldview-bias coming into play there), yet Claim 3 is one I feel I need to give some consideration to. Claim 4 doesn't feel anywhere near as worthy of my attention. Why do you thing that might be???

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
EdipisReks :
Imperfect? Yes. Sluggish? Every school bus driver that picks up your kids ( for the sake of argument you have a family weather you like it or not) does trigonometry and calculus on the fly hundreds of times a day. Every time they go around a turn or when they approach a light and must slow down to stop or pass a slow car with opposing traffic . At the same time they are thinking that thier butt itches and the argument that they had with thier spouse was dumb and damn those kids thier sooo loud.

yes, sluggish. the human nervous system can only process information as fast as a neural impulse can travel down a nerve. that is signifigantly slower than real time.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

yes, sluggish. the human nervous system can only process information as fast as a neural impulse can travel down a nerve. that is signifigantly slower than real time.
Just how fast is real time exactly?

[Fun2BFree]

Eric has decided to redifine the meaning of extraordinary...

Loki gets to the point by showing the idea earlier stated that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Eric says this depends on what one defines as extraordinary...well if seeing an angel is not extraordinary why are we talking about it? He didn't tell us about the nice lady seeing the sun come up in the East. No. Even seeing a celebrity is not particularly extraordinary. Ample, multiple, independent lines of evidence support George Takei's existence.

I am not sure what eric defines as an angel- but apparently it is not something that ever in the 3000 years it has been reported has been able to have been shown to exist in the same way so much of the rest of the world has been shown to exist during that same 3000 years. -molecules, atoms, electricity, gravity...In 3000 years those pesky angels have escaped the same sorts of proofs so much of the rest of the real world has nailed down. Sure.
Many ideas have come and gone in those 3000 years. Scientific reasoning is only a few hundred years old. What I believe or eric believes or what others have believed for 3000 years is not something that scientific reasoning accepts as evidence. Eric has a hard time with this idea of logic and reason. He suffers the same delusion common to all people of faith and distinctly absent in a true skeptic- the delusion that what any individual thinks to be true means or proves anything. All believers are ultimately arrogant egomaniacs by definition---the truth is determined by what convinces them- the believer...in skepticism the truth is what everyone would come to believe independently---what any one person thinks is irrelevant--what does the evidence support?
For the current example-- forget extraordingary evidence---this would be fairly oridinary evidence if it existed---let's hear a description of an angel from someone who had NEVER been taught the concept of angels. They should be able to describe what they see even if they don't know what to call it. Yet it never happens. That is what science strives for--an OBJECTIVE DECRIPTION-- try to do it by eliminating as many biases as you possibly can-measure it with as reliable an instrument as you can (not usually human recollection colored by years of indoctrination and bathed in certain cultural ideas) -look at it in different lights and from different angles. (not angels)--this is the path to true knowledge and certainty in what you know....

then there is eric's way---maybe the truth can be arrived at without scientific method- maybe just accepting what you are handed down from the big book about Casper the ghost in the sky is the path to truth--of course there is no evidence to support that --that would be too scientific.
Faith=Ignorance masquerading as knowledge.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ehbowen

..............................

I have seen people in this thread bring up pixies, Santa Claus, and the invisible pink unicorn in their effort to make this subject look ridiculous..................


Why would you think this invoves any 'effort', and that we have to ' make ' this subject ( angels ) look ridiculous..

Since you are convinced angels exist, can you describe one for me?

I can show you a picture of George Takei..... I wouldn't question your story of an encounter with him for a moment.. I wouldn't care...
Once again, I am not trying to compel belief with my stories. As well you shouldn't.. But why the example of ' angels ' ?

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by ehbowen


I'm going to answer you by making another claim, again, one which is totally baseless and anecdotal--and one which, in my world view, ranks on the "improbable scale" at roughly the same order of magnitude as Mrs. Howard's and Rev. Cathey's claims: I have met George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu. I met him at dinner at the theme restaurant in the center of LAX airport.



Let's apply Occam's razor here: We know that George Takei exists. We know that LAX exists. Therefore, we have everything we need to explain the encounter.

Conversely, we do not know that angels exist. It is best to first explain the "angelic" encounter in terms of things we know, such as hallucination, people walking around the church in fake wings (was it around Christmastime, by any chance?) and other things whose existence is not merely assumed based on negligible evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Max560


I'm afraid it has.

(adjusts self)

You don't understand, it doesn't help you to convince Ian and it never will. Ian doesn't let simple things, like facts, get in the way of his beliefs. There is no such thing as objective evidence to Ian, no experiments or repeats of experiments can ever convince Ian that his beliefs are false. He is a militant paranormalist. He believes in "metaphysics" and other such nonsense, he believes that the mind actually creates reality. He probably levitates when no person is watching.

With Ian, the glass isn't half-empty or half-full. The glass a deception of science, not to be trusted.

[Upchurch]

Pardon my absense. I was on the road all day yesterday.Originally posted by ehbowen

I have met George Takei, Star Trek's Mr. Sulu.I am skeptical of this claim as well. The difference, however, is that this claim has the potential of cooborating evidence. We can find George Takei and ask him the question, "Have you ever met Eric Bowen?" If he says "yes," your claim has supporting evidence. If he says "no," it means we must look elsewhere to support your claim. Perhaps the four teenage girls.

Regardless, there are ways of verifying whether this claim is true, unlike Mrs. Howard's, et al, claim.
Am I, then, open to the possibility that I never actually met George Takei at all?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, HELL NO, A THOUSAND TIMES: NO!!!

[snip]

I was there, I saw and talked with George Takei, I went back to his table and asked him a question which he was gracious enough to answer, I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! For this, then, do you label me "close-minded?" If so, then bring on the label gun!Label gun it is, then, because that is precisely what means to be closed minded. Further, this is what you are accusing skeptics of being. You claim that we reject the stories of others soley because WE KNOW ANGELS AREN'T REAL and that we're not open to the idea that they might be. (even though this thread shows that isn't the case) I claim that you reject the possibility that you didn't meet George Takei because YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED and that you are not open to the idea that maybe you didn't.
And the problem with that is that too many people are content to let it remain unanswered or, even worse, to presume an answer which is in conflict with what testimony we have, both ancient and modern. I have seen people in this thread bring up pixies, Santa Claus, and the invisible pink unicorn in their effort to make this subject look ridiculous; the difference is that there is not a three thousand year tradition and record of serious and credible encounters with pixies, Santa Claus, and the IPU!You're right. I don't know that there are thousand year old traditions of pixies, Santa Claus and unicorns. But there are for dragons. And astrology. And a flat Earth. And Egyptian gods.

Ancient testimony doesn't give a claim any stronger of a leg to stand on just because it is old or has been told for a long time. Human minds and perceptions were just as falible in ancient times as they are today. Indoctrination can account for the pre-disposition to label phenomena as "dragons", "pixies", or "angels" over long periods of time.

Anecdotal evidence simply isn't sufficient, no matter how many people it comes from or from when.
Once again, I am not trying to compel belief with my stories. I am trying to show that prejudice and presumption color response to them. As you correctly note, the question of angels remains unanswered. If they do in fact exist, then why would an encounter like Rev. Cathey's be any more improbable then my encounter with George Takei?
Again, because we can verify your encounter with George Takei. There is no mechanism to verify Rev. Cathey's encounter with the angel because the angel is unavailable.
Presuming that it is, and presuming that hallucinations, false memory syndrome, or any of the other straws at which you grasp are more likely explanations than the plain facts as stated by Rev. Cathey is presuming the conclusion to the point in question. So, would you say that any answer to the question is better then determining the correct answer to the question? As a skeptic, I would prefer to find the correct answer rather than to take people's word for it. If Rev. Cathey's answer is the correct one, the facts should bear that out. If Rev. Cathey's answer is not the correct one, the facts should bear that out too. You've already made up your mind and thus closed it on the matter, not even accepting the possibility that you might have made a mistake. I have not.

[Upchurch]

ehbowen,

I've been thinking about it and why don't we consider a different example. How many thousands (millions?) of people have seen UFOs and/or had close encounters with aliens? One would assume that these aliens are physical rather than spiritual in nature, but there is an accute lack of conclusive physical evidence from any of these encounters.

Do you believe that aliens continually and routinely visit our planet? Why or why not?

[Barkhorn1x]

ehbowen,

Upchurch has coverd what my response to your rant would have been pretty well.

I just want to add that your inability to see the difference between your first 2 examples and your last says more about your (closed) mindset than it does about my skeptical mindset.

Show me some CREDIBLE proof that angels - or God - exist and I WILL change my mind!

Barkhorn.

[Upchurch]

Barkhorn,

Sorry if I stole any of your thunder with my posts. Just one thing you said that I wanted to comment on.Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
Show me some CREDIBLE proof that angels - or God - exist and I WILL change my mind! I don't think that it isn't that there isn't credible proof for the existance of angels. I'm sure Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey have plenty of credibility. It's just that the evidence they present (i.e. anecdotal evidence) isn't conclusive.

There are several different possibile explinations that fit the given facts: Mrs. Howard remembers seeing an angel. How can we know which explination is correct without conclusive evidence?

Show me some conclusive proof that angels - or God - exist and I will also change my mind. I, and I believe that skeptics in general, try to let the facts dictate my beliefs rather than letting my beliefs dictate the facts. This is why skeptics do not have a "Need To Believe" (i.e. a need to force a particular belief to preservere)

I suppose that one could say that the only thing that skeptics (or at least I) take for granted is that there is some form of reality that is True, whatever that form of reality is. I'm perfectly willing to accept that that True reality, or Reality for simplicity's sake, is nothing like the reality I currently perceive if there is something that shows conclusively that my current reality isn't Reality.

In my above example, for instance, I do not believe that Earth is visited by aliens. If someone were to bring me conclusive proof that Earth is visited by aliens, my current view of reality would be tossed out the window and I would accept a new reality which is hopefully closer to Reality.

With skeptics, it is a step-by-step process of continual improvement and refinement in the understanding of reality with the ultimate goal of understanding Reality. A non-skeptic, who doesn't question their own faith-based beliefs by definition of the word "faith", is stuck with the assumption that their reality is Reality without any verificiation or validation.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I, and I believe that skeptics in general, try to let the facts dictate my beliefs rather than letting my beliefs dictate the facts.
Hear, hear!

We try. And the really skeptical skeptics acknowledge that we do not always succeed. We are reminded of this every time our view of something is replaced with one that is better supported by evidence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I, and I believe that skeptics in general, try to let the facts dictate my beliefs rather than letting my beliefs dictate the facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dymanic
Hear, hear!

We try.

And fail dismally.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Just how fast is real time exactly?

real time is as fast as it actually takes for an event to happen. i'm assuming that you are taking umbrage with my claim that the human nervous system does not operate in real time relative to the events that it is sensing.

nerve impulses have to travel along a physical pathway, and they do this at a speed much slower than light. even though the "image" from an event hits your eye at the speed of light, the impulses from your eye have to travel via nerve fiber to your brain, where the relatively slow brain has to decode the stimuli (don't forget that everything your eyes present to your brain is upside down), send it to the proper part of the brain for processing, process the data, and then send a new stimul to whatever nerve controls whatever part or parts of the body that the brain has decided need to act upon the event stimuli that the brain originally recieved. this takes time. it is certainly slower than real time. this is why somethings, like car crashes, often seem to happen out of no where. the events are manifesting themselves too fast for the brain to register them and process the data.

think of the human nervous system like an astronomers telescope: distant cosmic events seem like they are happening in real time, but in reality a great deal of time has passed since those cosmic events actually happened.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


And fail dismally. says the man with his eyes shut, his fingers firmly in his ears, and singing "la la la"

Yes, Ian. Of course, Ian. Whatever you say, Ian. :rolleyes:

<hr>
Even though I feel this discussion is off topic
Originally posted by Interesting Ian Originally posted by Max560

our perceptions about a thing do not equal the thing percieved

And your whole argument rests on this claim. A claim which you do not seek to defend. And often your arguments seem to rest on the claim that our perceptions about a thing do equal the thing perceived. A claim you also seem uninterested in defending, despite rather obvious examples to the contrary.

Go play in another sandbox, Ian.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

i'm assuming that you are taking umbrage with my claim that the human nervous system does not operate in real time relative to the events that it is sensing.
Not at all. In fact it illustrates beautifully why our actions are formulated on our internal simulation of the world rather than on direct data from the real world itself. We anticipate what is going to happen next and respond accordingly. I agree that processing actual real-world data takes place too slowly to enable us to respond to fast-moving threats. What I regard as impressive is the speed with which the brain is able to provide dummy data and use it to fill in the gaps.

This dummy data is based on default assumptions, which are greatly influenced by the world view already in place. I think this is partly why all of us, skeptic and non-skeptic alike, are resistant to changing that view; it is a critical structure in formulating rapid responses. Again, we live in a world where a guess with 50% accuracy -- in the first 200 milliseconds -- is often better than one with 90% accuracy, if it takes two seconds to reach. A car travelling 60 mph goes 176 feet in two seconds.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Not at all. In fact it illustrates beautifully why our actions are formulated on our internal simulation of the world rather than on direct data from the real world itself. We anticipate what is going to happen next and respond accordingly. I agree that processing actual real-world data takes place too slowly to enable us to respond to fast-moving threats. What I regard as impressive is the speed with which the brain is able to provide dummy data and use it to fill in the gaps.

This dummy data is based on default assumptions, which are greatly influenced by the world view already in place. I think this is partly why all of us, skeptic and non-skeptic alike, are resistant to changing that view; it is a critical structure in formulating rapid responses. Again, we live in a world where a guess with 50% accuracy -- in the first 200 milliseconds -- is often better than one with 90% accuracy, if it takes two seconds to reach. A car travelling 60 mph goes 176 feet in two seconds.

well, we are in perfect agreement on this. cheers :)

[Max560]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


And fail dismally.

And you're a halfwit.

Fortunately, the nature of reality isn't subject to your approval.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Graham
Do you have no doubt, Eric? Don't you ever think "Maybe I'm wrong" or "Maybe I'm mistaken".

Frequently. And if I am wrong, then I want to be right. The question which that logically leads to, though, is: If I am wrong but want to know the truth, what steps should I be taking, what change should I make in the direction of my life, which would result in my discovering the actual truth? And my best assessment of that question is that, even if I am wrong, I would do nothing different from what I am doing. I would continue to go to work every day, I would continue to treat others well, I would continue to give to religious organizations, food banks, and homeless shelters, and so on.

A person should always doubt, in my opinion. Doubt what they are told and even doubt their own senses. we are, after all, only human, flesh and blood and prone to error. Take a look at this picture (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html) , which was featured in Randi's commentary some time ago. Do those two squares look the same colour to you? They don't to me. If we can be mistaken about something so simple as coloured squares, shouldn't we doubt more the complex constructions of religion?

Doubt? Not necessarily. Should I doubt that I ever met Leonard Nimoy at Toys 'R Us back during the '70's? There comes a point at which one can be reasonably certain and proceed based upon that certainty. Now, did I originally come to my religious beliefs based upon "the results of modern scientific investigation?" No, I was brought up with them and accepted them from childhood (although there was a significant detour when I became briefly but intensely caught up in what is now known as the "New Age"). I would submit to you, though, that in a significant question which promises to have a major impact upon your life, it is better to be right through indoctrination than to be wrong as the result of logical and rational questioning and investigation.

The important aspect of this, though, is that I have not been content to passively accept the beliefs with which I was indoctrinated; rather, I have sought to actively test them. That is why you will hear me say that I have been actively seeking God for the past twenty years and that I fully expect an answer. And, having tested my beliefs, I find that they pass the test. I have seen answered prayer. I have experienced God's presence and comfort. I have seen signs which indicate to me that God plans to more than adequately answer the requests which I have made to him. There comes a point in that process, when one has seen consistent results, that it becomes more ridiculous to doubt than to accept as tried and trustworthy. I do not mean to say that one should stop the process of testing and questioning, but that one should be able to confidently predict and expect the desired results.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Interesting you should say this, since presenting someone with a credible story that opposes their worldview, would be a reasonable impetus for them to change it...

An incontrovertible story would be a reasonable impetus to change it. I do not by any means suggest that the stories I mention are incontrovertible. But a credible story (and I do believe these stories are credible) should be reason to question, to test, to critically examine underlying assumptions. It is not sufficient to compel people to discard an otherwise useful set of beliefs. But it should be an indicator, if not a warning, that the jury is still out.

[billydkid]

I have to say, when I read tales like those starting this thread, however quaint, however earnestly told and however sincere sounding the person posting it may be, at bottom, my gut reaction is I feel like my chain is being yanked. or to put a finer point on it, I feel like I am being lied to. I don't doubt for one moment that there are people who have belief systems and agendas related to those belief systems who are perfectly willing to concoct stories in order to attempt to legitimize their belief system in the eyes of others. I have personally known people - "Born Again Christians" - who have done this. I believe these sorts of people are only too happy to take advantage of most other folks general inclination to take people at their words unless they are given a reason not to.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch
However, that being said. If what Darwin says is true, than this certainly might also explain the event that Mrs. Howard experienced. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Bowen?

