How does this belief in God work? It seems that the obvious Christianity designated miscreants are not dying any faster than other pious individuals. There is no evidence to suggest that prayerful supplications have any effect on the virus. Death and recovery rates are independent of religiosity. It seems in Utah the religious leaders are throwing in the towel. They are suggesting that individuals abide by CDC guidelines rather than engaging in greater tithes, prostrations, prayers, fasting, etc.

Now to my question. How does one rationalize their faith if there is no evidence to support the proposition that faith has any effect? An incredulous atheist wants to know during this time of communal insanity.

Oh and whatever happened to charity (love and mercy for your fellowman) when Christians refuse to wear masks so as not to do harm, "love your neighbor as yourself". Does this mean that the Sermon on the Mount is now void?

There is plenty of 'anecdotal' events recorded by people. We don't necessarily see God but do get help from the other side. I have been helped all my life, and count that as 'personal evidence'. I have scored, with help, top 3% in my profession and top .5% on one of my hobbies ---- on world-wide tests. Normally, many people are warned in dreams or by voice of danger --- many times for me. Experiences can be diverse but the 'danger' is where most people are impacted.

Don't believe me, you can fend for yourself without help!!! I enjoy competing with an advantage --- can 'normally' count on it but to what extent is an issue. This is not something a person can control only attempt!

So do I belong to a 'religion' --- definitely not!!! So I can't comment on any religious persons actions. Are you sure they 'really believe' or just going through the motions like ---- Mormons because of 'brain washing/repetition'???
Few Mormons I met had 'spiritual experiences' where the other side was identified as being involved --- visions, dreams, voices with a specific outcome.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2020 11:50PM by spiritist.

I assume that you see itself as favored by God. Why do you assume that is? Unless your competitors are atheists.

Not 'favored' but one that 'requests' help and is given help!!

If people don't ask, would you always step in to help them?

Because anecdote doesnt mean data.

You know, the things that are demonstrable, repeatable, actionable.

Because anecdote doesnt mean data.

You know, the things that are demonstrable, repeatable, actionable.

COMMENT: You would be hard pressed to convince your sociologist or psychologist friends--including your evolutionary psychologist friends--that anecdotal evidence (what a person reports about his or her experience) is not "data" when used in a scientific context--regardless of whether it is "demonstrable, repeatable, or actionable."

And it certainly does not stop there. When Antonio Damasio and countless others come to conclusions about neuroscience and the brain, he repeatedly refer to anecdotal accounts; including interviews inquiring about the psychological effects of various brain pathologies. Moreover, he himself contributes to such anecdotal "data" when he writes about his own experiences with patients, and passes on as "data" the reports of his patients.

Your problem with spiritist's anecdotal experiences is that they are personal, and not offered to support any scientific point of view beyond her own faith. But surely you can see that that is not HER problem. She has every rational right to introspect her spiritual experiences; interpret them, and draw conclusions from them. What she can't do is claim that her personal conclusions are in any way scientific, which to my knowledge she never does.

Notwithstanding that, other people can and do consider such anecdotal spiritual experiences as "data" when considering the social and psychological aspects of religious faith.

And for just such quality errors in "data" the DSM misclassified homosexuality as deviant and an illness for decades.

It's not that the "soft" sciences aren't useful, but that they over-reach what they claim to know. They improve when they demonstrate and when they repeat. A majority of psychological studies fail on repeated efforts to verify for example.

https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248/

And for just such quality errors in "data" the DSM misclassified homosexuality as deviant and an illness for decades.

COMMENT: Agree. But there is a distinction between "errors of data" and most importantly, "errors in interpreting data," and what can be appropriated identified as data itself! Most data that is in the form of anecdotal accounts is not scientifically useful; or of very limited value. As a stark example, there may be a legitimate scientific study about certain statistical aspects of religious faith. Completed questionnaires would be correctly identified as "data." But the same data could not legitimately be used to conclude that religion is probably true. That would be a misuse of the data.
_____________________________________________

It's not that the "soft" sciences aren't useful, but that they over-reach what they claim to know. They improve when they demonstrate and when they repeat. A majority of psychological studies fail on repeated efforts to verify for example.

COMMENT: I agree fully. They have to accumulate their data carefully and evaluate it within the context of its inherent weaknesses and limitations. They very often (perhaps most often) fail to do this. After all, they have a research program to defend, which requires continual funding.

Spiritist, however makes some demonstrable claims that are as yet undemonstrated in fraud controlled conditions.

So we should call them out as dubious.

First to Henry --- I am a 'him' but it is ok I was definitely a her in a past life.

