Why not let God speak for himself?

[839311]

Why speak for him? Why do you think that you actually know anything at all about what he thinks, when you've never heard him say it himself?

Personally, I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt with regards to this. I dismiss every single such claim without a moments hesitation. The only time I would be confident in knowing what God thinks, is if I heard him say it himself. Books don't cut it. Neither does the testimony of others.

 

[Me Myself]

Sounds moderately reasonable for me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why speak for him? Why do you think that you actually know anything at all about what he thinks, when you've never heard him say it himself?

Personally, I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt with regards to this. I dismiss every single such claim without a moments hesitation. The only time I would be confident in knowing what God thinks, is if I heard him say it himself. Books don't cut it. Neither does the testimony of others.

Thats exactly why I left Christianity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why speak for him? Why do you think that you actually know anything at all about what he thinks, when you've never heard him say it himself?

Personally, I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt with regards to this. I dismiss every single such claim without a moments hesitation. The only time I would be confident in knowing what God thinks, is if I heard him say it himself. Books don't cut it. Neither does the testimony of others.

Do you believe in evolution? How about everything in history which occured before your birth? Everyone relies on the testimony of others. It's a matter of what considers evidence. Some think of history as a social science of sorts. Others don't. But even science rests on particular philosophies of evidence, experiments, etc. Personally, I don't have have faith in a god either. I can't say whether god or anything like god exists. However, I think it is important to understand how much every worldview rests on particular assumptions that are really articles of faith.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Everyone relies on the testimony of others.

Not everyone. I certianly dont.

 

[Daviso452]

Do you believe in evolution? How about everything in history which occured before your birth? Everyone relies on the testimony of others. It's a matter of what considers evidence. Some think of history as a social science of sorts. Others don't. But even science rests on particular philosophies of evidence, experiments, etc. Personally, I don't have have faith in a god either. I can't say whether god or anything like god exists. However, I think it is important to understand how much every worldview rests on particular assumptions that are really articles of faith.

Things are never black-and-white.

You need to experience the world for yourself. Craft beliefs around what you experience and what you know.

But no one is perfect, which is why you must rely on what others say. But you can't expect everyone to be honest, and so you must know who and what to trust.

And that is where personal experience comes in. But as I said before, nothing is black-and-white. There are other factors involved in this, but my point was the degrees in which to use these two concepts in particular.

Some people use faith, and some use reason. I myself rely on the latter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not everyone. I certianly dont.

Then again do you believe in evolution? In any events which occured that you weren't there to see? What evidence do you have that your brain is composed of neurons which "communicate" via electrical signals? Do you believe that galaxies and other entities in the universe which can only be seen by a telescope exist? Because I'm willing to bet that unless you are an evolutionary biologist you accept the theory because scientists do (with good reason- there is a lot of research behind it, but how much of that have you read)? Perhaps you have some familiarity with the theory, but unless you have a fair amount of expertise, a well-educated creationist who doesn't believe in evolution could poke holes in any argument you have. These would inevitably fail if presented to an actual expert, but nobody is an expert in everything. So we accept on faith that when virtually every expert in some field says "evolution is real" or "the speed of light is apprx 186,000 mph" or "quasar 3C-273 is the brightest quasar in the sky" that this is true. Not to mention the fact that all of history and news involves accepting the testimony of others.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Some people use faith, and some use reason. I myself rely on the latter.

Most use a combination. It all depends on where one lies on the spectrum. One can deny all one's senses because to believe that what we see, feel, hear, etc., is to equate perception with reality on "faith." Likewise, one can follow Feyerabend and view science as basically religion, because of a radical skepticism and reluctance to rely on "faith." I choose to believe that my senses give me a decent sense of reality and that science is an empirical approach which has demonstrated throughout history its methods give us a superior understanding of the cosmos. I don't believe in god because nothing that I've experienced has led me to "faith" in god. There isn't enough of what I accept as evidence for me to believe. But I realize that what I accept as evidence is also a matter of "faith."

 

[waitasec]

Why speak for him? Why do you think that you actually know anything at all about what he thinks, when you've never heard him say it himself?

Personally, I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt with regards to this. I dismiss every single such claim without a moments hesitation. The only time I would be confident in knowing what God thinks, is if I heard him say it himself. Books don't cut it. Neither does the testimony of others.