"Might?" Yes, and the South Texas Nuclear Project "might" spew radiation all over south Texas tomorrow morning. But, speaking as a former Nuclear Power School graduate, I say that neither possibility is worthy of serious consideration. You may be a fanatic Greenpeace and Sierra Club member and view the probabilities differently. Once again--preconceptions.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Loki
Eric,

I must say, the point of this thread seems fairly obvious - we filter "evidence" through our current worldview to decide how credible it is. This of course means that evidence that contradicts that worldview is (at least initially) likely to be assigned a "low credibility". Is there any thing else you were trying to say? This hardly seems like "news", nor does it seem all that controversal?

Well, seeing as this is my first attempt at starting a thread and I've (so far) managed to pull 148 posts out of it, I think I must have touched a nerve somewhere!

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
The wings? What about the wings?:confused:

Why do angels need them?

Well, I don't think they "need" them in the same way birds do, but--Zechariah 5:9; I think a cute girl with wings would definitely be worth a second look!

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Loki


Claim 3 : "Mrs Howard, a lovely women from my church encountered an Angel in the theme resturant in LAX airport one day. She chatted with this Angel, and 4 teenage girls had their photo taken with the Angel."

Claim 4 : "Mrs Howard, a lovely women from my church encountered an Angel . No one else saw this Angel, and the Angel said nothing. When she turned around, the Angel was gone."

Now, I find both Claim 3 and Claim 4 hard to accept (good old worldview-bias coming into play there), yet Claim 3 is one I feel I need to give some consideration to. Claim 4 doesn't feel anywhere near as worthy of my attention. Why do you thing that might be???

Actually, I find Claim 3 harder to accept than claim 4, because it is inconsistent with the other credible accounts of angels. At least up until now, angels have not left traces which would compel belief by those who do not choose to believe (the photograph). They have not appeared in public places, especially before unbelievers. And while it appears that they are not unwilling to chat (see Rev. Cathey's story), in such cases where they do the person with which they talk does not recognize them as being an angel until after the encounter is over. So claim 4 is consistent with other accounts of angels, but to accept claim 3 I would require supporting, if not conclusive, evidence.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch

So, would you say that any answer to the question is better then determining the correct answer to the question? As a skeptic, I would prefer to find the correct answer rather than to take people's word for it. If Rev. Cathey's answer is the correct one, the facts should bear that out. If Rev. Cathey's answer is not the correct one, the facts should bear that out too. You've already made up your mind and thus closed it on the matter, not even accepting the possibility that you might have made a mistake. I have not.

I am not open to accept the possibility that I made a mistake about my encounter with George Takei; that is a fact of which I have personal experience and about which I am certain. I am open to considering the possibility that I am wrong about my evaluations of Rev. Cathey's and Mrs. Howard's stories. However, I must have a good reason for altering my initial evaluation of them. False memories and hallucinations and so forth are not good reasons; I have no more reason to doubt that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey would misremember or otherwise be incompetent observers of their respective situations than I have to believe that I might not be a competent observer of my encounter with Mr. Takei. I mentioned that that was a "life experience" for me; I would confidently expect that Rev. Cathey's and Mrs. Howard's encounters were equally once-in-a-lifetime experiences for them.

As you mention, we need to come to the correct answer, not just any answer. I feel confident--not certain, mind you, but confident--that I am correctly interpreting Mrs. Howard's and Rev. Cathey's experiences. So far, nobody has given any good reason for me to challenge those conclusions. I can understand that you do not share my conclusions--but for what reason? Is there, in fact, a reason? Or is it merely the consequences of your underlying presumption? Who is, in fact, more likely to be correct?

[JesFine]

Originally posted by ehbowen

I would submit to you, though, that in a significant question which promises to have a major impact upon your life, it is better to be right through indoctrination than to be wrong as the result of logical and rational questioning and investigation.


Maybe. But isn't it better (and aren't you more likely) to determine what is "right" or "wrong" by examining the evidence rather than to blindly follow what some random indoctrination tells you? To me, the more significant the question, the more likely I am going to question EVERYTHING anyone tells me.



The important aspect of this, though, is that I have not been content to passively accept the beliefs with which I was indoctrinated; rather, I have sought to actively test them. That is why you will hear me say that I have been actively seeking God for the past twenty years and that I fully expect an answer. And, having tested my beliefs, I find that they pass the test. I have seen answered prayer. I have experienced God's presence and comfort. I have seen signs which indicate to me that God plans to more than adequately answer the requests which I have made to him.


Can you give us some examples of this? How do you know, for example, that the prayer was actually needed? I have seen many examples of prayer that was not answered. Why? Can you make a prediction now that will come true based on these theories? All these questions (and more) must be answered in order to convince a skeptic of the truth of your claims.


There comes a point in that process, when one has seen consistent results, that it becomes more ridiculous to doubt than to accept as tried and trustworthy. I do not mean to say that one should stop the process of testing and questioning, but that one should be able to confidently predict and expect the desired results.

But it is impossible to know for sure the consistency of the results unless you have systematicaly recorded them. Have you? Have there ever been any false positives? How do you know unless you have kept meticulous track.


But a credible story (and I do believe these stories are credible) should be reason to question, to test, to critically examine underlying assumptions. It is not sufficient to compel people to discard an otherwise useful set of beliefs. But it should be an indicator, if not a warning, that the jury is still out.


But you have said repeatedly that you believe these stories. That you have seen the power of God/prayer/etc. This is not an indication that the jury is still out for you. If you noticed, most of us are not saying that it is a fact that Ms. Howard did not see the angel, only that it is a)probable that she did not, and b)until there is better evidence than "some guy on the internet says that she said she saw one, and oh yeah, she is credible", we will go ahead and assume she did not see one. If the evidence for angels approaches that of the evidence for relativity/evolution, etc. Believe me, NOT ONE skeptic will say there is no such thing as angels. So for us, the jury truly is out.


False memories and hallucinations and so forth are not good reasons


This is plain wrong. False memories and hallucinations are a FACT of human experience. Everyone has them, just not everyone knows about them. If you care to read up on them, I (and I'm sure other people) can show you plenty of literature on the subjects.


I feel confident--not certain, mind you, but confident--that I am correctly interpreting Mrs. Howard's and Rev. Cathey's experiences.


Maybe you are. But what would convince you that you are not correctly interpreting them? I will tell you now, that if you showed me evidence like that supporting evolution, I would agree in a heartbeat. Can you tell me what evidence you would need to see to tell you that you are incorrect? A theory that is not falsifiable is not a good theory.


So far, nobody has given any good reason for me to challenge those conclusions. I can understand that you do not share my conclusions--but for what reason?


Well, I disagree. This thread is full of good reasons. Please be specific and I'm sure people will be glad to clarify anything.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ehbowen

.....................
At least up until now, angels have not left traces which would compel belief by those who do not choose to believe (the photograph). They have not appeared in public places, especially before unbelievers....................


Hello!!!:rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ehbowen
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Diogenes
The wings? What about the wings?

Why do angels need them?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I don't think they "need" them in the same way birds do, but--Zechariah 5:9; I think a cute girl with wings would definitely be worth a second look!


Thanks for taking the time to respond. Especially to my sarcastic, rhetorical jabs.. You display an admirable level of tolerance and sincerity...


But really, continuing in the mood of skepticism, which you must understand is the fundemental nature of the JREF forums.... and this has been hinted at in this thread once or twice.....

How is one to reasonably know, they are viewing and angel?

If you choose to say something like ... " You'll know it when you see one ..." I'll leave it at that.. And keep my eyes open.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch

And your whole argument rests on this claim. A claim which you do not seek to defend. And often your arguments seem to rest on the claim that our perceptions about a thing do equal the thing perceived. A claim you also seem uninterested in defending, despite rather obvious examples to the contrary.

Go play in another sandbox, Ian. [/B]

Care to name any of these obvious examples?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Max560


And you're a halfwit.

Fortunately, the nature of reality isn't subject to your approval.

How sad that you should feel the need to insult me.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by ehbowen


I am not open to accept the possibility that I made a mistake about my encounter with George Takei; that is a fact of which I have personal experience and about which I am certain.


The believer has revealed the fundamental point of contention--DOES REALITY EXIST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE? Believers answer is yes, skeptics is no. He clearly states that his personal experience is certainty. No skeptic can share this certainty with you about your experience or our own--we seek confirmation- independent confirmation. All of the other nonsense that you wrote about answered prayers shares the same problem..the instrument being used to measure the effect is flawed-it is you. The human brain. The easiest person to fool is YOU, yourself--and I don't mean you eric, imean you, me, the whole audience that Randi or Penn and Teller fool with their magic. The scientific method SEEKS to eliminate the observer bias to get independently verifieable truth. But it is vulnerable because it is still made up of people just like you who have seen and catalogued their observations that show (for example): homeopathy works, or astrology works, or even that hormone replacement therapy reduces heart disease--all not independently verifiable because the observers who reported it have fooled themselves by not getting the infomation in a skeptical, scientific, methodical manner that eliminates the problem of bias about which you are not aware.
This is my major beef with religion and it's fundamental assumptions are completely self-serving, arrogant, egomaniacal that the universe was not only created just for you, but it's rules exist based on what you personally say and experience, with no regard for your fallibility. You start by saying we are all sinners and fallible but the whole thing is based on your supposedly infallible belief -it is all starting and founded on what is in your head---that you know exactly what in the world is going on---Skepticism starts by saying we don't know what in the world is going on by our own observation--that reality exists independent of our observations -that what is in our heads may or may not coincide with reality--but that we can know if something is real in our heads best by verification, testing, and removing OUR own beliefs from the equation as much as possible. All god beliefs (deism included) and their associated friends-devils, prayers, angels, etc cannot pass such testing.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


How sad that you should feel the need to insult me.

As if your glib one liners are designed to enlighten.


I'm afraid it won't help you one iota.


And fail dismally.

Hmm...no insults here.

You seem to have this expectation that you get to go around half-cocked, and hurtle insults at everyone who doesn't automaticly agree with you, and then act all hurt when when someone calls you on your foolish suppositions, and your rabid refusal to accept emperical evidence to test validity of claims.

In any case, you may drop the "How sad that you fell the need to insult me" routine, as I don't care how you feel about it, and your hypocracy in regards to insults pretty much undermines your credibility in the innocent victim role.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Thanks for taking the time to respond. Especially to my sarcastic, rhetorical jabs.. You display an admirable level of tolerance and sincerity...

I find there is no better comeback to a jab than a perfectly serious reply. Deadpan humor, if you will....;)


How is one to reasonably know, they are viewing and angel?

If you choose to say something like ... " You'll know it when you see one ..." I'll leave it at that.. And keep my eyes open.

It depends on what the angel wants you to know. If God allows them to let you know what they are up front, they can put on quite a show; see some of the descriptions in Ezekiel and Daniel. But if not, then you won't know about it until later. Perhaps minutes later, as in the case of Rev. Cathey. Maybe not until years later....

I'm going to tell you my own story. Nine years ago I met a girl at Disney World. The circumstances of the meeting were such that it stuck in my mind. We chatted and enjoyed the park for two hours. She told me that she was working there for the summer. I wanted to keep in touch with her, so I sent three letters in care of the place where she said she worked. I never heard back from her.

Five years later I had a dream. A dream in which I saw her again. And in that dream, she told me she was an angel.

Now, I know what you are going to say. And I am not expecting this story to convince anybody; had I thought it had enough meat to be compelling, I would have used it up front. I know you would say that the most probable explanation is that I met a nice, perfectly ordinary human girl, that I had the memory of that meeting kicking around my brain mixed in with my ongoing fascination with the subject of angels, and that on a random night my brain just happened to put the two together.

And I would agree with you. That is, in fact, the most probable explanation. But I am not now concerned with the probabilities; what drives me is the hope of the reward connected with the possibility. I want to meet that girl again. And I want to be able to ask her some serious and direct questions.

[Darwin]

Sorry to interrupt you but what might these questions be if I may ask?

[thaiboxerken]

If God allows them to let you know what they are up front, they can put on quite a show; see some of the descriptions in Ezekiel and Daniel. But if not, then you won't know about it until later.

Bwahahha! Why don't you just say "oh you'll know"? It's a much simpler way to communicate your fallacy.

And in that dream, she told me she was an angel.

LOL. LMAO. What's it mean when a person dreams their kids are possessed by demons and the only exorcism would be drowning?

Your belief system is dangerous, you just haven't had the bad dreams yet.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by BobK
Come on people. I thought everyone knew why angels have wings.

Their only capable of teleporting from heaven to the top of the atmosphere.

At that point they have to give themselves mass in order to be seen.

I think we all know what happens to an object with mass at the top of the atmosphere.

That ground comes up awful fast if you don't have wings.:D
Yeh....the renaissance artists didn't have parachutes to work with so wings filled the gap in a pinch.

[Yahzi]

ehbowen
But I am not now concerned with the probabilities; what drives me is the hope of the reward connected with the possibility.
This statement says it all. You know we are right, you know that Mrs. Howard was wrong about what she saw, you know that the probablity that Mrs. Howard correctly interpreted her experience despite all scientific evidence is vanishingly small, and you don't care.

Next time just say right at the beginning of the argument: "I don't care about probablity, or reason, or truth. I only care about the personal reward."

This is what we have been saying all along: you are motivated by your desires. Your preconceptions are based not on past evidence, but on personal desire. This is the traditional meaning of preconception, and hence it is correct to say that skeptics don't have preconceptions in this traditional sense, but you do.

I admit I am a little surprised that you so openly confessed it. But I imagine you will find a way to wriggle out.

I want to meet that girl again. And I want to be able to ask her some serious and direct questions.
I can only imagine the reaction when you corner this poor person and inflict your delusions upon her. I hope you are prepared to go to jail.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Darwin
Sorry to interrupt you but what might these questions be if I may ask?

First and foremost, "Who and what are you, really?"

Secondly, I'd like to ask a whole series of questions which mainly deal with the subject of, "Why does the biblical revelation which we have appear to be inconsistent with our current best understanding of so many issues?" I'm thinking in both scientific and societal (moral) terms here. Our scientific understanding has been steadily progressing over the centuries while the amount of divine revelation has remained static; it is high time for some new revelation. What is, in fact, the actual truth?

Thirdly, I'm curious about the spiritual realm. How is it, in fact, organized? What roles do angels actually play, and how closely are they engaged with the human world?

Additionally, I would like to ask a lot of questions which are strictly personal. I have, for twenty years now, wanted to have the opportunity to get to know angels as people. What are their likes and dislikes? What are their hopes and dreams and aspirations? What is their take on humans and human society?

Finally, and most importantly, I want to ask: "How can I get in touch with you again?" I am not just looking for a one-time encounter. I set my sights higher than that years ago. I am looking for nothing less than ongoing, permanent, two-way communication. And I believe I can and will get what I ask for.

[Darwin]

So this is what you would be asking from this young girl? (whom I referred to)

Thank you for writing a reply that long.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ehbowen

Secondly, I'd like to ask a whole series of questions which mainly deal with the subject of, "Why does the biblical revelation which we have appear to be inconsistent with our current best understanding of so many issues?"
So you already understand that Biblical revelation makes no sense. And yet, you believe it anyway.

The reason you want to find an angel is so she can explain why the Bible makes no sense. The reason you are looking for angels in the first place is because you believe the Bible in the first place.

You want an angel to make sensible (and hence believable) your belief in angels.

How can even you not see the insanity here?



BTW - believing in something that you readily admit makes no sense is the kind of preconception that skeptics do not have.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Yahzi
ehbowen

This statement says it all. You know we are right, you know that Mrs. Howard was wrong about what she saw, you know that the probablity that Mrs. Howard correctly interpreted her experience despite all scientific evidence is vanishingly small, and you don't care.

Oh, I do care. As I said earlier, I want the correct answer, not just the easy answer. I have no reason to disbelieve that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are honest and competent observers of their situations. Neither do you, aside from your own preconceptions.

Next time just say right at the beginning of the argument: "I don't care about probablity, or reason, or truth. I only care about the personal reward."