As far as my claims ---- I definitely agree most are not 'scientific' I do not intend to make them sound as such. It doesn't matter. In fact it helps me 'compete' with others with what I consider an 'edge'. I believe the 'edge' works normally however, the impact is not always consistent or controllable. You can call them 'dubious' if you want or 'coincidence' it doesn't matter to me as long as it works or seems to work for me --- or give me at least what seems to be more 'confidence'. I consider 'prayer' one way to work with my subconscious and the other side.

I have been working with around 100 others and a scientist (physicist) where he has proved over 20 years he can make money in the stock market/sports with 'average' people who 'psychically' call the market and sporting events. We do this with a technique called 'remote viewing'. I admit we are only around 60% accuracy for the 'team' over 20 years in the stock market and a little higher accuracy on sports. However, above average (50%) accuracy can make money. He 'believes' there are sufficient scientific papers out there to prove 'remote viewing' and also prove one can 'predict the future' with 'remote viewing'.

Frankly, I and others have identified ways to 'improve' our own individual 'accuracy' above the 60% on predictions to around 70-80% but I am still evaluating how long I can hold that average (almost a couple months now). I actually just record what I get from my subconscious so I (my consciousness) am just a recorder and receiver of information (visuals and feelings). I am just trying to work with my sub who is really giving me whatever I get --- so hard to really claim I am that good or bad I just report what I get. As far as 'remote viewing' without any 'future predictions' that is much higher accuracy 80+% with pros and I normally get at least 'some' very accurate information about the target every time. Again, the 'evidence' is out there! But no one is paying for this 'taboo' research so don't expect studies with many extending for years.

However, my claims in this blog have been concerning 'prayer/faith in help' ---- even my remote viewing success tends to be more accurate when I take some time to in effect 'pray'. I 'bragged' about my 'professional' success because I was a good student at a 'small' Utah college but was able to do so well on world-wide 'tests'. Actually I didn't even work on a day to day basis on the 'tested material' --- I was in a more specialized job which required the 'background' but we actually did a very small portion of what the test was actually on. I haven't seen many studies on the impact of prayer/faith in getting help. Actually, the 'physicist' came up with that idea of 'prayer' --- he said he got a bump up in accuracy by using it. That is the overall goal is to be able to predict market moves/sporting events with over 70% accuracy, after that we will consider going higher. We have monthly training sessions and various 'speakers' from all the woo woo disciplines you can imagine to get a broader perspective of 'consciousness' and evaluate whether we can apply any of it in what we are doing.

Sorry for the discourse --- few will read it anyway!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2020 01:01AM by spiritist.

First to Henry --- I am a 'him' but it is ok I was definitely a her in a past life.

COMMENT: Sorry, consider it a compliment!
___________________________________

As far as my claims ---- I definitely agree most are not 'scientific' I do not intend to make them sound as such. It doesn't matter. In fact it helps me 'compete' with others with what I consider an 'edge'. I believe the 'edge' works normally however, the impact is not always consistent or controllable. You can call them 'dubious' if you want or 'coincidence' it doesn't matter to me as long as it works or seems to work for me --- or give me at least what seems to be more 'confidence'. I consider 'prayer' one way to work with my subconscious and the other side.

COMMENT: That's fine. I will defend your right to claim that your spiritual manifestations and related inferences are rational; and useful. However, when you divorce these things from scientific scrutiny, there is a disconnect between the personal and the objective. As such, there is no way to evaluate your claims beyond your reports. Now then can a third party assess the legitimacy or value of what you are saying?
_____________________________________

I have been working with around 100 others and a scientist (physicist) where he has proved over 20 years he can make money in the stock market/sports with 'average' people who 'psychically' call the market and sporting events. We do this with a technique called 'remote viewing'. I admit we are only around 60% accuracy for the 'team' over 20 years in the stock market and a little higher accuracy on sports. However, above average (50%) accuracy can make money. He 'believes' there are sufficient scientific papers out there to prove 'remote viewing' and also prove one can 'predict the future' with 'remote viewing'.

COMMENT: I am very familiar with all aspects of paranormal claims and studies. In all such studies, the data needs to be presented, along with the statistical inferences from that data to be evaluated as any scientific study would be. I admit that there are some studies that on their face are impressive and worthy of scientific consideration; i.e. that cannot all be swept under the rug of fraud or faulty data. But, it is unhelpful for you to just announce some vague "study" and call it "proof."
_________________________________________

Sorry for the discourse --- few will read it anyway!

COMMENT: I read it. I am very interested in your rather unusual experiences and claims, and do not have a knee-jerk reaction dismissing them--even if I seriously doubt some the conclusions you seem to casually draw from them.