:yes: i'm with you.

it's the notion that believers know better or have a better life, yet they can't seem to be able to separate themselves from non believers...in any way shape or form. you can't look into a room of people and pin point the ones who know god personally...i almost expect to see a glow of some sort the way they describe their relationship....but to no avail..nothing, nada, zilch...
they look like everyone else...go figure.
when i say non believers i mean from an atheist to a believer in a different religion other than the one who claims to be speaking for god

 

[connermt]

Why speak for him? Why do you think that you actually know anything at all about what he thinks, when you've never heard him say it himself?

Personally, I don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt with regards to this. I dismiss every single such claim without a moments hesitation. The only time I would be confident in knowing what God thinks, is if I heard him say it himself. Books don't cut it. Neither does the testimony of others.

If books or others don't "cut it", how can you be so sure that you can yourself?

 

[839311]

Do you believe in evolution? How about everything in history which occured before your birth? Everyone relies on the testimony of others. It's a matter of what considers evidence. Some think of history as a social science of sorts. Others don't. But even science rests on particular philosophies of evidence, experiments, etc. Personally, I don't have have faith in a god either. I can't say whether god or anything like god exists. However, I think it is important to understand how much every worldview rests on particular assumptions that are really articles of faith.

The testimony of others with regards to certain things can be taken with a good amount of trust. Other things, not so much. With regards to God, not at all.

Evolution is a well studied concept. People study it in Universities and out in nature. Experiments are done that have proved its truth. The concepts make total sense. Ive seen many lectures regarding the subject. It is as real as it gets.

To compare accepting the testimony about God with accepting the testimony of real people, like professors, who you can go meet and talk to, who we see on television, whose books you can read, whose research you can study, is really unjustified.

I understand where your coming from though, and your right to some degree. But your particular examples really aren't the same thing at all. If you want to compare accepting the testimony of others regarding God, you need to compare it to similarly unjustified claims, such as aliens, or inter-dimensional beings. Questioning proven facts like evolution isn't the right approach to take.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is as real as it gets.

Which begs the question, how real does it get?

To compare accepting the testimony about God with accepting the testimony of real people, like professors, who you can go meet and talk to, who we see on television, whose books you can read, whose research you can study, is really unjustified.

I wasn't.

The only time I would be confident in knowing what God thinks, is if I heard him say it himself. Books don't cut it. Neither does the testimony of others.

You accept the testimony of others on faith all the time about particular subjects. There are professors of theology, priests, rabbis, etc., one can also "go meet and talk to." But for you (and me) the testimony of these "experts" is not based on the type of evidence you are willing to accept on faith. For others, it is. For still others, neither science nor religion tell us much (if anything) about the nature of reality.

Questioning proven facts like evolution isn't the right approach to take.

The most common approach to science (inspired mainly by Popper) is that nothing is proven in science, only disproven. Additionally, there are philosophers of science who would take that approach. Paul Feyerabend (who wasn't religious) defended teaching creationism in schools, as it was no less a matter of "faith" in a sense than a belief in evolution.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No arguements here.

 

[839311]

You accept the testimony of others on faith all the time about particular subjects.

Really? Like what?

There are professors of theology, priests, rabbis, etc., one can also "go meet and talk to." But for you (and me) the testimony of these "experts" is not based on the type of evidence you are willing to accept on faith. For others, it is. For still others, neither science nor religion tell us much (if anything) about the nature of reality.

There is a big difference between going to an expert on aliens who has had numerous sexual encounters with them, and going to a university and speaking to a geologist about a volcano. I'm not sure you understand the difference between the two regarding how seriously their claims can be taken.

Paul Feyerabend (who wasn't religious) defended teaching creationism in schools, as it was no less a matter of "faith" in a sense than a belief in evolution.

In what sense?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Really? Like what?

Science and history. I gave the example of the theory of evolution among other examples from science. Again, unless you have a fairly in-depth background in biology and evolutionary biology, you are like most people who have a basic understanding of the theory and accept it as valid because it is nearly universally believed by experts and is a central tenet across scientific disciplines from biology to anthropology to psychology and so on. But as with so many other basics of science most people accept, how much of the evidence and research have you actually seen/read? A difference, of course, is that as long as one adopts the fairly simplistic faith in one's perception, one can always actually do all the work it takes to become an expert in the field such that they are aware of all the evidence and do not rely on other experts. However, it is impossible to do this with all fields. But the fact that it is theoretically possible with any given field means that there is a fundamental difference between the type of evidence for something like the theory of evolution and religious ideas. WIth history, things are slightly more complex. Historians have evidence, methods, etc., but can't perform experiments in the way scientists can. Still, however, there exists a difference between the type of evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or William of Normandy conquered England in 1066 and the type of evidence for god.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between the two regarding how seriously their claims can be taken.