Oh, I do care about probability, and reason, and truth. But take the time to construct a decision tree here and do a risk/reward analysis. What am I risking? I'm not spending money to hire a private detective to track down this girl or writing Disney to ask them to dig through their old personnel files. I'm praying, for fifteen minutes a day, that I might have the chance to meet this girl again and to know who or what she is. What is the potential reward? Even if this girl was not an angel, I still want to meet her again; she was pleasant, bright, witty, fun to be with, and she had the deepest and most profound interest in spiritual matters I have ever encountered. Even if she is just as ordinary and human as you and I, I still want to make her better acquaintance. But if she is an angel....the sky's the limit. The only possible negative outcome to this case is if I never see her again. Once more, it's costing me fifteen minutes a day. Am I willing to risk fifteen minutes of sleep against the possibility of making contact with this girl, whoever and whatever she turns out to be? HELL YES!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by ehbowen

Am I willing to risk fifteen minutes of sleep against the possibility of making contact with this girl, whoever and whatever she turns out to be?
Maybe a good name for this would be 'Pascal's little brother's wager'.

I have no reason to disbelieve that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are honest and competent observers of their situations. Neither do you, aside from your own preconceptions.
Except for the demonstrable unreliability of first-hand observation by humans in general (I want to say, "and religious humans in particular" -- but I won't).

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Maybe a good name for this would be 'Pascal's little brother's wager'.

I prefer comparisons with the Man of La Mancha....:D

[Yahzi]

ehbowen
Oh, I do care. As I said earlier, I want the correct answer, not just the easy answer. I have no reason to disbelieve that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are honest and competent observers of their situations. Neither do you, aside from your own preconceptions.
If by my own preconceptions, you mean my past experience that people are often mistaken about what they see, then you are correct that only my past experience leads me to doubt their claims. Funny how when you substitute "past expierence" for "preconception," it completely changes the meaning of your sentence.

Preconception... I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The problem is not that you have no reason to disbelieve, but rather that you have so many reasons to believe. You want to believe. Very strongly. This is a powerful motivator for you to believe their statements; it just isn't a rational one.

You do not want the correct answer. You already have the correct answer, and you find it unsatisfying. Hence you spend 15 minutes a day wishing that the facts were different. This is not rational.

But take the time to construct a decision tree here and do a risk/reward analysis.
But if we do a risk/reward analysis, you are still irrational. Why don't you spend your 15 minutes praying that a) you meet your angel, b) world peace, c) eradication of all disease and hunger, d) immortality for everyone, e) free energy, f) faster-than-light travel? As you said... the sky is the limit!

You yourself assert that the "sky is the limit," and yet all the further you can see is your personal meeting with a pretty girl. How is it that religious people are so imagination poor? And so self-obessed? If I thought that prayer had even a ghost of a chance of working, and that there was no upper limit on what I could pray for, the last farking thing I would pray for is a chance to get laid by some chick I met 20 years ago. My god man... develop some ambition!

[Upchurch]

ehbowen,

I wasn't on this much this weekend, so a lot has happened in my absense. However, in reading through all these posts, some of which are point-counterpoint and others which are attack-counterattack, I've noticed that the primary problem is that you are stuck on the notion that credible evidence is always means exactly what it says. This is demonstratably incorrect.

Consider, for example, those angel sightings that have been shown to be of naturalistic origins. Does that make the witnesses to be any less credible? I would say that it does not. It just makes them wrong about what they thought they saw.

For a more personal example, consider the movie Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0240468). When I first saw the trailer and movie posters for the movie, I swore up and down that it stared Ben Stiller. I was so convinced of the fact that I bet someone the price of admission to another movie that it was him. On checking the information, I discovered that it was Steve Oedekerk, who really looks very little like Ben Stiller. So, what happened? Did I actually experience a trailer and poster with Ben Stiller in it? Or did I suffer an occurence of false memory, because I certainly remember seeing Ben Stiller in that role?

Like Mrs. Howard or Rev. Cathey, I experienced something that I was confident about. (well, $8.00 confident about, anyway) The difference is that I, or anyone, was able to verify or, rather, dis-verify my experience through sources that were independant of the event (i.e. that time and that place).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian Originally posted by Upchurch

And your whole argument rests on this claim. A claim which you do not seek to defend. And often your arguments seem to rest on the claim that our perceptions about a thing do equal the thing perceived. A claim you also seem uninterested in defending, despite rather obvious examples to the contrary.

Care to name any of these obvious examples? Well, since it's already been mentioned in this thread, why don't we pull out this example (http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html) again. Despite how it appears and despite your inexplicable cries that it doesn't, the two squares have the same RGB value. They are, in fact, the same color, which can be and has been demonstratably shown.

edited to add fuller context

[Darwin]

What would you say if I´d tell you I just saw Darwin walking by when I was taking a walk in the park?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
All believers are ultimately arrogant egomaniacs by definition---

*All*? The terms "arrogant" and "egomaniac" are very far from my character. I am sorry you have such a harsh view of believers. I can certainly understand why you do. There are definitely those christians who are arrogant and egomaniac, but there are these type of people in all religions and belief systems including atheism and skepticism. I try to stay far away from anyone who is arrogant, and I can't tolerate egomaniacs.....especially those who are believers.


in skepticism the truth is what everyone would come to believe independently---what any one person thinks is irrelevant--what does the evidence support?

Yes, for the most part, this is how I approach life.....especially my christian beliefs.

let's hear a description of an angel from someone who had NEVER been taught the concept of angels. They should be able to describe what they see even if they don't know what to call it. Yet it never happens.

Yep, I'd like to hear such a story too. I don't believe angels appear to humans, period. If they did, there would certainly be more of a purpose to to it than just appearing before them and disappearing. And, as far as I know, Angels did not have wings according to what the bible says....which makes it quite odd that many Christians see them with wings. I don't even know where and how the *wing* thing started.

:confused:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by ehbowen


Well, I don't think they "need" them in the same way birds do, but--Zechariah 5:9; I think a cute girl with wings would definitely be worth a second look!

Oh, ok, I did not realize there was scripture to back up the *wings* idea....now I see I was mistaken!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by JesFine

Can you give us some examples of this? How do you know, for example, that the prayer was actually needed? I have seen many examples of prayer that was not answered.

I can give you personal testimony of prayers that were not answered.:( I have seen the prayers of many Christians go unanswered. When something good happens, they forget all the unanswered prayers, and say that God *moved* in their lives and gave them help just when they needed it. This defies logic to me. If some people get answers, and others don't, does this mean God favors some Christians over others?? Well, these are just instances that some Christians will blame on the devil or some hidden sin in the life of the believer.


:( :mad:

[Yahzi]

Ruby
All believers are ultimately arrogant egomaniacs by definition
I can't speak for Fun2B, but what I would interpret this as meaning is that all believers share a core conviction that they matter to the Universe at large: that their personal situation and actions are of some cosmic importance: that their existance is of significance above and beyond the mere fact that they exist.

The major difference between science and religion is this: that religious people think the universe has a point, and they are it. Science does not postulate a point to the universe, and thus does not bother trying to figure what it is.

To science, people are merely people. To the religious, people are actors on a cosmic scale, whose influence rivals that of black holes and galaxys.

This is what I would mean by the above quote. It is quite unrelated to how they actually act in interpersonal relationships (both for religous people and scientists).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Ruby



The major difference between science and religion is this: that religious people think the universe has a point, and they are it. Science does not postulate a point to the universe, and thus does not bother trying to figure what it is.

To science, people are merely people. To the religious, people are actors on a cosmic scale, whose influence rivals that of black holes and galaxys.

This is what I would mean by the above quote. It is quite unrelated to how they actually act in interpersonal relationships (both for religous people and scientists).

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
John Andrew Holmes

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B]Ruby

I can't speak for Fun2B, but what I would interpret this as meaning is that all believers share a core conviction that they matter to the Universe at large: that their personal situation and actions are of some cosmic importance: that their existance is of significance above and beyond the mere fact that they exist.

I don't believe this. I must be very very bad!!


:rolleyes: :( :) :eek: I can't make up my mind on the right smiley to use!!!!:D

[DrMatt]

Look. It's as simple as this. I've heard all sorts of stories of people allegedly doing all sorts of magical things. Show us the goods. All the talk in the world doesn't amount to showing us the goods. I'm aware that "Interesting Ian" has complained about this fact before.

[Darwin]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992589

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Darwin
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992589

WOW, Darwin that is an amazing article. it would explain not only apophenia but amphetamine psychosis.

Who would have thought the deep commonality between the hallucinationg cocaine addict and the scincere old church lady who despises the former for his mental debasement?

Darwin, I owe you, that was an awsome piece of information. I will be an excellent vector for this meme!

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Yahzi
You do not want the correct answer. You already have the correct answer, and you find it unsatisfying. Hence you spend 15 minutes a day wishing that the facts were different. This is not rational.

On the contrary, it is completely rational to thoroughly investigate and pursue evidence and instances of a potential phenomenon, particularly one which would be of great positive impact upon our world. And Mr. Randi would agree with me. Take a look at his column for August 23, 2002 (http://www.randi.org/jr/082302.html). (I'd post the hyperlink if the JavaScript interpreter on my twelve-year-old Amiga worked correctly.) Note the quote: "Could any real scientist not pursue the Golden Fleece if he/she really felt that it did exist, somewhere?"

And that is what I am doing. You may consider my quest chimerical. But it is my quest, and I consider it worth pursuing. If I were to die without receiving results, then that would be my answer. But that's not the case: I have already seen enough results to convince me that this particular chimera is worth pursuing. There is a lot more that has happened to me than one dream, believe me.

But if we do a risk/reward analysis, you are still irrational. Why don't you spend your 15 minutes praying that a) you meet your angel, b) world peace, c) eradication of all disease and hunger, d) immortality for everyone, e) free energy, f) faster-than-light travel? As you said... the sky is the limit!

Oh, you do not know what else I am praying for. I am already touching on four of your six points directly and the rest indirectly. And I go far beyond your puny, limited imagination. Time travel, anyone?

The question in my mind, though, is: How to arrange the transition? How to manage events so that it is not a slam-bang, "We're here and we're takin' over now" kind of thing, but rather a progression which preserves the best of our current world while at the same time correcting its abuses and simultaneously opening the door to the new? I won't go into details here, except to say: If I get everything I am asking for, then you would be well advised to consider making a long-term investment in the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Got that?

(Edited, on another computer, to add the hyperlink (http://www.randi.org/jr/082302.html))

[Darwin]

It´s allright Synesthesia.

Good thing I happened to post it.
All I tried was to lead this kind of a discussion on right tracks but I notice you were able to draw discoveries out of it that I would have never even thought of.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch
ehbowen,

I wasn't on this much this weekend, so a lot has happened in my absense. However, in reading through all these posts, some of which are point-counterpoint and others which are attack-counterattack, I've noticed that the primary problem is that you are stuck on the notion that credible evidence is always means exactly what it says. This is demonstratably incorrect.

No, the notion which I am stuck on and will not move from without a compelling reason is that people are, by and large, competent observers of the major and significant events in their lives. I am not claiming that they cannot be wrong about details; see below. But without a good reason to believe otherwise, I consider them to be competent to recount the main points of their defining life experiences.

Consider, for example, those angel sightings that have been shown to be of naturalistic origins. Does that make the witnesses to be any less credible? I would say that it does not. It just makes them wrong about what they thought they saw.

Very true. If you can examine the story and find a point at which it breaks down, then you have a rational reason to conclude that the observer was in error about his/her own conclusions. Even in that event, though, one still grants that the observer was honestly and competently recounting the facts of the event which he observed; one simply concludes that he was wrong in his interpretation of what those facts meant.

There is not enough information available to see if Mrs. Howard's story breaks down. I did not pump her for minute details and I have not had any contact with her for over ten years; I am not even sure she is still alive. In this case you simply have the bare facts as I reported them. I am not surprised that the story is more compelling to me than to you; I knew her personally and I knew her as an honest and mentally stable woman. You do not have the benefit of that knowledge. In the case of Rev. Cathey, however, there is more detail and there is the potential of corroborating evidence: The medical records which he spoke of. I'm not going to deluge him by posting his address publicly, but if there is any one of you who desires to investigate this case further and who would be genuinely persuaded if the facts bear his case out, then contact me and I will tell you how to get in touch with him by private message.

For a more personal example, consider the movie Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0240468). When I first saw the trailer and movie posters for the movie, I swore up and down that it stared Ben Stiller. I was so convinced of the fact that I bet someone the price of admission to another movie that it was him. On checking the information, I discovered that it was Steve Oedekerk, who really looks very little like Ben Stiller. So, what happened? Did I actually experience a trailer and poster with Ben Stiller in it? Or did I suffer an occurence of false memory, because I certainly remember seeing Ben Stiller in that role?

Like Mrs. Howard or Rev. Cathey, I experienced something that I was confident about. (well, $8.00 confident about, anyway) The difference is that I, or anyone, was able to verify or, rather, dis-verify my experience through sources that were independant of the event (i.e. that time and that place).

You experienced a Class Five para-temporal hyperconsciousness congruence anomaly, in which the experience of a sub-fragment of the Upchurch consciousness in a parallel universe, in which Ben Stiller starred in Kung Pow, impinged upon stream-of-consciousness events in this contiguous branch of the space-time continuum....

[/Ghostbusters and Back to the Future modes: OFF]

In this case you experienced an event, and you were wrong about a detail. I would, in either case, be willing to readily agree that the witnesses in question were wrong about a similar detail. Rev. Cathey, for instance, reported that the stewardess in his encounter wore a blue dress with red trim. I would be willing to agree that it is quite possible that he misremembered the color of that dress. Those cases are parallel.

But what is not parallel and what is not justified is the conclusion that Rev. Cathey never encountered such a stewardess at all. That would be comparable to my claiming that you never actually saw that trailer for Kung Pow. It would be comparable to you claiming that I never actually met George Takei. I will freely grant you that details can be misremembered. But I continue to take the position that in the question of the essential facts, people can be by and large relied upon to be competent observers of the major and defining events in their lives. And if you assume that they are not, then you are acting based upon bias and presumption, not reason.

[thaiboxerken]

The reality of the situation is that there is no verifiable evidence that there are angels.

You have an eye-witness account, which counts for very little in science. You can believe all you want, but you have no real foundation for claiming that there really are angels and that the Rev really saw one.

You believe in such nonsense because you can place your rationality in a suspended state.

Many of us can't help but stay rational.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen


No, the notion which I am stuck on and will not move from without a compelling reason is that people are, by and large, competent observers of the major and significant events in their lives. I am not claiming that they cannot be wrong about details; see below. But without a good reason to believe otherwise, I consider them to be competent to recount the main points of their defining life experiences.
I really do think that this is the heart of the matter and I think you are wrong. Consider another personal example of mine.

Many months ago, my fiancee was held up at gun point by a kid. I say "kid" because that was pretty much one of the few details she could remember about him; that he was that he was young, male, and black. She couldn't describe what he looked like, what he was wearing, or how tall he was. She was even certain that she had given him her car keys until she realized that she still had them. It was a very major and significant event in her life. She is still scared to walk to and from her car at night. And some of what she remembered, like the car keys, couldn't possibly be true. Later, she caught herself arbitrarily filling in details that she hadn't remembered previously. She knew they weren't right because it wouldn't fit with other aspects of the event.

See, ehbowen, it was how her mind rationalized the event. She, after the fact, started filling in the missing parts so that she could come to grips with it. I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure we could find study after study on this kind of phenomenon. I'm fairly certain that it isn't rare at all.

Just a quick google search gives a couple of examples:
http://www.campsych.com/eyewitness.htm
http://www.lgu.ac.uk/psychology/staff/elander/Memory2.html

The second one even mentions that police officers, who are trained observers, often give false positives.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by ehbowen

On the contrary, it is completely rational to thoroughly investigate and pursue evidence and instances of a potential phenomenon, particularly one which would be of great positive impact upon our world.

You may consider my quest chimerical. But it is my quest, and I consider it worth pursuing.
That seems acceptable. Noble even. Do carry on. But realize that any results you achieve must pass the same rigorous tests as all others before they will be accepted by scientists and skeptics.No, the notion which I am stuck on and will not move from without a compelling reason is that people are, by and large, competent observers of the major and significant events in their lives.

Not many people seemed to pay much attention to it, but there was a minor stink around something Ronald Reagan once said in a speech. He mentioned his "standing on the beach at Normandy". This event never actually happened to Reagan, though it was clear from the way he referenced it that he was talking about a remembered experience (it was actually from a scene in a movie). 'Course, he may not be such a good example, what with the Alzheimer's and all.

People are not designed to be competent observers of events; they are designed to be quick guessers, and to err on the side of caution. Consider an environment in which 999 times out of 1000, those things that look like eyes are really not looking at you; 999 times out of 1000 those things that look like tentacles are really not about to grab you; and 999 times out of 1000 that thing that looks like a mouth is not about to eat you. You err on the side of caution, and 999 times out of 1000, you lose some calories running away needlessly. You wait till you're sure, and 1 time out of 1000, you lose your life. This is why we see faces in clouds, clumps of shrubbery, wisps of steam...hey, wait a minute -- was that lady cooking anything when she saw this angel?