I agree I cannot provide 'convincing evidence' for all my claims ---- it doesn't exist.

However, if you are interested in seeing what our 'experts' consider the best evidence of being able to get 'statistically accurate perceptions' that appear to be beyond 'time and space' and in some cases predict the future. I will provide something but it may take awhile to find. I am not really big into proving things to others.

However, a warning. We are not talking about 100% accuracy we are talking statistically above chance.

+Henry Bemis:
Ya, anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.

I am curious. Have you verified the anecdotes of spiritist? What was your methodology?

"Agree. But there is a distinction between "errors of data" and most importantly, "errors in interpreting data," "

==What was the error in data with homosexuality being a mental illness? Was it christianity?
When did homosexuality stop being considered a mental illness? Was it the 70s, when united statians started to push christianity aside starting from the 60s? Sex before marriage became more acceptable? Was there still a strong resistance to this from the christian population?

"Completed questionnaires would be correctly identified as "data.""

==But how good is a questionnaire?
For example, if this is a question on the questionnaire:
1. From a scale of 0 to 10, how good do you feel today?

One guy might put 8 and another might put 8. How can I be certain that these 2 self-evaluated correctly? This is called pulling numbers out of a brown hole.
Can the psychologist guarantee me that both 8s are trully equal? Nope.

From what I have seen, psychological research tends to resort to statistics quite often in this form. 1. Get a large number of people.
2. Ask them the questions.
3. Present that data.

They don't tend to cut open the brains of people and take measurements.
There is NMR images but how good are these?

So, psychology is a very limited science and their conclusions are suspicious.

When it comes to anecdotal evidence, eye witnesses, these take a back seat to real evidence.
We've seen this in murder cases, rape cases and other big crimes.
The DA won't make a move unless there is real evidence.

~~~~iceman9090

+Henry Bemis:
Ya, anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence.

COMMENT: Who said that? I would never say that. But in the domain of the "spiritual" it is the only kind of evidence.
___________________________________________

I am curious. Have you verified the anecdotes of spiritist? What was your methodology?

COMMENT: No. But that does not mean I should be either dismissive or disinterested in them. In fact, they are consistent with a great deal of human experiences across the board, which is itself a reason to at least take notice.
____________________________________________

==What was the error in data with homosexuality being a mental illness? Was it christianity?
When did homosexuality stop being considered a mental illness? Was it the 70s, when united statians started to push christianity aside starting from the 60s? Sex before marriage became more acceptable? Was there still a strong resistance to this from the christian population?

COMMENT: I don't know the answer to these questions because I have not reviewed these studies, or this issue in any depth. However, we can take notice that all socially charged issues about human behavior are influenced by ideologies, whether religious or otherwise.
____________________________________________

"Completed questionnaires would be correctly identified as "data.""

==But how good is a questionnaire?
For example, if this is a question on the questionnaire:
1. From a scale of 0 to 10, how good do you feel today?

One guy might put 8 and another might put 8. How can I be certain that these 2 self-evaluated correctly? This is called pulling numbers out of a brown hole.
Can the psychologist guarantee me that both 8s are trully equal? Nope.

COMMENT: A questionnaire can provide statistical information as to the demographics of a human population, so long as the statistical inferences are closely match the questions asked. Whether they can provide reasonable inferences as to "human nature" is a further reach, and is questionable in my view.
____________________________________________

So, psychology is a very limited science and their conclusions are suspicious.

COMMENT: Agree. (Except, as I said, when the conclusions are about demographics that closely tied to what people actually reported. (e.g. a study that concluded only that "20 percent of the population identified themselves as politically independent.")
__________________________________________

When it comes to anecdotal evidence, eye witnesses, these take a back seat to real evidence.

COMMENT: There is no such thing as "real" vs. "unreal" evidence. The question is the value of the evidence offered given its nature and the circumstances of its existence. In some cases anecdotal evidence might well be more reliable and compelling that other types of evidence.

+Henry Bemis:
“Who said that? I would never say that.”

==I said that because that is what is being discussed.
The question is, does truth matter to us? Is it important to be able to distinguish between what is true and what is false? How are you going to determine that?

“But in the domain of the "spiritual" it is the only kind of evidence.”

==No it’s not. Get proper evidence and explain to us the methodology that is being used so that the rest of us can check it out and observe it for ourselves.

“No. But that does not mean I should be either dismissive or disinterested in them. In fact, they are consistent with a great deal of human experiences across the board, which is itself a reason to at least take notice.”

==I agree except I don’t know what you mean by consistent.
We can of course lend an ear, listen to what a person has to say. That is not a methodology for determining if something is true.

“However, we can take notice that all socially charged issues about human behavior are influenced by ideologies, whether religious or otherwise.”

==Wink wink. socially charged + christianity = we don’t want homosexuals, homosexuality is harmful, homosexuality angers our gods.
Is that something that you would agree with?

“A questionnaire can provide statistical information”

==Yes, it is about statistics.

“Whether they can provide reasonable inferences as to "human nature" is a further reach, and is questionable in my view.”

==It is questionable in my view as well. I think psychology is on shaky grounds for that reason. However, I am not saying psychology has no value at all.

“There is no such thing as "real" vs. "unreal" evidence. The question is the value of the evidence offered given its nature and the circumstances of its existence. In some cases anecdotal evidence might well be more reliable and compelling that other types of evidence.”

==By saying real evidence, I am talking about physical evidence. Physical evidence does not lie. If a human plants physical evidence, it is the human that is lying. If a human wants to provide testimony in court, it is his choice if he wants to lie and we have no means to scan his brain to figure out what is going inside. The brain is a black box. It is a mysterious machine.
I’m not saying that eye witness testimony has no value. We just have to make sure that there are a few witnesses, that they independent, that they are not buddy-buddy like in the case of mormonism.
But how many wtinesses do we need at minimum?