I do. I actually do research in a field of science, but I'm also aware of the various philosophies of science and theories of epistomology. The issue, again, is in what type of evidence one chooses to put ones faith.

In what sense?

"every positivistic observation language is based upon a metaphysical ontology."

 

[waitasec]

. The issue, again, is in what type of evidence one chooses to put ones faith.

i agree with this...

 

[839311]

Science and history. I gave the example of the theory of evolution among other examples from science.

You shouldn't be putting words in my mouth. I havn't said anything about taking history on faith, or science. You really don't know whether I tend to take things on faith or not. As a matter of fact, I try to avoid faith if I can.

Again, unless you have a fairly in-depth background in biology and evolutionary biology,

I do. How much do you know about the theory of evolution? Because, to me, having read the literature and studied this subject in university and privately, I understand that evolution is a fact. It seems to me that you think evolution is just a hypothesis. I find it quite distasteful to lump a 'belief' in evolution with a belief in a particular religion's god.

Still, however, there exists a difference between the type of evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or William of Normandy conquered England in 1066 and the type of evidence for god.

Indeed - a very large difference.

The issue, again, is in what type of evidence one chooses to put ones faith.

Why rely on faith at all? Why don't you research evolution. Read the literature. Watch the videos on youtube. Study genetics, and anthropology, consider fossils, look at all the different dog breeds people have created, look at the differences between human populations, look at how forests get taller as trees compete for sunlight, all the flaws in living organisms, the evolution of the flu virus as it evolves defenses against our medicines. The fact of evolution is all around you, and is as plain as the sun. You don't need faith to accept it.

When you quote something like this...

Paul Feyerabend (who wasn't religious) defended teaching creationism in schools, as it was no less a matter of "faith" in a sense than a belief in evolution.

I get the impression that you know practically nothing about evolution. To put the theory of evolution on the same level as creationism is inexcusable. You really need to stop talking about something which you don't understand.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Then again do you believe in evolution? In any events which occured that you weren't there to see?

Belief is not required. The experiments pertaining to evoultionary processes are already demonstrated in detail and already can be seen personally from most any university dealing with the subject. Students are privy to this first hand. Laymen I'm sure can arrange to witness experiments personally as they are peformed. It's fascinating to observe as a lay person. Tumors for instance are a prime example of microevolution by single cell sequencing.

What evidence do you have that your brain is composed of neurons which "communicate" via electrical signals?

Physiological and ultrastructural evidence is objectively seen and the firing rate of neurons are demonstrable. Communication is impossible if the signals are omitted or blocked.

Do you believe that galaxies and other entities in the universe which can only be seen by a telescope exist? Because I'm willing to bet that unless you are an evolutionary biologist you accept the theory because scientists do (with good reason- there is a lot of research behind it, but how much of that have you read)? Perhaps you have some familiarity with the theory, but unless you have a fair amount of expertise, a well-educated creationist who doesn't believe in evolution could poke holes in any argument you have. These would inevitably fail if presented to an actual expert, but nobody is an expert in everything. So we accept on faith that when virtually every expert in some field says "evolution is real" or "the speed of light is apprx 186,000 mph" or "quasar 3C-273 is the brightest quasar in the sky" that this is true. Not to mention the fact that all of history and news involves accepting the testimony of others.

Well. If science works on the premise of only trusting on experts based soley on their word alone we would incurr really big problems wouldnt we?
What do you think the peer review process is?

As a layman lacking the technical knowhow, how then should I approach such an impasse due to my lack of knowledge? Well I can do as you put forth and just blindly accept whatever information was fed to me on the basis of one's expertise, and guess among the differing opinions without an objective basis to go by. That would be be impractible and ill advised. Better still, I can participate directly as a guest by observing and interacting with those knowledgable or attend university myself to increase my knowledge base.