[Loki]

Eric,

I have not had any contact with her for over ten years; I am not even sure she is still alive. In this case you simply have the bare facts as I reported them.
Actually, we simply have the bare facts as you remember them. If we were to contact Mr's Howard, there's at least the possibility that she would disagree with your retelling of the incident. Perhaps she would calim that she said "I ahve jsut seen something in the kitchen, that reminded me of an Angel" - whihc you have, over the years, transformed into "I have just seen an Angel".

No, the notion which I am stuck on and will not move from without a compelling reason is that people are, by and large, competent observers of the major and significant events in their lives.
Even if you trust Mr's Howard was a 'competent observer', why do you trust your own memories? Surely, you have *at least* two layers of interpretation here, rather than one? Twice the scope for error?

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Many months ago, my fiancee was held up at gun point by a kid. I say "kid" because that was pretty much one of the few details she could remember about him; that he was that he was young, male, and black. She couldn't describe what he looked like, what he was wearing, or how tall he was. She was even certain that she had given him her car keys until she realized that she still had them. It was a very major and significant event in her life. She is still scared to walk to and from her car at night. And some of what she remembered, like the car keys, couldn't possibly be true. Later, she caught herself arbitrarily filling in details that she hadn't remembered previously. She knew they weren't right because it wouldn't fit with other aspects of the event.


But would you agree that she was held up?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B]Ruby

I can't speak for Fun2B, but what I would interpret this as meaning is that all believers share a core conviction that they matter to the Universe at large: that their personal situation and actions are of some cosmic importance: that their existance is of significance above and beyond the mere fact that they exist.



Yes this is what I believe. Everything we do, are, and think has ultimate significance. The most trivial of our actions has consequences for all other human beings and for all other things. Nothing we do is insignificant. Nothing. Our lives have ultimate meaning and purpose. We are all embarked on a great adventure.

[Loki]

Eric,

I'd post the hyperlink if the JavaScript interpreter on my twelve-year-old Amiga worked correctly
Gasp - no wonder you believe in time travel! I must confess that I spend some time every now and then playing with winuae (http://www.winuae.net).

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Dymanic

That seems acceptable. Noble even. Do carry on. But realize that any results you achieve must pass the same rigorous tests as all others before they will be accepted by scientists and skeptics.

I understand completely. And I understand the dangers of publicizing preliminary results, which is all that I have at this time. I am willing to take the risk of being wrong in return for the opportunity to have my assumptions and methods constructively (for the most part) criticized. I fully understand that I need a lot more than two secondhand stories and one very lucid dream to convince those who are not predisposed to believe. In time, I think I will have it. We shall see.

[eli54]

quote::
"I knew a lady at my former church. Her name was Mrs. Howard. She was a quiet, self-effacing lady, the wife of a deacon, who served unobtrusively in the church nursery.

Mrs. Howard has seen an angel."

Hey, I think I've "seen" a ghost (we called her Sarah), but have no way to prove that it happened other than the fact that I believe it happened.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes this is what I believe. Everything we do, are, and think has ultimate significance. The most trivial of our actions has consequences for all other human beings and for all other things. Nothing we do is insignificant. Nothing. Our lives have ultimate meaning and purpose. We are all embarked on a great adventure.
I think there is tremendous value in operating under the assumption that this is true, whether it actually is or not. It may be considered a self-centered point of view, but after all, it is each of us himself who is responsible for his actions.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ehbowen
I fully understand that I need a lot more than two secondhand stories and one very lucid dream to convince those who are not predisposed to believe.
In other words, you now repudiate the original point of this thread. You acknowledge that it is you that has the preconceptions, and not us skeptics.

I do believe this concludes this discussion.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes this is what I believe. Everything we do, are, and think has ultimate significance. The most trivial of our actions has consequences for all other human beings and for all other things. Nothing we do is insignificant. Nothing. Our lives have ultimate meaning and purpose. We are all embarked on a great adventure.

Sometimes, I wish I could believe that too.

[Fun2BFree]

The correct interpretation of my comments about believer's egotism is that it has to do with core beliefs not how they conduct themselves on every human interaction. To believe that what is in your own head must be the true real and correct way despite the absence of any solid real evidence is at its core arrogant, self-absorbed, egotistical. Ruby's comments about basing her life on evidence and being a Christian is unsupportable. There has to be a leap of faith-a nonrational not based-on-solid-reason reason to believe in any nonproven entity like God and especially the patchwork conglomeration of myths and legends that has been distilled into Christianity...A cursory study of the history of how Christianity arose reveals how this story came to market--and it was not because it happened the way you read it in old King James' version of somebody else's reporting what they wanted you to know....

ehbowen has already been shown the baselessness of his argument many times over but refuses or is unable to see it...preconceived notions? yes -in a way---anything has to be either previously proven convincingly or presently...as pointed out based on previous evidence. For believers like eric anything supporting his belief should be assumed correct absent disproof for it...the difference is that his way has demonstrated time and again that it is a very poor way to be right most of the time...our way has demonstrated it is the best way to getting it right all of the time...because that is what it's about -getting the truth whatever it is...even if God is real, we would be happy to see that proven, if true...believers, on the other hand would hate to see that particular truth..because they want God, more than they want the truth.

Paul

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Yahzi

In other words, you now repudiate the original point of this thread. You acknowledge that it is you that has the preconceptions, and not us skeptics.

I never said that I had no preconceptions. I said that everyone has preconceptions, and that those preconceptions color our responses to information. I also said that I believed that I was better able to impartially assess and judge the stories I presented. The important question, after all, is the truth. Which one of us is more likely to arrive at it?

I have not said that I was certain that these individuals saw angels or that there were no other possible explanations. I said that I would reject these stories if information came to light which cast doubt on either the credibility of the source or the facts of the case. People have presented alternate possibilities; this is true. However, no one has given me any good reason to seriously question my position that, in general, people are competent observers of the major, defining events in their lives.

More important, though, than my assessment of these stories is my response to them. They stir my curiosity. They make me want to find and to know the full truth. And so I spend my fifteen minutes a night praying and seeking to know the truth. If there is an angel or a God out there who is willing to be found, I intend to find him.

Contrast that to your response. You have not been at all reluctant to state your own certainty that I am wrong. You put words in my mouth by telling me that I "know" that you are right. You tell me that I am irrational to spend fifteen minutes a night pursuing the truth. And yet you claim to be free from preconceptions and to have an open mind! Open? Yes, if somebody else does all the legwork and shoves incontrovertible facts under your nose, you might accept it. But what are the chances that, on your own, you might ever discover a truth in this area which did not conform to your own precious prejudices? Can you spell, "S-L-I-M" and "N-O-N-E?"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ruby
Yes this is what I believe. Everything we do, are, and think has ultimate significance. The most trivial of our actions has consequences for all other human beings and for all other things. Nothing we do is insignificant. Nothing. Our lives have ultimate meaning and purpose. We are all embarked on a great adventure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sometimes, I wish I could believe that too. [/B]

Why don't you? This is what NDE's teach us for example. And even if there is no God, no life after death, and the Universe and our lives are inherently absurd, I don't think you can deny that the most seemingly trivial of our actions has consequences whose reach extend far beyond what we naively imagine. Just like waving your little finger in the air could be responsible for producing a tornado on the opposite side of the planet a few months later (chaos theory).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen


But would you agree that she was held up?
Yep. Primarily because there was supporting evidence for the event. Her purse and several other items were missing. Also, her roommate/landlord saw the kid's shoes as he ran past the basement window.

If she had told the police and I this same story about a kid stealing her purse and yet she still had her purse, I'd question whether or not it actually happened. Just like when she remembered the kid stealing her car keys. She still has her car keys, so I doubt that event occured like she remembers, as does she.

Now consider, what evidence does Mrs. Howard have to support her own recollection of the event?

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Now consider, what evidence does Mrs. Howard have to support her own recollection of the event?

No more evidence than I have to support my own recollection of my meeting with George Takei. Or that I toured the Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building in New York City. Or that I used to climb up on the roofs of Union Station and the Cotton Exchange Building in Houston. Or that I once climbed the Astroneedle at Six Flags Houston. Or that I had the best piece of fish I ever had in my life in the dining car aboard the Broadway Limited between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Or that my favorite television show when I was three was "Astroboy." Or that I was taken up in the cab of a diesel locomotive when I was two. I could go on....

I will freely grant that my memory could be faulty in the details. The fish, for example. I believe it was red snapper, but I am by no means certain. I am certain, however, that it was not beef or pork or lamb. I couldn't give the plot of a single "Astroboy" episode. I couldn't tell you who it was who took me up in the cab of that locomotive. But while I can agree with you about details, I cannot concede your point about essential facts. I consider any argument that I am incompetent to observe and to relate the essential defining experiences in my life to be groundless and without merit. Based on my own experience, I have no rational reason for concluding that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are not likewise competent observers of their own life experiences.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by ehbowen


No more evidence than I have to support my own recollection of my meeting with George Takei. Or that I toured the Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building in New York City. Or that I used to climb up on the roofs of Union Station and the Cotton Exchange Building in Houston. Or that I once climbed the Astroneedle at Six Flags Houston. Or that I had the best piece of fish I ever had in my life in the dining car aboard the Broadway Limited between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Or that my favorite television show when I was three was "Astroboy." Or that I was taken up in the cab of a diesel locomotive when I was two. I could go on....

I will freely grant that my memory could be faulty in the details. The fish, for example. I believe it was red snapper, but I am by no means certain. I am certain, however, that it was not beef or pork or lamb. I couldn't give the plot of a single "Astroboy" episode. I couldn't tell you who it was who took me up in the cab of that locomotive. But while I can agree with you about details, I cannot concede your point about essential facts. I consider any argument that I am incompetent to observe and to relate the essential defining experiences in my life to be groundless and without merit. Based on my own experience, I have no rational reason for concluding that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are not likewise competent observers of their own life experiences.

But there are lots and lots of films and photos of George Takei, taken from different angles and at different times. There are records of interviews that are consistent with one another. There are lots of records of his appearances at Star Trek conventions, where he has given autographs.

At least as many people have claimed to have seen angels, but where are the photos? Why don't they stick around to be introduced to friends? I bet if I sent mail to George Takei, I might get a letter back from him, his puclicist, or something (OK, that might be wishful thinking. But I hear he's a swell guy.) You could take blood samples or DNA samples from George Takei. He's famous, lots of people meet him, so it's easy to believe that you've met him. But if you told me that he appeared in your kitchen and then disappeared again, I'd want supporting evidence (Like a police bulletin saying that George Takei was suspected of breaking into kitchens in your area and stealing Cool Ranch Star Trek Salad Dressing.)

[Upchurch]

Pardon the non-linear reply
Originally posted by ehbowen

Based on my own experience, I have no rational reason for concluding that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are not likewise competent observers of their own life experiences.
Except that the following can be demonstrably shown to exist: George Takei
Statue of Liberty
Empire State Building
Union Station in Houston
Cotton Exchange Building in Houston
Astroneedle at Six Flags Houston
fish
dining car
the Broadway Limited between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
television show "Astroboy"
the cab of a diesel locomotiveAs opposed to the following which have not yet been demostrably shown to exist: angels
UFOs/aliens
Bigfoot
the Lock Ness Monster
pixies
fairies
elves
leprechauns
dragons
unicorns
magic (not the stage kind)If someone you trusted told you that they saw a UFO, Bigfoot, or a unicorn, would you believe that they had? You avoided this question last time I asked it. Please consider it now.

I consider any argument that I am incompetent to observe and to relate the essential defining experiences in my life to be groundless and without merit.Going back to the central point of this thread, this is the primary reason why believes will never be as objective as skeptics when considering an issue. Your assumptions about the world immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities to consider when interpreting a situation or event.

As I've mentioned before, I don't even trust my own memories all the time if something comes up that suggests I may be remembering it incorrectly. As such, I'm willing to question and change my own preconceptions to fit what is actually going on, rather than changing what is actually going on to fit my preconceptions.

edited to add: Just thought of a great example of this. In high school, I would occasionally have these dreams about something happening that were so completely real to me that I would go to school the next day and expect my friends to react to what had happened. It was only when they didn't react that I realized I must have dreamed it. Until that point, I would be convinced that it had. I once even went so far as to appologize to someone for what I had done and they had no idea what I was talking about.

You're methodology takes an event that may have been an angel, false memories, or a dream and forces it to be an angel despite the fact that the other possibilities are just as valid, if not more so, since the others are well documented and studied.
<hr>
edited to add:

I'm not saying that there aren't closed minded people who call themselves skeptics but don't question their own beliefs as well as those of others. What I am saying is that skeptics who are skeptical, or critical, even of themselves will always be in a better position to analyze a situation for truth value and are really the only ones who are truely open minded.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Pardon the non-linear reply
(snip snip)
Except that the following can be demonstrably shown to exist:[list television show "Astroboy"
(snip snip snippity)


And as a skeptic who has never heard of "Astroboy" except from someone who remembers watching it was a 3-year-old, I have slight doubts that there was such a show. So slight that I won't bother to look it up to confirm it's existence. It's a cool title, though. :)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Bluegill

So slight that I won't bother to look it up to confirm it's existence. It's a cool title, though. :) A quick google of Astroboy. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Astroboy) I can't say I'm familiar with the show either, but I've seen some of the magna and the occasional pop culture reference.

But see? Supporting evidence. ehbowen didn't dream Astroboy.

[thaiboxerken]

I was surprised to see that Astroboy is on TV here in Japan. New episodes are on every Sunday.

I wonder, do people that give their kids good credibility believe that their child really saw a monster in the closet?

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
A quick google of Astroboy. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Astroboy) I can't say I'm familiar with the show either, but I've seen some of the magna and the occasional pop culture reference.

But see? Supporting evidence. ehbowen didn't dream Astroboy.


Now hold on a second. I just googled "angels" and got over 6.5 million hits.

Even if you assume that half of the hits have to do with sports teams or Michael Landon or Victoria's Secret, that leaves a LOT unaccounted for.

:D

So we have a stupendous amount of evidence that angels do, in fact, exist-- as cultural creations, as fictional characters, as mythological entities, and as right fielders. Sometimes, as in the movie "Angel in the Outfield," they fall into more than one of those categories. Heh.

We also have evidence that angels exist as servants of God--but this evidence is of a very poor nature. How can we get the angels up to the level of Astroboy?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Bluegill
Now hold on a second. I just googled "angels" and got over 6.5 million hits.heh. I wondered if anyone was going to catch that.

The difference is that over the internet, you can view Astroboy the magna (http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0301/16/astroboy14.htm) or the cartoon (http://www.astroboy-online.com/videos.php) directly and repeatedly. You cannot directly view an angel the physical or, heck, even spiritual being over the internet. What we can do, as you point out, is view angels the cultural creation and mythological entities (and as right fielders) over the internet.
We also have evidence that angels exist as servants of God--but this evidence is of a very poor nature. How can we get the angels up to the level of Astroboy? Again, the evidence that angels exist in the physical or (not sure the proper way to put this) in the "real" spiritual realm is purely anecdotal from the Bible. Worse, it is second hand information at best.

edited to add:

Just realized I never finished answering the question. We get angels up to the level of Astroboy by making them as available as Astroboy.

[Elind]

ehbowen

"I can understand that a number of you are nearly apopleptic at this point. Very well; I encourage you to express yourselves. However, I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me. I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me. While you are mulling over your responses, I invite you to consider yet another story:"


This reminds me of an incident a few years ago. I was in a waiting room to get my drivers license renewed. Half a dozen or so average mix of people, bored, also waiting. Then a little old lady, probably in her 70's and looking nice, normal and clean, comes up to me with a smile and says "I can see the sign of the king in the light around you and you will receive great blessing...." etc. I said thank you and looked around to see who else was looking, but no one seemed to have heard. I got my license soon after and left, and that was it, except I haven't won the lottery yet.

She was totally sincere and no doubt saw auras around many people all the time, but I haven't been included in whatever was going on and feel no worse or better for the experience.

But it proves to me that it only takes a little bit of hallucination (or need for laser surgery) for many to see proof of god

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Pardon the non-linear reply

Except that the following can be demonstrably shown to exist: George Takei
Statue of Liberty
Empire State Building
Union Station in Houston
Cotton Exchange Building in Houston
Astroneedle at Six Flags Houston
fish
dining car
the Broadway Limited between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
television show "Astroboy"
the cab of a diesel locomotiveAs opposed to the following which have not yet been demostrably shown to exist: angels
UFOs/aliens
Bigfoot
the Lock Ness Monster
pixies
fairies
elves
leprechauns
dragons
unicorns
magic (not the stage kind)If someone you trusted told you that they saw a UFO, Bigfoot, or a unicorn, would you believe that they had? You avoided this question last time I asked it. Please consider it now.

yes answer the question and add to the list of life defining events that people are convinced actually happened to them for which we have no demonstration of reality-

faith healing of any variety of ills-every single one of which has been either shown to never have been healed, never to have existed in the first place or never adequately demonstrated to trust in it's having occured...ever --for thousands of years...