~~~~iceman9090

The question is, does truth matter to us? Is it important to be able to distinguish between what is true and what is false? How are you going to determine that?

COMMENT: You do the best you can with the resources you have and trust.
_________________________________________

“But in the domain of the "spiritual" it is the only kind of evidence.”

==No it’s not. Get proper evidence and explain to us the methodology that is being used so that the rest of us can check it out and observe it for ourselves.

COMMENT: In the domain of spiritual experiences, the experiences themselves ARE the "evidence." What more do you want? There is no such thing as "proper evidence" unless you mean evidence that convinces YOU. Evidence by scientific definition is any fact that makes some conclusion more probable than it would be absent such fact. It is a very liberal standard. The question is whether such evidence--in this case spiritual experiences themselves--are *sufficient* evidence for the conclusion that God exists. You and I say NO, someone else might say yes.
____________________________________________

“No. But that does not mean I should be either dismissive or disinterested in them. In fact, they are consistent with a great deal of human experiences across the board, which is itself a reason to at least take notice.”

==I agree except I don’t know what you mean by consistent.
We can of course lend an ear, listen to what a person has to say. That is not a methodology for determining if something is true.

COMMENT: Most of the accounts of spiritual experiences are consistent with other similar accounts; although the interpretations might differ. Read James' classic, The Varieties of Religious Experiences" and you will see that. Listening to someone relate their experiences, spiritual or otherwise *is* a methodology for determining truth. That is why we have witnesses in Court. But it is not a perfect methodology, to be sure.
__________________________________________

“However, we can take notice that all socially charged issues about human behavior are influenced by ideologies, whether religious or otherwise.”

==Wink wink. socially charged + christianity = we don’t want homosexuals, homosexuality is harmful, homosexuality angers our gods.
Is that something that you would agree with?

COMMENT: Of course not! But ideology finds its way in a variety social issues; usually much more subtly.
_______________________________________________

“A questionnaire can provide statistical information”

==Yes, it is about statistics.

“Whether they can provide reasonable inferences as to "human nature" is a further reach, and is questionable in my view.”

==It is questionable in my view as well. I think psychology is on shaky grounds for that reason. However, I am not saying psychology has no value at all.

COMMENT: We seem to be on the same page here. However, I *do* acknowledge that "clinical" psychology" (i.e. behavioral therapy) actually works! That tells us that we have free will to control our thinking; and thus to change our physical brain states; and thus to change our behavior. I will give psychology credit for providing that little bit of wisdom (although psycyhology itself seems to be oblivious to it); if only people would pay attention to it!
_____________________________________________

“There is no such thing as "real" vs. "unreal" evidence. The question is the value of the evidence offered given its nature and the circumstances of its existence. In some cases anecdotal evidence might well be more reliable and compelling that other types of evidence.”

==By saying real evidence, I am talking about physical evidence. Physical evidence does not lie. If a human plants physical evidence, it is the human that is lying. If a human wants to provide testimony in court, it is his choice if he wants to lie and we have no means to scan his brain to figure out what is going inside. The brain is a black box. It is a mysterious machine.