In other words, you dont have to be an expert yourself as long as the opportunity to participate directly is available in some form which illuminates and clarifies the subject. Something of which those who choose to go by blind faith can't do. As you cannot be guided by way of objectivity through the process of God. No matter how expert the creationist is purported to be, he/she is rendered incapabible of demonstrating such, and therefore cannot effectivitly poke holes in any such manner.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If people left it up to god to speak for himself, they wouldn't have a mouthpiece to alleviate their personal responsibility.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I wouldn't be putting words in my mouth. I havn't said anything about taking history on faith, or science. You really don't know whether I tend to take things on faith or not. As a matter of fact, I try to avoid faith if I can.

I'm using "you" rather freely here, often in the generic sense.

I do. How much do you know about the theory of evolution? Because, to me, having read the literature and studied this subject in university and privately, I understand that evolution is a fact.

Evolutionary biology I have some familiarity with, because of the importance of evolutionary psychology in the field I work (cognitive science). But I'm not an expert. If a very well informed creationist (say, one of the few with doctorates in biology or a related field) spoke about alleged and highly technical flaws in the theory, I wouldn't be capable of refuting them. But I wouldn't feel obligated to either. I understand enough to know that if one has any faith in science at all, the theory of evolution is accurate, and any "problems" are just areas we haven't explained yet. We don't know exactly how conceptual representation works either, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen through neural interactions in the brain.

It seems to me that you think evolution is just a hypothesis.

I don't. I think that the only way one can reject the theory of evolution is to reject science altogether, because there are few theories in any scientific field rest on more secure grounds.

I find it quite distasteful to lump a 'belief' in evolution with a belief in a particular religion's god.

I suppose I can understand your distaste. I certainly don't agree that the two are equivalent, or even close, but I recognize that this is because of a set of beliefs I hold as to what constitutes evidence. I also recognize that particularly from Kant onward philosophers have recognized and grappled with the notion of reality and our ability to perceive it. And within the philosophy of science in particular, beginning especially with Kuhn, the 20th century saw a series of fundamental challenges to the empirical positivism which pretty much dominated our understanding of the scientific method.

Why rely on faith at all? Why don't you research evolution.

Because as long as I trust science at all, I don't have to. I know enough to know that any challenge that I can't answer because I don't have a doctorate in biology could be answered by someone who does.

Read the literature. Watch the videos on youtube. Study genetics, and anthropology, consider fossils, look at all the different dog breeds people have created, look at the differences between human populations, look at how forests get taller as trees compete for sunlight, all the flaws in living organisms, the evolution of the flu virus as it evolves defenses against our medicines. The fact of evolution is all around you, and is as plain as the sun. You don't need faith to accept it.

You need faith to accept that what you see is real. A very basic faith, but faith nonetheless.

When you quote something like this...



I get the impression that you know practically nothing about evolution.

That's probably because know practically nothing about epistomology, the philosophy of science, and the challenges posed to the reigning conceptual paradigm of the scientific method. I don't agree with Feyerabend, and I think that most of those who cite Kuhn go beyond what he actually stated. Certainly, some of the criticisms posed were valid or at least partially so. There are instances in science of pardigm shifts not based or motivated by evidence. And it is certainly true that in any given field, evidence tends to be explained through whatever paradigm that field subscribes to even if it needs to be massaged, and contrary evidence is ignored or marginalized. The best exampe of a paradigm shift I can think of is the switch to the biomedical model of mental disorders and the publishing of the DSM III. As for marginalizing, dismissing, or massaging data, climate science provides a good example. This is not to say that the orthodox opinion (anthropogenic warming) is wrong, but equating reputable scientists (e.g. Lindzen or Christy) with holocaust deniers and the difference between some papers which are accepted and aren't that great or robust and some which are rejected because they pose challenges both demonstrate the effect of something like Kuhnian paradigms within science.

For me, however, while I am less of positivist than some, I'm certainly more inclined to follow Popper than Feyerabend. Scientific theories, even if they represent the consensus, aren't always correct. However, there are theories within science that one cannot dismiss unless one rejects science outright-wholly and completely. Evolution is just such a theory, and the reason Feyerabend defended teaching creationism in schools was not because of a faith in religion but because a radical skepticism of the validity of science as a method capable of describing reality any better than religion. As I don't reject science, I don't reject evolution.