So why should we only believe the life defining events that correspond to Western Christian theology myth and not give EQUAL weight to these other claims??? We skeptics give them all equal weight---

I am beginning to doubt the existence of some people's ability to see their own biases...sort of like colorblindness...about 10% of people cannot perceive color differences- the neural pathways are not there...maybe the neural pathways that might allow eric to see how ridiculously prejudiced his approach is as compared to a skeptical approach are just not there...

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Originally posted by ehbowen

Based on my own experience, I have no rational reason for concluding that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are not likewise competent observers of their own life experiences.
Except that the following can be demonstrably shown to exist:


But that is the point in question. You are, once again, presuming the answer based on your own preconceptions.

Being a bit non-linear myself:
You're methodology takes an event that may have been an angel, false memories, or a dream and forces it to be an angel despite the fact that the other possibilities are just as valid, if not more so, since the others are well documented and studied.

You've got that entirely backwards. I am perfectly willing to consider a non-supernatural explanation for these events and for a host of others. I simply have no rational reason for believing that these explanations are more likely than the plain facts of the case as stated by the observers. It is your methodology which forces you to find some other explanation--any other explanation--to protect you from having to deal with the possibility of an occurence which does not fit neatly inside the box of your own world view.


As opposed to the following which have not yet been demostrably shown to exist: angels
UFOs/aliens
Bigfoot
the Lock Ness Monster
pixies
fairies
elves
leprechauns
dragons
unicorns
magic (not the stage kind)

If someone you trusted told you that they saw a UFO, Bigfoot, or a unicorn, would you believe that they had? You avoided this question last time I asked it. Please consider it now.


First off, let's winnow this list down. We can start by eliminating the items for which there is no one currently making serious claims on their behalf. This takes care of pixies, fairies, elves, leprechauns, dragons, and unicorns. (I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that dragons, unicorns, etc. existed in the past, but that's a subject for another discussion.) Secondly, we can eliminate those items which would be of trivial impact upon the world were they true. If Bigfoot and Nessie were found tomorrow it might make an interesting diversion for a few zoologists for a while, but they would likely have no greater impact upon human society at large than do the existence of the coelacanth and the grizzly bear. That leaves UFOs, angels, and magic. Angels we have already discussed at sufficient length. I am quite willing to consider the possibility that magic exists, but I do not believe it exists as an independent phenomenon; in my understanding as a Christian it is inextricably linked with fallen angels, aka demons. So while I do not discount all such reported instances of it, it is a subject which I consider off-limits for safe investigation.

That leaves UFOs. What are the possibilities there? Well, I think you would agree with me about two of them. One is that they are all bunk, and that people are either fabricating their accounts or else are victims of hallucinations/false memories/etc. The other is that they are real and that they are of a physical nature like us. But in that case, why is there no hard evidence? Why is there no undeniable contact? We can postulate "prime directives" and so forth, but an examination of human nature and human history would lead us to the conclusions that if they are benevolent, they would want to contact us in order to aid our civilization and that if they are not benevolent then they would want to invade and conquer us quickly in order to prevent us from developing star travel independently and becoming a threat. Provided that these are the only two possibilities, I would have to conclude that the first conclusion is most likely correct: It's all bunk.

But in my world view, I am able to seriously consider another possibility: That UFOs do in fact exist, but that they are of spiritual/supernatural origin. Is there any reason to believe this? Well, first, the parallels of comparison with stories of angels and other supernatural encounters is uncanny. These UFOs and aliens do wonders for which we have no scientific explanation and they leave no evidence behind which would compel belief by those who are not inclined to believe. Is there any reason that a spiritual being would want to appear in the guise of a UFO? Indeed there is; should Satan want to openly appear in this world do you think he would be likely to stand up and say, "Here I am! The Devil, Old Nick, the Prince of Darkness! Come to me and be my slave forever!"? Wouldn't he likely have more success and win more followers by proclaiming himself to be Klaat Xerount, a superior being from Omicron Ceti III? Once upon a time--think War of the Worlds--if he'd tried that he would likely have been met with pitchforks and shotguns. After seventy years of preparation and indoctrination, were he to try that tomorrow a plurality of people (Westerners, at least) would probably fall at his feet and hand him the keys to the planet.

So, based upon the information I have, I believe that in those UFO encounters where the stories do not break down upon closer examination (which is a tiny minority, I will agree) the people involved are witnessing a legitimate phenomenon, but that it is one of spiritual and supernatural origin. Were aliens to appear openly tomorrow, I would consider it most likely that they were fallen angels or demons in disguise.

Could I be persuaded that I was wrong? Oh, most certainly. If those aliens shared the same physical vulnerabilities we do--if they could get sick, bleed, die, etc.--that would be a strong indicator that they were of physical origin. If they were to take no actions to win followers in a religious sense, if they left human religions in general and Christianity in particular to operate normally, then that would be another strong indicator in their favor. If they had technology which could be studied, understood, duplicated and put to use by us, I would consider that virtually conclusive; I believe that Satan does not have either the inclination or the patience to develop and master technology.

So there are a lot of things which could persuade me that I am wrong. But I do not consider this area an area which is worth the time to investigate and pursue as I do angels; if the aliens are in fact purely physical then there are no real steps I could take to contact them that SETI and others are not already trying. And if they are, as I suspect, fallen angels--then trying to get in touch with them would be counterproductive and dangerous.

Going back to the central point of this thread, this is the primary reason why believes will never be as objective as skeptics when considering an issue. Your assumptions about the world immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities to consider when interpreting a situation or event.

Once again, you've got that backwards. It is your assumptions about the world which immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities when considering events such as this. I would have no problem whatsoever mastering the disciplines of and assimilating information from the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, and so on. How likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that UFOs are fallen angels?

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Just realized I never finished answering the question. We get angels up to the level of Astroboy by making them as available as Astroboy.

And that's what I'm working on. Maybe that's what it took all these years: Somebody with the persistence to chase that rabbit all the way to ground. We shall see.

[Bluegill]

I think that any rational, intelligent skeptic would be quite willing to admit that the existence of angels is a possibility.

But I also think that any rational, intelligent skeptic would maintain that the foundation of any belief is sound evidence. (Well, OK, there is also another form of belief which I think skepticism has nothing to do with--beliefs that are formed non-rationally and willingly allowed to persist in one's self, but with the admission that there is no evidence that can be clearly shown to others. That goes with the threads regarding Hal Bidlack's deism and skepticism. I think that form of belief has nothing to do with this discussion, though).

Anyway-- as I was saying, skepticism is based on the notion that the most productive and responsible way to form beliefs is by basing them on evidence.

I don't think this creates a bias that keeps them from comtemplating the role of angels. It just helps them put stories about angels in perspective. Angels have not been shown to exist with the same preponderence of evidence that supports the existence of optical illusions, hallucinations, stunningly vivid dreams, mental illness, hoaxes, and other phenomena.

Therefore, it seems to me, a rational skeptic would say that yes, it's possible that an angel appeared in the kitchen. But why believe that it was, when there are so many other possibilities that can explain it?

This, for a skeptic, applies not just to the single incident, but to the whole of the angel phenomenon. I can't prove that angels don't exist. I don't have evidence that angels have never visited human beings. But I've never heard a story or had an experience that was of an angelic nature, which could not be explained through "earthly" phenomena. I'd love to have such an experience because it would be, to say the least, very interesting.

[Martin]

Originally posted by ehbowen
Once again, you've got that backwards. It is your assumptions about the world which immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities when considering events such as this. I would have no problem whatsoever mastering the disciplines of and assimilating information from the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, and so onOriginally posted by ehbowen on another thread
You have to understand that before I came to my current ideas I was a doctrinaire YEC. If anyone should persuade me that I am wrong, I would revert to being a YEC. Yes, I am well aware of the disconnect between currently accepted scientific understanding and YEC positions. You must understand, however, that I have made the free will choice to commit my life to God as he is revealed in the Bible. I mentioned above that I had respect for and did not wish to arbitrarily throw out scientific results, but if it comes down to having to make a choice between scientific reason and the revelation of the Bible, I stand with the Bible

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by ehbowen on another thread

You must understand, however, that I have made the free will choice to commit my life to God as he is revealed in the Bible. I mentioned above that I had respect for and did not wish to arbitrarily throw out scientific results, but if it comes down to having to make a choice between scientific reason and the revelation of the Bible, I stand with the Bible

Whoaw!!! What's this?? Do you stand behind this statement ehbowen?? And if so, where do you get the stones to start this thread and claim that all of "us skeptics" are closeminded??

Your position is now laughable in light of YOUR closeminded beliefs. Throwing out scientific reason in favor of "revelation" (which can't be tested, falsified, etc.)?? The mind boggles. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Barkhorn.

[Darwin]

-ophtalmological condition;
/Charles Bonnet syndrome
-neurological condition;
/occipital lobe injury
/temporal lobe injury
/brain cancer
/stroke
/dementia
/Parkinson´s
-Psychiatric;
/schizophrenia
/psychosis
/bipolar disorder
/post-traumatic disorder
Other;
/fever
/liver failure
/kidney failure
/drug use
/drug withdrawal
/sleep paralysis
Hallucination of no apparent medical origin;
/sensory deprivation
/emotional stress
/great fatigue
/sleep deprivation

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen


But that is the point in question. You are, once again, presuming the answer based on your own preconceptions.Are you suggesting that that those items/places/people can only be demonstrated to exist because of my preconceptions? Are not their reality, or lack thereof, independent of my preconceptions about them?
You've got that entirely backwards. I am perfectly willing to consider a non-supernatural explanation for these events and for a host of others. I simply have no rational reason for believing that these explanations are more likely than the plain facts of the case as stated by the observers.
Irony alert: You are willing to consider a non-supernatural explination but have no rational reason for thinking that a supernatural explination is less likely than a natural one? Further, you assert that the supernatural explination is more likely than a natural one?

The thing is, you haven't been willing to consider natural explinations through your insistance that those natural explinations aren't possible (false memories, for example).
It is your methodology which forces you to find some other explanation--any other explanation--to protect you from having to deal with the possibility of an occurence which does not fit neatly inside the box of your own world view.ehbowen, please. There is nothing more annoying than someone putting words in my mouth. Did I not just say in my last post that the supernatural, e.g. angels, were a possible explination for the event?

Further, have you not said that natural explinations for the event were not possible? One could start to wonder if you are discounting the natrual possibilities in order to protect your own preconceptions that angels exist.
First off, let's winnow this list [of things that have not been demonstrably shown to be true] down. We can start by eliminating the items for which there is no one currently making serious claims on their behalf. This takes care of pixies, fairies, elves, leprechauns, dragons, and unicorns. (I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that dragons, unicorns, etc. existed in the past, but that's a subject for another discussion.)So, you discount them because "pixies, fairies, elves, leprechauns, dragons, and unicorns don't exist"? I seem to remember, Originally posted by ehbowen
However, I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me.Less than a century ago, fairies (http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/index.html) were very strongly considered to exist. Even by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was a rapt believer. Why the double standard? What is it that differentiates angels from fairies? Because no one currently makes serious claims of their existance at the moment?
Secondly, we can eliminate those items which would be of trivial impact upon the world were they true. If Bigfoot and Nessie were found tomorrow it might make an interesting diversion for a few zoologists for a while, but they would likely have no greater impact upon human society at large than do the existence of the coelacanth and the grizzly bear.
I'd say that it would have a great deal of impact to the theory of evolution, which has a great deal of social impact at the moment, but why quibble?
That leaves UFOs, angels, and magic. Angels we have already discussed at sufficient length. I am quite willing to consider the possibility that magic exists, but I do not believe it exists as an independent phenomenon; in my understanding as a Christian it is inextricably linked with fallen angels, aka demons. So while I do not discount all such reported instances of it, it is a subject which I consider off-limits for safe investigation.I am tempted to explore these preconceptions based on preconceptions, but dogma isn't really the focus of the thread. So, nevermind.
That leaves UFOs. What are the possibilities there? Well, I think you would agree with me about two of them. One is that they are all bunk, and that people are either fabricating their accounts or else are victims of hallucinations/false memories/etc. The other is that they are real and that they are of a physical nature like us. [Up: Agreed] But in that case, why is there no hard evidence? Why is there no undeniable contact? We can postulate "prime directives" and so forth, but an examination of human nature and human history would lead us to the conclusions that if they are benevolent, they would want to contact us in order to aid our civilization and that if they are not benevolent then they would want to invade and conquer us quickly in order to prevent us from developing star travel independently and becoming a threat. Provided that these are the only two possibilities, I would have to conclude that the first conclusion is most likely correct: It's all bunk.To recap, if a person claims to have an experience with aliens and/or UFOs, it's probably bunk due to "people are either fabricating their accounts or else are victims of hallucinations/false memories/etc." However, if a person has an experience with angels, you have no rational reason to think they aren't telling the Truth. Interesting.

No double standard here? Let's continue.
But in my world view, I am able to seriously consider another possibility: That UFOs do in fact exist, but that they are of spiritual/supernatural origin. Is there any reason to believe this? Well, first, the parallels of comparison with stories of angels and other supernatural encounters is uncanny. [snip] Indeed there is; should Satan want to openly appear in this world do you think he would be likely to stand up and say, "Here I am! The Devil, Old Nick, the Prince of Darkness! Come to me and be my slave forever!"? Wouldn't he likely have more success and win more followers by proclaiming himself to be Klaat Xerount, a superior being from Omicron Ceti III?

[snip]

So, based upon the information I have, I believe that in those UFO encounters where the stories do not break down upon closer examination (which is a tiny minority, I will agree) the people involved are witnessing a legitimate phenomenon, but that it is one of spiritual and supernatural origin. Were aliens to appear openly tomorrow, I would consider it most likely that they were fallen angels or demons in disguise.
Now who is reaching? ;) Regardless, you're saying that people who experience a close encounter with aliens/UFOs are incorrect about what is actually happening. Doesn't this go against your earlier claim that people are, by and large, competent observers of the major and significant events in their lives. I am not claiming that they cannot be wrong about details; see below. But without a good reason to believe otherwise, I consider them to be competent to recount the main points of their defining life experiences.Again with the double standard. If the phenomenon is angels, the observers are competent and absolutely reliable. If the phenomenon is aliens, the observers have been tricked and the phenomenon has an alternate explination. A skeptic would be willing to consider either option if there were something more substantial than antecdotes to go on. Even you seem to recongnize, at least in some situations, that anecdotes cannot always be taken at face value.
Could I be persuaded that I was wrong? Oh, most certainly. If those aliens shared the same physical vulnerabilities we do--if they could get sick, bleed, die, etc.--that would be a strong indicator that they were of physical origin. If they were to take no actions to win followers in a religious sense, if they left human religions in general and Christianity in particular to operate normally, then that would be another strong indicator in their favor. If they had technology which could be studied, understood, duplicated and put to use by us, I would consider that virtually conclusive; I believe that Satan does not have either the inclination or the patience to develop and master technology.You've very close to a skeptical outlook with the above statement. The difference is that skeptics are not limited to only thinking that aliens are either aliens or angel/demons in disguise. We're also willing to consider the option that they don't actually exist at all.
Originally posted by Upchurch

Going back to the central point of this thread, this is the primary reason why believes will never be as objective as skeptics when considering an issue. Your assumptions about the world immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities to consider when interpreting a situation or event.
Once again, you've got that backwards. It is your assumptions about the world which immediately cut you off from a range of possibilities when considering events such as this. I would have no problem whatsoever mastering the disciplines of and assimilating information from the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, and so on. How likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that UFOs are fallen angels? Why just above, I stated that I would be open to it if there were any evidence stronger than andecdotal stories which, as I have shown, can be faulty due to any number of reasons. And those reason, despite what your own preconceptions would like you to believe, have been studied and shown to occur time and time again.

If there were substantive evidence of angels, I would be very willing to give their existance credit. Further, if there were substantive evidence that angels existed but none that aliens/UFOs existed, I would be very willing to give the idea that aliens are actually angels, fallen or otherwise.

Let me counter, how likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that neither aliens nor angels exist? So far, you've given no indication that you would be, or am I mistaken?
<hr>
edited to add:

I feel justified in asking this. After all, your willingness to consider the possibility of false memories resulted in the following reaction:
Originally posted by ehbowen

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, HELL NO, A THOUSAND TIMES: NO!!!

[Dancing David]

Eye witnesses have a horrible track record in even serious capital crimes, check out information on Illinois death row.

What eveidence id there other than an eyewitness account, sorry I have met too many liars in my time, too many people with temperol lobe seizures and too many people with organic brain syndrome.