COMMENT: So, there is a bloody knife at the crime scene; which we agree is physical evidence. And we have a witness who reports that he saw Johnny stab the victim, wipe the knife clean of fingerprints, and drop the knife at the crime scene, where it was found. Which is the most important evidence; the knife itself, or the witness. (Hint: without the witness the knife tells us nothing about who committed the crime.)

iceman9090 Wrote:
---------------------------------------------------
> Ya, anecdotal evidence is the best kind of
> evidence.
_______________________________________________
What nonsense!!! Of course anecdotal evidence is not the best evidence. However, eyewitness evidence certainly can be the best in some cases ---- in assault, shooting, and many crimes.

I think 'iceman' fits you well!!!

+spiritist:

"What nonsense!!! Of course anecdotal evidence is not the best evidence. However, eyewitness evidence certainly can be the best in some cases ---- in assault, shooting, and many crimes."

==Cameras are the best. Can't argue with a camera.

~~~~iceman9090

They draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.

There were times when Jesus sounded like an atheist. One such occasion was when he pronounced the principle that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.

Jesus was a wise man.

Yes, a biblical reference that got as close to describing The Bell-Shaped Curve as was possible, given the relatively primitive circumstances.

I believe that a person is likely to get more of what is desired by working for it, compared to praying for it. Weird, huh? It showcases my lack of faith in ghawd.

And then there's this: "How a person describes a visit to the fair depends on what was experienced there." Meaning there is no one right answer.

It's intriguing to ask what Jesus would be like if we could strip away all the false narratives, self-interested interpretations, and centuries of cultural encrustations. There are enough hints to permit supposition that perhaps he was an agnostic or even an intuitive statistician with a sense of your Bell-Shaped Curve.

Jesus should have carried an umbrella.

"Umbrellas break on the just and the unjust alike."

--Jesus's cleverer brother, still looking for a publisher

Nothing to do but start "singing in the rain, just singing in the rain...."

No clue...never felt any of "the spirit" in my life so never dwelt on it.

No way, Ron!!!

I KNOW you felt the spirit the first time you mashed down on the gas pedal and the other two barrels of your four-barrel opened up!!

And did it ever get old, feeling that spirit?

And how about patching rubber shifting into second with a column-mounted shifter...

I’ve felt the spirit while mounted on something else.

Yes, wooden rocking horses are cool !!!

If bradley were Canadian police, he could be mounted on a real horse.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2020 04:29PM by Lot's Wife.

If Bradley was Canadian, he would would use the expression "ay" in his posts.....like "that Joseph was one crazy guy, ay?"

If bradley were a Canadian and fond of mounting horses, he'd always be worried about hay, ay?

A roll in the hay maybe, ay.

Different kind o spirit, bro.

When I was Catholic, then Anglican, then Baptist and then Mormon, good things happened to me and bad things happened to me. Sometimes things went the way I would like them to and sometimes they didn't.

After I stopped believing in a god, good things happened to me and bad things happened to me. Sometimes things went the way I would like them to and sometimes they didn't.

The only difference is psychological: when something goes wrong for a believer, she wonders why God let her down and whether it was her fault due to sin or insufficient faith.

+Lot's Wife:
"The only difference is psychological: when something goes wrong for a believer, she wonders why God let her down and whether it was her fault due to sin or insufficient faith."

==What if these humans start beleiving that the reason why god is angry is that there are unbelievers among them. Would the reasoning of these humans lead them to conclude that the best solution is to kill the unbelievers? What if they form gangs, pick up weapons, go door to door and start cleansing their community?

Then, 100 y later, their descendents say Oh Oh! Spagettio! Our ancestors made a mistake!

But why does the believer beleive that their ancestors made a mistake? God never said that their ancestors made a mistake.

~~~~iceman9090

Amen brother

Birdman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now to my question. How does one rationalize
> their faith
===============================

That's just it. It's not rational.
It is the inverse to rational inquiry. That's why it's called "faith."

You start with the belief (different part of the brain working than logic) and scrounge for evidence to support the belief.

Vs.

Scrounge the environment for evidence and from these pieces hammer out a hypothesis (not an immutable belief).

Sometimes faith or belief is appropriate to the circumstance but the two methods simply don't mix, because they are inverses of each other. Mix these up and that's how the Scopes Monkey Trial came to be a thing.

That's just it. It's not rational.
It is the inverse to rational inquiry. That's why it's called "faith."

COMMENT: Not so! Religious faith can be rational or irrational. It is rational when one draws conclusions by making rational inferences from one's experiences and/or the experiences of others. This is precisely what scientists do. The fact that one's experiences are "spiritual" or unusual is not sufficient of itself to conclude that any conclusions drawn from such experiences are themselves necessarily irrational--even though, of course, they may be false.