Now if we want to say that 'spiritual' experience is a special category of human perception and that many wierd and wonderful things can happen in human perception: the I agree that angels may exist. But as elements of human perception.

Magic: The Art and Science to cause change to occur in conformity with will.-A. Crowley Does not have to involve 'fallen angel' I suggest you read up on the Quabbalh a little, there are 'daemons' who were there before the demiurgos created the world, they even assisted.

Most magic does not require the trappings of medieveli religion.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Whoaw!!! What's this?? Do you stand behind this statement ehbowen?? And if so, where do you get the stones to start this thread and claim that all of "us skeptics" are closeminded??

I have deliberately attempted, for the most part, to avoid labeling one group or another with the perjorative terms "open" and "close-minded." I have merely said that we all have preconceptions and that those preconceptions color our responses to information. I have also said that we should attempt to be aware of those preconceptions and to take them into account. I do not exclude myself.

Your position is now laughable in light of YOUR closeminded beliefs. Throwing out scientific reason in favor of "revelation" (which can't be tested, falsified, etc.)?? The mind boggles. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Feel free to go ahead and laugh. We shall see who laughs last.

I accept the scientific method as a very powerful tool. In the 99% of cases where it does not conflict with the plain sense of Scripture, I have no problems with accepting its results at face value. In those cases where there is a conflict, such as the question of origins, I look for a way to reconcile the differences. I believe that the postulate of alternate time tracks coupled with that of conflict between God and Satan throughout time is potentially a valid step in that direction. I don't yet have enough supporting evidence to preach it from a pulpit or teach it to a class, but I am willing to discuss it in an open forum.

But if I am backed into a corner and forced to make a choice which will affect my life and my actions, and my only choices are that between scientific reasoning and the Word of God as revealed in the Bible, I will choose to follow the Bible. And my reason for making that choice is that that path has proven to be satisfactory and trustworthy in my life for the past twenty years. I can understand that you and those like you would disagree with and ridicule me for making it. But it is my choice, and I am satisfied with the results.

(Edit for spelling)

[Bluegill]

When people are speaking from such differing premises, I'm not sure anything more can be said, except, "Have a good day."

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by ehbowen

We shall see who laughs last.

I accept the scientific method as a very powerful tool. In the 99% of cases where it does not conflict with the plain sense of Scripture, I have no problems with accepting its results at face value. In those cases where there is a conflict, such as the question of origins, I look for a way to reconcile the differences..... I don't yet have enough supporting evidence to preach it from a pulpit or teach it to a class, but I am willing to discuss it in an open forum.

,..... I will choose to follow the Bible. And my reason for making that choice is that that path has proven to be satisfactory and trustworthy in my life for the past twenty years.

So for you the ultimate arbiter for truth is the Bible, not evidence but the Bible...your interpretation of the Bible...except you do mention something about evidence..but it appears that ultimately all evidence is only reliable so far as it can be reconciled with the Bible..so again if the Bible and the evidence don't match--the Bible is correct...

The difference between your OBVIOUS need to believe and the skeptical position is that contraty to your original point we do not have any such need for belief---our "preconception" is only that we have evidence-reliable, predictable, reproducible.

Example-when I buy lumber to build a house, I need a tool that will make the measurements the same, not one that changes all the time and has to be reconciled and reinterpreted to get the same measure.

When I go building the foundation for my life I need similar tools-the Bible and the recollections/hallucinations and misperceptions of human beings have been shown to be a very poor tool to get consistently reproducible results. No preconceptions, just more reliable standards for evidence than you demand. As you say -we shall see who laughs last...that sounds like there will be some evidence supporting who is right...but who will be there to record the results accurately?? We are not only laughing last...but we will enjoy laughing all the way to the end at your sillinesss.

[Upchurch]

I think it would be instructive at this point to reiterate the premise of this thread.
Originally posted by ehbowen with much snipping by Upchurch
I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics.

I have the psychological freedom to examine and consider each individual story on its content and merits, and I feel no pressure to accept or reject any individual story; should any one prove to be false, it calls for no great change in my beliefs. Now if anyone were to be able to show globally that each and every such story was false, it would call for a fundamental revision in my world view. Frankly, though, I do not believe that anyone is able to show this; however, you are welcome to try.

Those of you who see yourselves as skeptics, though, do not have this kind of freedom. I ask you to consider, again, your initial, gut reactions to the stories I presented. Did you conclude that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey were lying, or that they were mentally unstable? Upon what evidence was this conclusion based? If your answer is, "because they saw angels," then your reasoning is circular; you are assuming the point under debate. I ask you to carefully consider how much of your response stemmed from a fundamental, underlying belief that, "these things are impossible; therefore, any other explanation is preferred." Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a "need to not believe"--you have in the assessment of such a story.
Now, reading back over the thread, has ehbowen made his case? Has he shown that skeptics are less able to impartially assess and judge angel stories than believers are? I say he hasn't, based on two points in the above quote.
"If your answer is, 'because they saw angels,' then your reasoning is circular; you are assuming the point under debate." I would assert that this is, in fact, precisely what ehbowen has done. ehbowen assumes that angels exist so that he takes the accounts at face value with no further investigation. In other words, he assumes angels exist so the encounter was with angels. The skeptic, on the other hand, investigates other options as well in an attempt to determine what has actually happened, as I have tried to demonstrate in the thread.

"Think upon that, and think upon what kind of a psychological stake—a 'need to not believe'--you have in the assessment of such a story." I believe this is another reverse projection. I think I've shown that I am more than willing to believe that a phenomenon is supernatural in origin once the natural options have been exausted. I, and I think many other skeptics, do not have the deep seated need to not believe that many believers feel that we must have.

Ultimately, ehbowen, I think this is an attempt to marginalize critical thought. If you could show that skeptics have no more validity than a believer, any believer, then it becomes a matter of choice. And all choices are equal.

If, on the other hand, skeptics have more validity because they really do base things purely on critical thought rather than superstition or authority and they often come to the conclusion that aspects of believer's beliefs are inconsistant or even false, then the choices aren't equal. Some choices have more validity than others, don't they?

[Yahzi]

ehbowen
and my only choices are that between scientific reasoning and the Word of God as revealed in the Bible, I will choose to follow the Bible.
Can you not see that choosing the Bible, above all empirical evidence, is the very definition of preconception?

Seriously: are you unable to see this, or merely unwilling? Are you neurologically handicapped, or just emotionally immature?

Can you not at least admit that logically you are wrong? We aren't asking you to change your beliefs: just to acknowledge that you have preconceptions which are not necessarily present in a skeptical viewpoint. But as Upchurch said, that would mean you would have to stop pretending that you are as logical as the skeptics.

So here is my question, Eric: why does it matter? Why do you feel the need to be as logical as skeptics? Why can't you just admit your belief is irrational, and that's ok?


Upchurch
Made his point? He has contradicted himself completely. Contrast the quote above with the introductory quote:

I have the psychological freedom to examine and consider each individual story on its content and merits, and I feel no pressure to accept or reject any individual story
This is manifestly false. I think stating that the Biblical position is a priori correct qualifies as "pressure to accept or reject individual stories," at least as far as they contradict or agree with the Bible. The fact that Eric doesn't recognize this demonstrates that either a) he is mentally incapable of remembering what he said, or b) he is emotionally incapable of remembering what he said. IMHO, admittedly without sufficient evidence, I think it's the latter.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Made his point? He has contradicted himself completely. Interesting point, but we should give him a chance to counter and/or explain what he meant.

Incidently, I would take his first quote in your post and reword it thus:

"[If] my only choices are that between any explanation (scientific, religious, or otherwise) and the facts as revealed by objective investigation, I will choose to follow the facts."

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Irony alert: You are willing to consider a non-supernatural explination but have no rational reason for thinking that a supernatural explination is less likely than a natural one? Further, you assert that the supernatural explination is more likely than a natural one?

So your position is that any natural explanation is to be preferred over any supernatural explanation, regardless of whether or not we have any specific evidence in this specific case which points to it?

The thing is, you haven't been willing to consider natural explinations through your insistance that those natural explinations aren't possible (false memories, for example).

No, I never said that a natural explanation wasn't possible. I simply said that in these particular cases I had no reason to believe that these particular individuals were the victims of hallucinations, false memories, and so forth. And neither do you.

ehbowen, please. There is nothing more annoying than someone putting words in my mouth.

Sorry. But you do it too:

Further, have you not said that natural explinations for the event were not possible?

For the nth time, NO, I HAVE NOT! I have simply said that I have no reason to prefer these alternate explanations as opposed to the plain facts of the case as recounted by the witnesses. And that in the absence of a reason to believe otherwise, I choose to believe that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are competent to observe and to recount the facts of their own life experiences.

To recap, if a person claims to have an experience with aliens and/or UFOs, it's probably bunk due to "people are either fabricating their accounts or else are victims of hallucinations/false memories/etc." However, if a person has an experience with angels, you have no rational reason to think they aren't telling the Truth. Interesting.

No double standard here? Let's continue.

You overlooked a very important detail; I said: Provided that these are the only two possibilities, I would have to conclude that the first conclusion is most likely correct: It's all bunk. As I went on to discuss, I do not believe that those are the only two possibilities.

And I would further note that you are making global generalizations whereas I have, from the beginning, carefully limited myself to two specific cases. There are any number of so-called angel sightings where I would agree that the natural explanation is most likely. I chose to bring up Mrs. Howard's case because in that case I have direct personal knowledge of the principal and I know that there is no element of financial reward or recognition; I chose Rev. Cathey's case because I considered the elements of his case, particularly that of his daughter's medical experiences, to be especially compelling.

Now who is reaching? ;) Regardless, you're saying that people who experience a close encounter with aliens/UFOs are incorrect about what is actually happening. Again with the double standard. If the phenomenon is angels, the observers are competent and absolutely reliable. If the phenomenon is aliens, the observers have been tricked and the phenomenon has an alternate explination. A skeptic would be willing to consider either option if there were something more substantial than antecdotes to go on. Even you seem to recongnize, at least in some situations, that anecdotes cannot always be taken at face value.

Once again, you make global generalizations when I have limited myself to specific cases. It is my contention that, in these two specific cases, there is no reason to believe that these two specific people are not competent observers of their own situations. And that if the facts as they recounted them are indeed the true facts of the cases, there is no reason to seriously dispute their conclusions that they encountered angels.

You put me at a disadvantage by pressing me to respond in a general sense to the UFO question. If you wish to continue this line of questioning, I ask that you limit it to a specific case, preferably one in which the credibility of the witness and the facts of the case do not break down upon initial examination.

Let me counter, how likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that neither aliens nor angels exist? So far, you've given no indication that you would be, or am I mistaken?

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels. In order to do that, you would have to wipe out my memory of the previous thirty-three years and re-play that time span with no answered prayer, no comfort, consolation, insight, and illumination from the Holy Spirit, no instances of providential care and concern, and no evidence of divine guidance and plan. I do not think that you can do this. But you are free to try.

I feel justified in asking this. After all, your willingness to consider the possibility of false memories resulted in the following reaction:

In one specific case. A case in which I had detailed, personal knowledge: My own.

[Max560]

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God.

Does your belief that the Bible is the Word of God dictate the actual nature of reality, and all of the possible explanations for your friend's angel anecdote, or does your belief that the Bible is the Word of God dictate your version of reality, and which explanations you will accept for your friends anecdote?

[Yahzi]

ehbowen
You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels.
Now see, the absolute conviction that the Bible is the Word of God, absent any direct evidence, is what we call a "preconception." It is what you have, and what we skeptics do not have.

The evidence you listed for the truth of the Bible simply doesn't apply. None of those things are proof that the Bible is the word of God. The fact that you don't already know that shows you don't understand what "proof" is.

And that in the absence of a reason to believe otherwise, I choose to believe
When you are being rational, without preconceptions, in the absence of evidence, you don't believe. Choosing what you believe because that is what you want to believe is what is called a "preconception." It is what you have, and what we skeptics do not have.


Anyone
Can anyone explain why people who start a thread accusing everyone else of having preconceptions invariably turn out to be the poster children of preconceptions? Is it inevitable human nature that anytime somebody has a character flaw, they accuse the rest of the planet of it, without ever once realizing it might apply to them?

It would funny if it weren't so utterly common.

[Skeptical Greg]

Since I had a preconception that there are no angels at the begining of this thread, and I still feel the same... Is it now a ' postconception?:confused:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen


So your position is that any natural explanation is to be preferred over any supernatural explanation, regardless of whether or not we have any specific evidence in this specific case which points to it?
Perhaps it would be instructive at this point to review what "supernatural (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=supernatural)" actually means. In the link I provided, there are two definitions. The first relates to the supernatural realm. The second relates to events that occur in the natural realm that are of non-natural origins. Since we are potentially talking about non-natural events occuring in the natural world, it is the second definition that is of interest to us. Specifically:From the above link

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)In deference to your assumptions, I would amend 2 a to read "... so as to transcend or appear to transcend the laws of nature", so as to account for the possibility that angels do exist and can, in fact, transcend the laws of nature, rather than mearly appearing to.

Given that a supernatural events trancend the laws of nature, there is no way to objectively measure the event, since measuring requires abiding by a consistant pattern of behavior. If an event does not follow the laws of nature, it may not have a consistant pattern of behavior and, thus, may not be measurable. (I'm reiterating the point in another way, not providing justification.)

So, lets assume that a true supernatural event occurs. For instance, an angel visits an old woman. But, since the event is unmeasurable and unrepeatable, we can not be certain that the supernatural entity involved is, in fact, an angel. It could, with equal probability, be a devil, demon, fairie, ghost, phantom or any other supernatural entity. Because supernatural entities transcend the laws of nature, we have no way of knowing what their properties are.

So, yes, natural explinations are preferable to supernatural explinations because they can be verified. However, not just any natural explination is preferable. The natural explination must account for all aspects of the event.

However, I must make a correction. The specific evidence in this specific case (I'm taking to be Mrs. Howard) does not explicitly indicate a supernatural event. It is consistant with a number of natural psychological phenomenon, as I've shown in previous posts. To be honest, the evidence in this specific case does not explicitly indicate anything other than Mrs. Howard remembers seeing what she believes to be an angel.
No, I never said that a natural explanation wasn't possible. I simply said that in these particular cases I had no reason to believe that these particular individuals were the victims of hallucinations, false memories, and so forth. And neither do you.I didn't say you never said it wasn't possible. I said that you haven't been willing to consider it. There is a difference. The very difference you accuse skeptics of, in fact. (I am attempted to say it's the very difference you project onto skeptics.)

Ask yourself, while there is no reason to believe that Mrs. Howard was the victim of a psychological phenomenon, is there any reason to believe that she wasn't? The thing is, a psychological study of Mrs. Howard might be able to give us an indication if the latter has occured. Then, we might have a reason to consider one way or the other.
Originally posted by Upchurch

ehbowen, please. There is nothing more annoying than someone putting words in my mouth.Sorry. But you do it too:... I'm sorry. You are correct. You haven't said that natural possibilities aren't possible.
And that in the absence of a reason to believe otherwise, I choose to believe that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are competent to observe and to recount the facts of their own life experiences.Then you must recognize that choice is based on your own assumptions. You must further recognize that a skeptic's decision to withold judgement based on lack of information is not tantamount to an assumption that angels don't exist. This is has been your original claim and this is what I'm telling you that you are mistaken about.
You overlooked a very important detail; I said: Provided that these are the only two possibilities, I would have to conclude that the first conclusion is most likely correct: It's all bunk. As I went on to discuss, I do not believe that those are the only two possibilities.It doesn't matter if there are two or two thousand possibilites, my point was that you have two standards by which judge andecdotal evidence. For those who remember seeing supernatural enitities that are angels, they're 100% competient given no reason to think otherwise. For those who remember seeing supernatural entities that are not angels, they're probably mistaken given no reason to think otherwise.

When considering a situation with an open mind, free of preceptions, why should anecdotal claims about angels have any more credibility than anecdotal claims of fairies, aliens, or running a one minute mile?
And I would further note that you are making global generalizations whereas I have, from the beginning, carefully limited myself to two specific cases.
I disagree. As you've pointed out on a number of occasions, this is not about the specific cases of angel sightings. This is about the general approach that skeptics take vs. the approach that beleivers take. I quote:I would submit to you that I, being a believer, am better able to impartially assess and judge these stories than are you, the skeptics.

snip]

I simply ask you to be aware that you have them, that you attempt to remain aware of the ways in which they influence your actions, and that you keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong.My purpose in this thread it to dispute these statements. When it comes down to it, ehbowen, it is the believer, not the skeptic, who has trouble remembering that, on that most fundamental level, that they could be wrong. Further, I think your arguments on this thread support my counter-argument.