Here are a couple of quotes that might help you appreciate this perspective:

In his book, Making Waves, Nobel laureate, and Christian, Charles Townes, wrote:

“The essential role of faith in religion is so well known that it is usually taken as characteristic of religion, and as distinguishing religion from science. But faith is essential to science too, although we do not so generally recognize the basic need and nature of faith in science.”

“Faith is necessary for the scientist to even get started, and deep faith necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must be personally committed to the belief that there is order in the universe and that the human mind -- in fact his own mind -- has a good chance of understanding this order. Without this belief, there would be little point in intense effort to try to understand a presumably disorderly or incomprehensible world.”

A religious person might well say something similar; just as faith in a natural order, and human cognition is necessary for science to get off the ground; faith in God is a necessary experiences of "God." In both cases confirming experiences follow. (Presumably!)

In William James’ essay, “The Will to Believe” he considers religious faith as a choice, with both the decision of faith and the decision of skepticism involving risk:

"[R]eligion offers itself as a *momentous* option. We are supposed to gain, even now, by our belief, and to lose by our non-belief, a certain vital good. Secondly, religion is a *forced* option, so far as that goes. We cannot escape the issue by remaining sceptical and waiting for more light, because, although we do avoid error in that way *if religion be untrue,* we lose the goods, *if it be true,* just as certainly as if we positively chose to disbelieve. It is as if a man should hesitate indefinitely to ask a certain woman to marry him because he was not perfectly sure that she would prove an angel after he brought her home. Would he not cut himself off from that particular angel-possibility as decisively as if he went and married someone else. Scepticism, then, is not avoidance of option; it is option of a certain particular kind of risk. *Better risk loss of truth than chance of error,* --that is your faith vetoer's exact position. He is actively playing his stake as much as the believer is; he is backing the field against the religious hypothesis, just as the believer is backing the religious hypothesis against the field. To preach skepticism to us as a duty until 'sufficient evidence' for religion be found, is tantamount therefore to telling us, when in presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our fear of its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down the law. . . I, for one, can see no proof; and I simply refuse obedience to the scientist's command to imitate his kind of option, in a case where my own stake is important enough to give me the right to choose my own form of risk.

When people point to their spiritual experiences as the rationality behind their faith, they are generally articulating a "good" that is available with religious faith; a good that is missed by those of us who reject such faith. According to James, we can decide to accept or reject such faith (For the record, I reject it) but if we reject it, we are deciding that whatever good it might offer, such good is offset by the risk that such faith is misplaced.

This is a rational form of Pascal's wager, and it applies to bare faith in God, presumably when based upon human "spiritual" experiences and rational inferences drawn from them.

The high degree of variation and out right contradiction among them makes them questionable. Additionally there is an infinite amount of such possible rational claims.

This makes the data unuseful as there is no spiritual measuring stick for gauging the merits of the claims.

The high degree of variation and out right contradiction among them makes them questionable. Additionally there is an infinite amount of such possible rational claims.

COMMENT: Do you mean variation as to the content of spiritual experiences? If so, that may be true. But one can abstract from them all a conclusion that some transcendent reality is being tapped into, even if elusive in the details.
_____________________________________

This makes the data unuseful as there is no spiritual measuring stick for gauging the merits of the claims.

COMMENT: Not useful scientifically, perhaps; but the whole point of such claims is personal. And for people like spiritist, they most certainly are useful, whether other people can measure them, or otherwise evaluate them objectively or not.

Talking neuropsychophysiology, HB

Brain stuff. Totally different continent from where you're standing.



But you'd make a decent philosopher.

Talking neuropsychophysiology, HB

Brain stuff. Totally different continent from where you're standing.

But you'd make a decent philosopher.

COMMENT: Who was talking neuropsychophysiology? Certainly not you. That term was not mentioned in the post I was responding to; nor was any "brain stuff."

Notwithstanding, I would be very happy to engage you in a discussion as to how that concept interfaces with the faith and belief issues you raise in your post; if you care to make a point I can respond to along that line. Or was this just supposed to be just a cheap jab?

I'm speculating, based on some things I remember from an anthropology class discussion, but maybe there could be something to this:

Imagine early humans. They had no way to feel safe. They didn't understand why things were happening. Life was one threat after another. On top of that, they didn't want to die. Imagine how much energy was spent trying to deal with our mortality and having no answers. It takes a lot of effort worrying about this. Everyone was making up stories to fit the patterns they saw to try and predict how to survive in the world.

So, to me it seems believing in a God would alleviate having to worry about our fate, our past and death. The great Someone was in charge. Believing in God provides a ready answer for anything. I think the benefit is not having to waste energy on existential angst. It's easier on the brain to spend that energy on rituals and prayers to the giant Sky Director. Maybe this could be an advantage when the responsibility for everything is shifted to God. Notice how many cultures came up with the idea that God favored them. What a relief!

Over time, God was used to justify more and more and define the expectations of group behavior. Maybe that provided a benefit too.

Dagny wrote in part:

"Over time, God was used to justify more and more and define the expectations of group behavior. Maybe that provided a benefit too."

You're right! Several years ago, NPR's "All Things Considered," did a special report on the development of religious beliefs by early humans. During that report, it was stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that early human leaders used the threat of punishing someone after they died as a means of maintaining social order. Police forces as we know them today did not exist, and human beings, despite being social animals, tend not to trust one another, particularly those who look different from, or in some way behave differently from, the rest of the group. And even though we have police forces now, you can still see that distrust of others, especially among fundamentalist and isolationist groups of all persuasions.

It's easy to believe when you customize the attributes of your very own God. Sort of like "Build-a-Bear."

Even as a believer this is too deep. It's much more important to me today that Liverpool clinched the Premier League Championship. My prayers are answered. Hallelujah.

Why assume god cares about humans more than any of the other hundreds of species we drive to the brink of extinction every day?
Perhaps "god" is what we call nature and she wants us dead so all the other species can survive the 6th Mass Extinction.

Is that you, Kori?

Welcome.

I think some of the posters are operating under a misunderstanding. Let’s start with the word “rationalize”. Webster’s Dictionary offers several definitions for the word. Let me focus upon one in particular, “to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation”. The substitution of my supernatural faith will overcome or somehow effect a natural phenomenon. It really doesn’t matter what you believe, it’s the idea that by faith you can move a tea cup along a table top. Since there is no evidence that a pandemic has ever been stopped by faith, then in this instance what are you trying to accomplish with faith? There is evidence that science has affected pandemics then why not adhere to proven methods such as handwashing, face masks, etc. rather than employing faith? That is my question. In my opinion faith is a refuge for the suppositious not a cure for the corona virus.

You think 'spiritual/supernatural believing people', don't believe in science. How naïve!!!!

I actually wash my hands, use a face mask, etc.!!!!

I guess that clarifies who we are discussing things with!

Birdman is a good screen name for you ----- I get it!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2020 09:59AM by spiritist.

Some do.

If you can find a way to watch this documentary about teaching intelligent design in public schools, do it. It's excellent. NB the priest who testified for the ACLU.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-trial/

My mom believes in science. That clause always confuses me because I wouldn't describe science as a belief, but meh. More specifically, my mother believes in technology but not in the underlying science unless she concerned that use of a cell phone might be a carcinogen or zap the sperm of dudes who put them on their belts which used to be a thing until guys thought, "I don't *think* I'm zapping my sperm, but maybe I am. I'll just put this thing in my pants pocket."

ETA: One of my brothers thinks the Earth is flat. He went from being raised a fundamentalist Xtian to an atheist flat earther. I suppose when the fundie school called our mom in the middle of the day and she had to take time off from work to drive from a barrier island to the mainland to take him out of class and to a nearby classroom where she audibly beat the shit out of him before he went back to class...he gets a pass from me. She doesn't. No matter how well my mother and I seem to be getting along, that person still lives inside of her and is biding her time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2020 04:51PM by Beth.

Spiritist based upon your original post you state that you “enjoy competing with an advantage”. Earlier in that post you state that you are in the top 3% of your profession and top .5% of one of your hobbies. You see a competitive advantage to your belief. So, your belief system works to your advantage allowing your success to the disadvantage of your fellow competitors. Again, my question to you, why do you think that is so? Are you worthier, better suited to be blessed, in greater need? We can at least conclude that your belief system believes in an entity that picks winners and losers as opposed to Corona virus that is seeking for an opportunistic host. There is no evidence to suggest that believers in supernatural forces have a greater survival rate.

So, we have your belief system on one side and corona virus on the other. It seems quite evident that just as infection is random recovery is not determined by faith but by biological factors. Your argument might be that God has stepped aside and has decided to let the virus reign. If that is the case then why would God help you with your profession and not be involved in support of his creation in this life and death struggle?

I also am confused by your comment about my screen name. It’s just a screen name like yours. I don’t see the significance.