But if we must argue specifics...
There are any number of so-called angel sightings where I would agree that the natural explanation is most likely. I chose to bring up Mrs. Howard's case because in that case I have direct personal knowledge of the principal and I know that there is no element of financial reward or recognition;Very well. Now, what relevence does your involvement with Mrs. Howard or the fact that no fame or fortune is involved have to do with how Mrs. Howard percieved the event she remembers? It's immaterial to the event itself. It's still anecdotal evidence and it is still unverifiable.
I chose Rev. Cathey's case because I considered the elements of his case, particularly that of his daughter's medical experiences, to be especially compelling.But then, you have picked the anecdotes that supports your preconceptions. How many anecdotes are there that don't support that angels exist? Assuming there even is a Rev. Cathey or that the story was reported accurately, it is still only anecdotal evidence.
You put me at a disadvantage by pressing me to respond in a general sense to the UFO question. If you wish to continue this line of questioning, I ask that you limit it to a specific case, preferably one in which the credibility of the witness and the facts of the case do not break down upon initial examination.I have put you at a disadvantage not because I'm not presenting specific anecdotes, but because I'm forcing you to apply your confidence in anecdotal evidence to a subject where you don't necessarily believe the premise is true. When the person is telling you something you don't already believe is true, suddenly the recounted stories of others don't seem to carry as much weight, do they?

If you insist on a specific case, let us reconsider a case I brought up earlier, the Cottingly Fairies (http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/index.html). Before the photographic evidence was fully debunked, many people thought as you do: There is no reason to doubt the girls story. Further, they had actual pictures! So, why did, or should, people continue to question the anecdotal and, in this case, physical evidence the girls provided?
Originally posted by Upchurch

Let me counter, how likely are you to seriously consider the possibility that neither aliens nor angels exist? So far, you've given no indication that you would be, or am I mistaken?
You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels. In order to do that, you would have to wipe out my memory of the previous thirty-three years and re-play that time span with no answered prayer, no comfort, consolation, insight, and illumination from the Holy Spirit, no instances of providential care and concern, and no evidence of divine guidance and plan. I do not think that you can do this. But you are free to try.This, ehbowen, is known as an Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) and it is a logical fallacy. It occurs when a debater can't make an argument stand by its own merits and is reduced to saying their argument is correct because an authority says it is correct. By appealing to the Christian Bible as the ultimate authority on the nature of reality, by saying that angels exist because the Bible tells you that they do, you are commiting this logical fallacy.

Further, it tells me, once again, that you cannot "keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong," because you are not likely to seriously consider the possibility that angels don't exist.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Anyone
Can anyone explain why people who start a thread accusing everyone else of having preconceptions invariably turn out to be the poster children of preconceptions? Is it inevitable human nature that anytime somebody has a character flaw, they accuse the rest of the planet of it, without ever once realizing it might apply to them?
It's called Freudian projection (http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html) (see item 2b. 5)From the above link

(Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way.

[Dancing David]

The easiest path is to say that these are perceprtual/spiritual experiences.

I knew a very famous anthropologist who was attacked by a were jaguar. Seriously, one night on the way home he was attacked by a jaguar, a human masqueradeing as a jaguar or a were jaguar. He never assumed that it was the last possibilty, because he had never seen eveidence that a human can turn into a jaguar. (The funny part of the story is that the only alcohol in twon was the prostitute perfume and so they treated his wounds with that, his wife smeeled the perfume and refused to let him in the house)

So intelligent and rational person that he is if he daid 'It was a were jaguar' that would constitute proof of wre jaguars?\

Sorry given the three choices, i would have to go with the first two, there is eveidence that jaguars exist, there is evidence that people can pretend to be jaguars (huge ones) but at this point there is no evidence for were jaguars.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Max560


Does your belief that the Bible is the Word of God dictate the actual nature of reality, and all of the possible explanations for your friend's angel anecdote, or does your belief that the Bible is the Word of God dictate your version of reality, and which explanations you will accept for your friends anecdote?

I said in the beginning that, "I consider it neither impossible nor unlikely that angels exist; I consider it very highly unlikely that Mrs. Howard would lie to me." That is basically how I view the situations. I consider that the possibility that angels exist and that one of them would want to appear to Mrs. Howard is fairly high; I consider that the possibility that Mrs. Howard would tell me an outright lie or be the victim of a hallucination/false memory/ etc. is very low. I freely state that my views of these probabilities are shaped by my own preconceptions. I simply happen to believe that my preconceptions are closer to the actual truth than those of others on this thread.

More importantly, though, I want to say that I don't believe that it is correct to speak of "my" reality or "your" reality. I am convinced that reality is objective, not subjective. And my goal is to more completely discover that actual, objective reality. What my belief in the Bible dictates is my actions. I have become convinced that the best and fastest way to discover the truth is to earnestly seek after God. I believe that pursuing that path will open the door for me to discover things which could never be learned in a thousand years of laboratory research.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Since I had a preconception that there are no angels at the begining of this thread, and I still feel the same... Is it now a ' postconception?:confused:

It's actually known as a "misconception."

(You have to admit, you set yourself up for that one....:D )

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Yahzi

When you are being rational, without preconceptions, in the absence of evidence, you don't believe. Choosing what you believe because that is what you want to believe is what is called a "preconception." It is what you have, and what we skeptics do not have.

Very well. I have never said that I was free from preconceptions. I have said several times that we all have them. My hope from the beginning was that we might all be able to recognize our blind spots and take them into account. But now, shades of John 9:41, you say, "We see." Time will tell.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ehbowen


Very well. I have never said that I was free from preconceptions. I have said several times that we all have them. My hope from the beginning was that we might all be able to recognize our blind spots and take them into account. But now, shades of John 9:41, you say, "We see." Time will tell.
But we don't have preconceptions, at least not in the sense in which you use the word. We don't have a truth we are a priori invested in being true.

Like somebody said, you can find out all of physics is wrong and still be a physicist, but if you find out your religion is wrong, you can't be a priest anymore.

Of course we have blind spots, but we also have methods for coping with them. You not only have blind spots, you embrace them as the foundation of your truths.

Of course, you will never see the difference. The question I would like to you answer is: why? Why do you simultaneously reject empirical rationalism and yet strive after its credentials?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by ehbowen

I am convinced that reality is objective, not subjective. And my goal is to more completely discover that actual, objective reality. What my belief in the Bible dictates is my actions.In general, how reliable would you consider the writers of the bible in describing such aspects of objective reality as, say...astronomy? How about geography? ...Medicine?
I have become convinced that the best and fastest way to discover the truth is to earnestly seek after God. I believe that pursuing that path will open the door for me to discover things which could never be learned in a thousand years of laboratory research.Nor confirmed (or refuted) by a thousand years of scientific testing, and therefore of no more value than any of countless other things that have no more factual basis than their being something somebody thought up, and which by their nature are similarly untestable. My hope from the beginning was that we might all be able to recognize our blind spots and take them into account.
Once you recognize a blind spot, it ceases to be a blind spot. Locating and eliminating blind spots is practically a definition of scientific investigation and skeptical inquiry. By contrast, Jesus said, "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out".

[Fun2BFree]

ehbowen-

All of your so-called proofs depend on believing you or Mrs Holland or Rev Cathay...believing anyone's recollections, interpretations, etc of anything is not called objective evidence of reality--individual's recollections are by definition subjective. Subjective recollections are notoriously not reliable--people remember and interpret things according to their own views not reliably or consistently aligned with objective reality...You think things that happened to you in your life prove God's existence...but would ANYbody observing your life come to the same conclusion? Unless the same conclusion is reached by independent observers it is not reliable information. So Mrs Holland is a reliable eyewitness? Do you suppose a defense attorney would be bothered if she were a witness against his client and told about this angel experience to prove how reliable a witness she was????


that you think that your arguments provide any logical rational basis for your beliefs is the first evidence of how unreliable your interpretation of the world is...with that notion roundly rejected here you should realize how unreliable YOU are to interpret your own life's experiences in anything approaching a rational way---you have built your whole life's foundation on an irrational belief---faith is by definition believing without adequate reason to believe---no reason--without reason--Irrational...This is not just ME the nonbeliever, saying this--read one of the great believers--Immanuel Kant---"I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief." (read his works,not just this quote)

All of your supposed proofs of the Bible and God's grace and answered prayers in your life's events are just YOUR interpretation of events to fit that hypothesis...there are non God, rational explanations for everything that has happened in your life- EVERYTHING that has happened in your life can be explained in a natural way- no God necessary--only YOUR CHOSEN OR INDOCTRINATED BELIEF favors God...answered prayers??? Every prayer answered? Really? Wow, what a record that must be....that should allow you to prove ahead of time what will happen in life by just praying for it and sitting back and watching your every prayer answered...Let me guess---that is not how it works....I am betting that if a prayer went your way--God said yes, if it went against you, God said no...but whatever happened you always interpreted it as prayer answered by God...could never be just random chance....You see that as a fair test of whether prayer is answered???? You recall and interpret life in a way that fits the belief you arbitrarily were born to---but the natural explanations are more likely---that is not preconception that is playing the probabilities...I will quote myself from another thread:

"In the history of man's attempts to understand the world, the supernatural explanations's batting average for being correct so far is ----let me do a little calculation....let me see zero divided by umpteen is what again?"

By correct, I mean so far proven correct---you see, that is the nature of science---it leaves open the door to more and better proof--but as the scientific knowledge has expanded so many supernatural explanations have fallen by the wayside ...science, the natural explanation replacing the supernatural, has a pretty darn good record. The scientific explanation has NEVER been supplanted by the supernatural -never.

Again quoting myself frm the other thread-
"When some one says God- one can substitute the words "no body knows" which is ignorance. I am not sure of the quote but I believe it was Ayn Rand who said something to the effect that taking ignorance and giving it a name does not make it into knowledge..."
(Note- please, I do not use the quote because Ayn Rand is an authority on anything, it is a correct statement because it is demonstrably true, quite succinct, and credit to the original speaker is appropriate.)

[evildave]

Do you suppose a defense attorney would be bothered if she were a witness against his client and told about this angel experience to prove how reliable a witness she was????


Actually, according to the jury a defense attorney was likely to draw (and select), an angel story would be "extra damning".

Especially when you consider the defense attorney of that guy who killed his pregnant wife is blaming 'satanists' in a mystery van.

Maybe Scooby Doo was involved....

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Upchurch

So, lets assume that a true supernatural event occurs. For instance, an angel visits an old woman. But, since the event is unmeasurable and unrepeatable, we can not be certain that the supernatural entity involved is, in fact, an angel. It could, with equal probability, be a devil, demon, fairie, ghost, phantom or any other supernatural entity. Because supernatural entities transcend the laws of nature, we have no way of knowing what their properties are.

Excellent. We have reached a point of agreement. At least for the purposes of furthering this discussion, you are willing to seriously consider the possibility that Mrs. Howard did experience a genuine phenomenon--not a trick of the senses or memory--which she had reasonable grounds to interpret as being an angel. Your contention, however, is that she was mistaken in her interpretation, and that she actually saw a devil, demon, fairie, ghost, or phantom. I will agree that that is possible; I do not consider it likely, but, yes, it is possible. I consider that I have a passable knowledge of angels, but I do not have much knowledge of devils/demons/fairies/etc. Drawing upon your knowledge of these beings, tell me what you think that she actually saw and explain why this being would have wanted to identify him/her/itself as an angel.

So, yes, natural explinations are preferable to supernatural explinations because they can be verified. However, not just any natural explination is preferable. The natural explination must account for all aspects of the event.

I'm still waiting to hear the natural explanation which can account for all aspects of Rev. Cathey's experience, including the medical aspects of his daughter's case.

And that in the absence of a reason to believe otherwise, I choose to believe that Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey are competent to observe and to recount the facts of their own life experiences.
Then you must recognize that choice is based on your own assumptions.

I do indeed. And I consider those assumptions to be justified based upon my own personal experience.

You must further recognize that a skeptic's decision to withold judgement based on lack of information is not tantamount to an assumption that angels don't exist. This is has been your original claim and this is what I'm telling you that you are mistaken about.

If you were in fact withholding judgment I would agree with you. You say you are withholding judgment, but I find that difficult to believe. If you were in fact withholding judgment based upon lack of information, I would expect to see you taking steps to rectify that lack. I would expect to see you pressing me for more information about these cases, instead of pressing me to agree that hallucinations and false memories are probable causes of Mrs. Howard's case. (I note in passing that you have studiously avoided dealing with Rev. Cathey.) I would expect you to be as equally intrigued with the question of what these cases might tell us about the nature and character of angels as you have been with the various possible psychological causes Mr. Darwin has brought up.

I am not expecting you or anyone else here to declare yourself a believer based upon these two stories. I will readily agree that there is not sufficient evidence to compel belief by those who are inclined to not believe. But I would expect you to be curious about possible reasons why that might be. And I would expect to hear you say that this subject definitely bears further looking into.

It doesn't matter if there are two or two thousand possibilites, my point was that you have two standards by which judge andecdotal evidence. For those who remember seeing supernatural enitities that are angels, they're 100% competient given no reason to think otherwise. For those who remember seeing supernatural entities that are not angels, they're probably mistaken given no reason to think otherwise.

Not at all. I am perfectly willing to credit that, in those cases where the facts of the case do not break down upon examination, those who see supernatural entities which are not angels are in fact seeing legitimate phenomena which they have reason to interpret as being UFOs/fairies/etc. I am willing to consider them as competent observers of their own life experiences. I merely believe that they are misinterpreting their conclusions about what they are seeing. Using the same yardstick as in the situation I opened with above, I tender an alternate explanation: That those involved are actually seeing demons who are masquerading as (for example) aliens. The reason I put forth for this masquerade is that a demon is more likely to win followers in the guise of an extraterrestrial. I do not by any means argue that my theory is conclusive. I only submit it as an explanation which accounts for all aspects of the case and which I believe is defensible.

This, ehbowen, is known as an Appeal to Authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) and it is a logical fallacy.

It would be were I attempting to use it to persuade you. I am not; I am simply sharing with you the basis for my own personal decision. I chose to follow the path I am on some twenty-one years ago, and in that time I have seen sufficient evidence--not conclusive, mind you, but sufficient--that I am on the right path. Having validated the authority of the Scriptures by my personal experience, I accept them as likewise being authoritative in those areas in which I do not have direct personal experience--such as angels.

[Max560]

I am convinced that reality is objective, not subjective. And my goal is to more completely discover that actual, objective reality.

OK, so far, so good.

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels.

Do you find this to be a good foundation for discovering the nature of objective reality?

I consider that the simplest and most straightforward conclusion is that Mrs. Howard is telling the truth. I believe that Mrs. Howard has, in actual fact, seen an angel.

Your endorsement of Mrs. Howard is nice, but really only demonstrates that you believe her. In order to have her anecdote carry any more weight, you must first be able to demonstrate that Mrs. Howard is infallible.

So far, you have shown that you are convinced that she is convinced that she saw an angel. You have also made the declaration that you believe that the bible is the word of God, and that you use this belief to support the "simplest and most straightforward conclusion" regarding what Mrs. Howard saw.

When your world view is founded on Belief, and you are willing to accept anecdotal evidence as proof, do you expect anyone to take you seriously when your arguement takes the general form of "Believe me when I tell you that...."

This is why I wonder about your version of reality versus actual reality. You seem to be able to readily dismiss any evidence which does not conform to your reality.

Perhaps you should reflect on what you said in the beginning:

nobody will ever be argued into abandoning prejudices. I simply ask you to be aware that you have them, that you attempt to remain aware of the ways in which they influence your actions, and that you keep open in the back of your mind the possibility that, on that most fundamental level, you could be wrong.

[Fun2BFree]

What has been said about Mrs Holland goes for Rev Cathy and even more so...The natural explanation starts by realizing that there is no evidence...you are so quick to start with the premise that what he says is entirely true...that is not anyway to get to the truth---we have nothing but his testimony...no corroborating evidence..we have his statement that there is corroborating evidence...there are many reasons he could be mistaken, misguided, misremembering things, delusional, lying, all to further his particular unproveable worldview...and he would not be aware of how divorced from reality his story might be..
"NO way! You say! I know this guy -impossible...."

No-possible and likely..Really think about this from any normal person's viewpoint--If this really truly happened to you would you not be appearing on every media outlet, or at least the 700 club (or at the time its equivalent) with the flight crew, the doctors, etc. proclaiming this fantastic miracle!???!! Of course- you would....if it were all true and proveable it would be no problem--Especially if you were an evangelist..but that would require actual corroboration- and stories are so much easier to pass off from the pulpit after the fact and away from the proofs.
"Could not be false--I know this man"
And so did others know many before you and swear by their virtue and honesty when they told stories that were untrue. Miracle cures and similar ghosty stories like this - when they have been checked out have fallen apart under scrutiny---they always have -did you meet the other flight crew? Did you see the medical records? No- you believed what the Reverand said-because you are a believer- you accept what is told-period-- if it fits what you want to hear--gullible is another word to describe that approach to the world-the opposite???---skeptical.