So, your belief system works to your advantage allowing your success to the disadvantage of your fellow competitors
_______________________________________________________

Your argument seems logical, however, I can't say competitors were disadvantaged. I believe they had the same 'access' to 'faith/other side, etc.' as I did. It is not my problem they may not use that. I believe some others did. Some competitors do different processes to 'compete' --- they all have to make choices concerning their process. My success may help them if they ever 'studied' why I did so well. I have seen no real attempt to do these type of studies when I took these tests.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Are you worthier, better suited to be blessed, in greater need?
______________________________________________

I don't know about 'worthier'--- I doubt it. It worries me sometimes that I may in fact be in greater need but it is not 'obvious' to me but a possibility. I do believe I was 'better suited' to be helped because I 'asked and kept my mind open' to the 'intuition' I got, then acted on the intuition. The help was not the 'answers' by the way, it was more I got the areas and the questions --- I still had to come up with 'my' answers. Which were 'pretty good' but not 100% by any means.

On some successes a 'correct random number came to me' to allow me to win valuable prizes. However, I have had 'random' acts come against me --- my vehicle was hit by a deer and others.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
We can at least conclude that your belief system believes in an entity that picks winners and losers.
---------------------------------------------
I would not consider any of my competitors in any activity as 'losers'. I have seen many people get, what I consider obvious great 'intuitive ideas and help' and they would argue it was all them. My brother was a great 'intellectual' example, I have seen his 'off the wall ideas' as very significant in many lives around me but he would claim it is the result of his 'superior' intellect. So, I am saying whether you 'believe' you are helped or not ----- you actually are in my opinion --- I would say one is just not 'awake' to 'recognize' the help.

I do admit some seem to be helped more ---- I think it has something to do with pondering and asking for it. I may be wrong!!!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So, we have your belief system on one side and corona virus on the other. It seems quite evident that just as infection is random recovery is not determined by faith but by biological factors. Your argument might be that God has stepped aside and has decided to let the virus reign. If that is the case then why would God help you with your profession and not be involved in support of his creation in this life and death struggle?
__________________________________________________________
I disagree with the 'infection is random'. I do not believe that at all. I believe it is just the opposite --- according to plan/options we planned this before we came here if it is to be 'significant' in our lives. Death by the virus would be planned or a planned option for sure. Getting affected without serious impact on our lives may not have been. Therefore, no one has 'stepped aside'. Source and the other side is definitely involved in support of his creations with the purpose of experience and progress. That may mean total destruction of this planet and all humans. Humans, aliens, animals, etc. are just suits for 'our use' ---- 'we' are what is important not the 'clothes' we wear. Humans, or a nice suit, etc. may be totally destroyed. So what??? We survive!!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I also am confused by your comment about my screen name. It’s just a screen name like yours. I don’t see the significance.
_______________________________________
My poor attempt at cheap humor. Ignore it, your screen name is fine!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2020 09:38PM by spiritist.

Spiritist, God is all about helping people make money? The Sermon on the Mount is void. Of course, you might have another belief system that would not include those (Sermon on the Mount) considerations. The reason all our fellow countrymen are dying is because they forgot to ask for help. I think your comments help me validate my philosophy. I’m glad I’m an atheist. God is a far to incomprehensible entity.

Birdman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spiritist, God is all about helping people make
> money? The Sermon on the Mount is void. Of
> course, you might have another belief system that
> would not include those (Sermon on the Mount)
> considerations. The reason all our fellow
> countrymen are dying is because they forgot to ask
> for help. I think your comments help me validate
> my philosophy. I’m glad I’m an atheist. God
> is a far to incomprehensible entity.
_______________________________________________
You won't impress me with any human literature. I don't believe the 'Sermon' was from God ---- unless you worship humans! Source, us, etc. are all about gaining 'experiences' and progression via those experiences. We are all going to basically the same place after we drop these 'human coverings' whether we were mass murders or Molly Mormons. We can all be assured that on the other side we will remember, even study, these exchanges and basically get a kick out of them!

There is really no problem with you being an atheist --- you may as well be something and have beliefs or not. I don't disagree that the divine is 'incomprehensible' to humans. In the after life I believe the divine, God, Source, etc. will be very 'comprehensible' to us all. We need to be patient!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2020 09:53PM by spiritist.

I must admit I respect and appreciate your reply. You took my questions seriously, which in fact they were meant to be. We may not agree, but I appreciate your effort in making me understand a different point of view. Thanks.

I respect and appreciate the interchange! Sorry for my lame attempt at humor.

We have different paths. However, we had similar paths as Mormons before we started other separate paths. This site allows for both of us to present some aspects of our separate paths. That is a good thing!!!

There is nothing 'wrong' with your path ---- in the end I believe we both go to a 'similar place' it doesn't matter what we 'believed' here. Its all about 'individual' progression that we 'planned' before we come. No doubt different people planned and are living 'different' paths. Of course, no one has to believe this --- it doesn't really matter.

Don't you see how many people god heals from virus?