Your posts prove one thing--over and over again-- you are consistently blind to your own fallibility as well as that of your fellow story-tellers. It is all about you -if you believe it to be true --well it must be so--

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by Max560
Do you find this to be a good foundation for discovering the nature of objective reality?

The jury is still out on that. Based upon that foundation, I have come to some ideas which I think I might never have come to otherwise, such as my idea that multiple "time tracks" exist. But as of now, that idea and many of the others I have are, at best, merely speculations.

My hope is that, by continuing to follow the path I have chosen, I will at some point receive definite and conclusive evidence about this idea and others. When I say that I am committed to my choice of seeking God as he is revealed in the Bible, that does not mean that I believe there is no chance that I am wrong. All I am saying is that I am satisfied that the highest and best possible choice for my life is to continue on that path from this point on.

Your endorsement of Mrs. Howard is nice, but really only demonstrates that you believe her. In order to have her anecdote carry any more weight, you must first be able to demonstrate that Mrs. Howard is infallible.

I understand--and agree. I have never said that anecdotal evidence is sufficient to compel belief. I do think, however, that it is sufficient to provoke discussion and further investigation.

This is why I wonder about your version of reality versus actual reality. You seem to be able to readily dismiss any evidence which does not conform to your reality.

But that is the point in question: What is actual reality? If angels do in actual fact exist and interact with our world, then is there any real reason to suspect that these two individuals did not have genuine encounters with them?

What we have here is two opposing world views. And the question we face is, which one is correct? I know that if I am wrong, I want to be right. But if it is your view which is incorrect, do you want to know it? What would it take to persuade you of that fact? And is the type and amount of the evidence you would require consistent with the amount of evidence you require for other phenomena? Our actual evidence for the existence of things such as black holes is pretty thin, after all. Think also of the question of what lengths you would be willing to go to in order to discover the actual truth. Would you be willing to take a step of faith, risking some potential embarrassment, in order to reach out for and perhaps encounter the true God? Or, as I stated to another poster, do you require that somebody else do all the legwork in order to present you with incontrovertible facts? If the latter, then do not expect to receive any share of the reward.

Returning to your point, it is not that I am "dismissing" evidence which does not conform to my world view; it is simply that when I must make a choice between rationalism and revelation, I choose to regard revelation as superior. In point of fact, I do remain aware of the conflicting evidence and I seek to find ways to reconcile it with the revelation I accept. Now I know that I have stated that I am not open to being converted to a materialist worldview. That is because I have seen enough personal evidence to convince me that there is more to existence than this material universe. But if you have a competing theory which integrates our knowledge of the physical world with my observed conclusions about the spiritual world, then I want to hear it.

I believe that the final, perfect understanding of our universe and the whole of reality will completely and perfectly take into account both the facts which we have discovered through reason and the scientific method and the revelation which has been given of the nature and character of God. I'm not there yet. But I think I'm getting there, one step at a time.

[Max560]

The jury is still out on that.

You may be shocked to learn that very few scientific papers cite the bible as a primary source.

When I say that I am committed to my choice of seeking God as he is revealed in the Bible, that does not mean that I believe there is no chance that I am wrong.

You would first have to convince me that the Bible is not the Word of God. I am convinced that it is, and it is the Bible which tells me that there are angels. In order to do that, you would have to wipe out my memory of the previous thirty-three years and re-play that time span with no answered prayer, no comfort, consolation, insight, and illumination from the Holy Spirit, no instances of providential care and concern, and no evidence of divine guidance and plan. I do not think that you can do this. But you are free to try.

Which of the two statements above are true? Is there a chance that you are wrong, or is it impossible to show you that you may be wrong because you simply will not accept the possiblity that the Bible is not the Word of God?

I understand--and agree. I have never said that anecdotal evidence is sufficient to compel belief.

I compare her story to others involving angelic appearances and find it to be consistent with those which I consider to be most credible. The conclusion I draw is that Mrs. Howard’s story is unusual, but by no means impossible. I consider that the simplest and most straightforward conclusion is that Mrs. Howard is telling the truth. I believe that Mrs. Howard has, in actual fact, seen an angel.

Which of these two mutually exclusive ideas do you actually believe?

Regarding the second of the above quotes, do you feel that comparing Mrs. Howard's anecdote with third hand anecdotes (unless of course, you interviewed all those other people who claim to have witnessed angelic appearances) makes hers more valid?

What we have here is two opposing world views. And the question we face is, which one is correct?

Mine.

But if it is your view which is incorrect, do you want to know it? What would it take to persuade you of that fact?

Someone winning the JREF Challenge.

Would you be willing to take a step of faith, risking some potential embarrassment, in order to reach out for and perhaps encounter the true God?

Sure. Right after you prove that God exists. If you win the JREF Challenge regarding this, I will certainly consider reaching out to encounter the true God. Until such time, I will not reach out for God, Thor, Zeus, Shiva, or any other deity.

Or, as I stated to another poster, do you require that somebody else do all the legwork in order to present you with incontrovertible facts? If the latter, then do not expect to receive any share of the reward.

Somehow, I will manage without.

it is not that I am "dismissing" evidence which does not conform to my world view; it is simply that when I must make a choice between rationalism and revelation, I choose to regard revelation as superior.

when I must make a choice between rationalism and revelation, I choose to regard revelation as superior="dismissing" evidence which does not conform to my world view

In point of fact, I do remain aware of the conflicting evidence and I seek to find ways to reconcile it with the revelation I accept.

Might I suggest that it is better to ensure that your beliefs fit the facts, rather than trying to make the facts fit your beliefs?

That is because I have seen enough personal evidence to convince me that there is more to existence than this material universe.

Really? Keep me posted on your progress towards winning the JREF Challenge.

I believe that the final, perfect understanding of our universe and the whole of reality will completely and perfectly take into account both the facts which we have discovered through reason and the scientific method and the revelation which has been given of the nature and character of God. I'm not there yet. But I think I'm getting there, one step at a time.

Good luck with that.

[Yahzi]

ehbowen
In point of fact, I do remain aware of the conflicting evidence and I seek to find ways to reconcile it with the revelation I accept.
A clearer statement of "preconception" is inconcievable.

There is no "revelation," or any other preconception, that skeptics need to reconcile the evidence with.

You have now openly and clearly demonstrated that a) you have preconceptions, and b) skeptics do not. Why can't you just admit it? Why can't you say, "I was wrong, the need to beleive does not cut both ways."

[Loki]

Yahzi,

A clearer statement of "preconception" is inconcievable
Like always, a needle in the heart of the opposition! Works for me!

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by ehbowen


What we have here is two opposing world views. And the question we face is, which one is correct? I know that if I am wrong, I want to be right. But if it is your view which is incorrect, do you want to know it? What would it take to persuade you of that fact? And is the type and amount of the evidence you would require consistent with the amount of evidence you require for other phenomena? Our actual evidence for the existence of things such as black holes is pretty thin, after all.

What we have here is a failure to cogitate...As has been explained in multiple responses to this thread--skeptics want to know the truth-but accept as true only that which is supported by the evidence. There is no need to believe in skeptical thought. (this is just a different way of saying the old nonsense about skepticism or atheism or science just being another religion with different beliefs). Skepticism has only a need for evidence. No other assumptions no need to believe anything...just follow the evidence.

The type and amount of evidence supporting your worldview is as good as that for other notions that you have already said you reject (UFO's etc) and the evidence for God of Christianity is certainly no better than that of numerous other beliefs that you must reject (pick a religion other than yours)---religous evidence? it is an oxymoror---the evidence for Black holes is thin? You don't know what you are talking about...black holes are an understanding of the collected observations of independent observers and coincide with the physical laws of nature as they have held up to numerous tests and checks and re checks and fit the data and evidence the best so far...all of your ridiculous beliefs counter the known laws of nature--things appearing and disappearing at will???!??---that does not happen in this universe...has not ever happened...WE can be confident and we should be relieved to be confident in the knowledge that things do not appear and disappear at the caprice of some supernatural being...otherwise strap a pillow on your behind everytime you go to sit down, son. cause that chair may disappear!

Good grief--if you want to be open to evidence please go back and read the many thoughtful responses to this thread and find that the evidence is that your argument will get no where with this audience of free thinking skeptics.

Yours in Jesus,

Satan

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ehbowen


Excellent. We have reached a point of agreement. At least for the purposes of furthering this discussion, you are willing to seriously consider the possibility that Mrs. Howard did experience a genuine phenomenon--not a trick of the senses or memory--which she had reasonable grounds to interpret as being an angel.
This is really quite redundent. I have always been willing to consider the possibility that the phenomenon (I'm not sure what you mean by "genuine" phenomenon, all phenomenon could be considered genuine) could be natural or supernatural in nature. However, I am not away that Mrs. Howard had any reasonable grounds to interpret the phenomenon as being an angel. How did she come to the conclusion that this particular phenomenon was an angel? Or did she just assume that it was one?
Your contention, however, is that she was mistaken in her interpretation, and that she actually saw a devil, demon, fairie, ghost, or phantom. It is not my contention that she was mistaken, only that she may have been mistaken and there is no way to know for sure whether she was or not, assuming the phenomenon is not natural in origin.
I consider that I have a passable knowledge of angels, but I do not have much knowledge of devils/demons/fairies/etc.
You do? Where does your knowledge come from? So far, the only source I recall you citing is the Bible, which is just another form of anecdotal information. How do you or, more importantly, how did Mrs. Howard identify the phenomenon as an angel? With what did she have or use as a comparision?
Drawing upon your knowledge of these beings, tell me what you think that she actually saw and explain why this being would have wanted to identify him/her/itself as an angel.I have no idea. There simply isn't enough information to draw any conclusion other than Mrs. Howard rememebers seeing something that she believes was an angel.
I'm still waiting to hear the natural explanation which can account for all aspects of Rev. Cathey's experience, including the medical aspects of his daughter's case.Dreams and coincidences? Or perhaps the story got exadurated with each telling, thus becoming an urban legand. The Mrs. Howard story has the advantage that you knew her personally and were willing to vouch that she had told your her story. The Rev. Cathey story isn't even third hand information and, for all we know, could be completely ficticious. The fact that no one else saw anything other than a few wrappers harly helps the case either.
If you were in fact withholding judgment I would agree with you. You say you are withholding judgment, but I find that difficult to believe.
Once again, the double standard appears. Mrs. Howard tells you a story about angels, something you wish to be true, and you believe her 100%. I tell you that I am actually skeptical rather than fitting into your mold of what a skeptic is, something you don't want to be true, and you don't believe me. Why is that?
If you were in fact withholding judgment based upon lack of information, I would expect to see you taking steps to rectify that lack. I would expect to see you pressing me for more information about these cases, instead of pressing me to agree that hallucinations and false memories are probable causes of Mrs. Howard's case.
First of all, I thought you said the thread was not about the existance of angels but about your perception that skeptics are not suitable to interpret supernatural pheonomenon. If this had been about prooving that angels exist, I would have pressed for more information. As it was, I was taking your stories as you presented them, assuming that you gave all relevent details, However, this is an excellent example of how the human mind does not have perfect recall. I asked or stated the following about the details of the encounter in this very thread: I consider that the case has not been made for "angels exist" based on two pieces of "evidence". The first is that the only evidence are the memories of Mrs. Howard and Rev. Cathey and that there is no supporting evidence. The angels left no fingerprints. Performed no miracles that couldn't have been accomplished in any other way. No DNA samples from discarded wing feathers. Nothing. Nada. (You didn't correct me.)
Did anyone ask Mrs. Howard why the angel was there or what its message was? (You didn't answer.)
Show me some conclusive proof that angels - or God - exist and I will also change my mind. (You never did.)
Now consider, what evidence does Mrs. Howard have to support her own recollection of the event? (You didn't answer.)
Now, what relevence does your involvement with Mrs. Howard or the fact that no fame or fortune is involved have to do with how Mrs. Howard percieved the event she remembers? (This is almost irrelevent, but it is a push for more detail.)
Consider, you had no memory of the above quotes even though you surely read at least some of them. Is it that you are not competent in reporting what happened or is it that you made a mistake and remembered the thread incorrectly?

The fact remains that angels aren't the central theme of this discussion. If you would care to make it one, we could do this in another thread. My purpose in this discussion is to counter argue your claim that skeptics are not the most capable to impartially assess and judge events. What is your purpose?
(I note in passing that you have studiously avoided dealing with Rev. Cathey.)
First, it is irrelevent. Second, the source is unknown by anyone involved in this discussion.
I would expect you to be as equally intrigued with the question of what these cases might tell us about the nature and character of angels as you have been with the various possible psychological causes Mr. Darwin has brought up.I am just about as familiar with the nature and character of angels are supposed to be as you are. Psychology, on the other hand, I am not as familiar with. Not the nuances of it, at least. That is the source of my intrigue and it is a side issue to the one at hand. Is it not?
I am not expecting you or anyone else here to declare yourself a believer based upon these two stories. I will readily agree that there is not sufficient evidence to compel belief by those who are inclined to not believe. But I would expect you to be curious about possible reasons why that might be. And I would expect to hear you say that this subject definitely bears further looking into.
And so I did:Originally posted by Upchurch

It's very possible that my repsonse is ingrained, but doesn't that just show that the need for evidence, one way or the other, is just that much more necessary? I say you have your beliefs about the situation. You say I have my beliefs about the situation. Why don't we research it in an organized fashion and reach a conclusive result? Once again, you remember things in a way that they did not occur, demonstrably in this case. Is Mrs. Howard a more competent observer than yourself? And if so, how can we trust your recolection of the events concerning Mrs. Howard?
I am willing to consider them as competent observers of their own life experiences. I merely believe that they are misinterpreting their conclusions about what they are seeing.Not because of the evidence but because you don't believe in phenomena that are not of devine or demonic origin, right? Isn't that the very same condition you told us you wouldn't buy it if we said that we don't believe that the story was actually about angels when you said: "I must state up front that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "angels do not exist" is more likely than "Mrs. Howard is a liar" will fall completely flat with me."

Would you be just as consistant in your acceptance of anecdotal stories as to say: "I must state up fron that any argument or reasoning which is based upon the proposition that "aliens don't exist" is more likely than "Obductee X is a liar" will fall completely flat with me."
Using the same yardstick as in the situation I opened with above, I tender an alternate explanation: That those involved are actually seeing demons who are masquerading as (for example) aliens.
Another irony alert: When a skeptic measures an event against the yardstick of measurable phenomena, we are not impartially assessing the situation. However, when you measure an event against the yardstick of your prefered explination, you are impartially assessing the situation.

Just for clarification: Impartial (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=impartial)
I do not by any means argue that my theory is conclusive. I only submit it as an explanation which accounts for all aspects of the case and which I believe is defensible.That is good because it is not conclusive. However, I have also given an explanation which accounts for all aspects of the case and is also defensible with hard research. Why am I the one who is being prejudiced?
Originally posted by ehbrown
Originally posted by Upchurch
This, ehbowen, is known as an Appeal to Authority and it is a logical fallacy.

It would be were I attempting to use it to persuade you. I am not;I do wish you would make up your mind about this. However, in point of fact, it is still an appeal to authority. The reason that you "have no reason" to consider that some alternate explinations of angels are likely is because of your appeal to the Bible, which is the source of our concepts of what angels are. The reason that you do have reason to consider that some explinations of aliens are not likely is because of your appeal to the Bible.

I'm willing to take a guess that the reason you don't believe that skeptics are capable of impartial assessment of angel stores is because they, for the most part, do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, or even that God exists. If a devote Christian skeptic told you that there is no way to tell if Mrs. Howard saw an angel, how would you react?
I chose to follow the path I am on some twenty-one years ago, and in that time I have seen sufficient evidence--not conclusive, mind you, but sufficient--that I am on the right path. Having validated the authority of the Scriptures by my personal experience, I accept them as likewise being authoritative in those areas in which I do not have direct personal experience--such as angels. The fact of the matter, ehbowen, is that you closed the door on being impartial when you made up your mind that an authority, any authority, was correct and unassailable. Every authority should be questioned when necessary, especially those that cannot be independently verified and re-verified.

As an aside, if the evidence has not been conclusive (especially for subjects that you have admited are unfalsifiable), how can you validate the authority of the scriptures? Further, what leads you to believe that if they are valid in one respect they must be necessarily valid in others?

[Loki]

Upchurch,

(ehbowen wrote) : Using the same yardstick as in the situation I opened with above, I tender an alternate explanation: That those involved are actually seeing demons who are masquerading as (for example) aliens.

(Upchurch wrote) : When a skeptic measures an event against the yardstick of measurable phenomena, we are not impartially assessing the situation. However, when you measure an event against the yardstick of your prefered explination, you are impartially assessing the situation.
I think this pretty much nails the debate down fairly precisely!