Tim Challies, a Christian blogger, has been reading through the New York Times bestsellers at 10 Million Words. He recently reviewed a book on the science of near death experiences and concluded:
Of course as a Christian I have to grapple with asking exactly what a NDE [Near Death Experience] is. It seems irrefutable that many people, when gravely injured and often when clinically dead, do experience something. The accounts are too common and too consistent to ignore entirely. So we see that such experiences do appear to exist and that they seem to lead directly away from what the Bible teaches us. What recourse do we have, then, but to state with some confidence that these experiences are somehow a trick of Satan? And would it not be just like the Enemy to use such an experience to convince people of their own divinity–to lead people as far from what is true as is possible? I am persuaded that NDEs do exist but that they exist to deceive, to provide false comfort, to provide false hope, to enslave, to trap, to destroy.
I think Amazon already knows this. Evidence of the Afterlife is filed under Books > Religion & Spirituality > Occult. Well done.
Verdict: Read it if you want to see how Satan continues to ensnare and enslave.
To me the two key sentences are:
So we see that such experiences do appear to exist and that they seem to lead directly away from what the Bible teaches us. What recourse do we have, then, but to state with some confidence that these experiences are somehow a trick of Satan? [my emphasis]
In other words, the Bible can’t be wrong, so it must be a demonic trick. That last sentence sums up one of my main problem with religion — instead of even considering they could be wrong, they explain the problem away through an evil spirit or some superstition. Some Christians do this with the fossil record (“Satan put the fossils there to confuse us!”) as well as other areas when they are confronted with facts that disagree with their interpretation of their holy book.
Their evidence for all this consistent Satan trickery? Well, since they don’t have evidence for the existence of God much less Satan, it would be amusing to see them try to build a case. The only evidence for the existence of Satan is that some ancient authors, who were later included in the Bible, assumed he existed. And as for NDEs being a “trick” of a being they cannot prove exists… well… let’s just say I’m not holding my breath for anything substantial.
What’s nice about being non-religious is that I don’t have to explain these things away with evil scary creatures. It’s clear that people do have near death experiences — but that isn’t evidence for an afterlife or any specific kind of afterlife. It’s just evidence that people have near death experiences. We don’t know enough about it — yet — but science will march on and we’ll understand more about why the brain reacts the way it does in some of these situations.
In the meantime, I think we should state with some confidence that NDEs are a ploy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to trick people into believing in an afterlife without pasta. But keep the faith, brethren and sistren, for we KNOW there will be pasta forever and ever! AMEN!?!
Not dead enough.
“But keep the faith, brethren and sistren, for we KNOW there will be pasta forever and ever! AMEN!?!”
um…..
I believe that would be RAMEN
The funny thing is I’ve seen other Christian writers use the existence of NDEs as evidence FOR an afterlife (and hence for Christianity being the One True Religion – a leap of logic that never ceases to amuse me when I see it happen).
But why is there any need for a Christian to blame Satan for NDEs if they think that they’re false hope for an afterlife? THAT I don’t get – why not just make the assumption that it might be a quirk of human biology instead of jumping straight to the conclusion that it’s a complex scheme by the Prince of Evil to delude you into Satanic New Age worship? Couldn’t it – just possibly – be something weird happening in the brain that’s completely neutral to the whole Cosmic War Between Good and Evil and not related to God or Satan at all? Just maybe? Perhaps?
(And as an aside – isn’t it a bit egotistical for believers to think that The Prince Of Darkness takes such a personal interest in each and every one of their lives? Seriously, doesn’t the Lord Of Evil have a bit more to do than act as some kind of Bizarro-Santa-Claus, going down a list of people and trying to get the “nice” ones to do “naughty” things? And if Satan is really trying to tempt you away from good, Christian behavior isn’t there something he could do that would have a bit more impact than giving you a NDE? Like maybe throw a New Ager who’s really attractive to you your way to tempt you to leave your religion in a manner that has historically worked the best for pulling people away from one religion and into another? The view that a lot of Christians have of Satan just amuses me to no end – it’s almost the complete opposite of the humility that a lot of them profess to aspire to.)
Ah, but nothing in the universe is neutral. Everything is either 100% good or 100% caused-by-Satan evil, with no grey area whatsoever.
My brain is not working today. I am a little lost. What does the bible say about the after exactly. I always thought NDEs went right along with Christian’s point of view of an afterlife. (From a Christian point of view) Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel is heaven, right? What is so Satanic about it?
Is NDE wrong because they did not see clouds and saint peter with a naughty or nice list.
The Bible actually doesn’t say very much about “the afterlife,” to be perfectly honest.
Well, the Bible does provide a certain amount of details.
Though I can’t find a mention anywhere of the inhabitants playing the harp while they sit on their tiny clouds. Probably just as well. An eternity of incessant harp music would be enough to make anyone consider if Hell was such a bad deal after all.
umm, where are these details? Chapter and verse, if you please.
Here is a list. Of course, much of it is vague and subject to interpretation, but there are also some concrete details.
These are not ‘concrete details’, these are the ravings of a psychotic druggie marooned on a small Greek island (I’ve spent time on Patmos, it really WOULD drive a saint mad) wildly extrapolated by an over-imaginative author of religious fiction.
On the cross, Jesus told the robber, “This day, you shall be with me in paradise.”
You can go back to Ecclesiastes and find that it says “the dead know nothing” but that was not Jesus talking, that was King Solomon.
Also, if Satan were responsible for NDE, why would so many people turn to Christianity after having one of these NDE? Why would Satan instill the power and praise of Love as all through NDE? Witness the powerful transformation that takes place in so many of these NDE when they return. Also, many of them have spontaneous healing as in Mellon-Thomas. The NDE does not mislead people into doing hateful or negative, but instills love and life in those who return to fullfill their purpose in life. If Satan were at the ‘bottom’ (excuse the pun) of this, wouldn’t he want to have us give up on life, the gift of God?
No he didn’t. Because he didn’t exist. Prove that he did.
I like the description, I think it was Dr. Sagan writing about, that an NDE is the brain reacting to ultimate stress by combining memories of the birth process (tunnel with light at the end) and comforting thoughts and memories.
Maybe a littel bit like this link:
http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/0197/9701fefreez.html
It just hit me – Satan is the ultimate conspiracy theory.
You can use Satan to explain absolutely anything, and you don’t need any evidence. Indeed, the lack of evidence just shows that this supernatural conspirator is succeeding beyond any possibility of refutation!
Satan was on the grassy knoll, and he has Amelia Earhart in his basement.
LOL!
I agree, lol :D
Actually, Fred Clark over at slacktivist just had an article up about the Satanic Panic scares and the links to conspiracy theories. Satan being behind the One World Government and all that.
Satan is actually a nice guy compared to god. God destroyed more people than Satan in the bible. I think god uses Satan as a scape goat. How many confirmed killings is there from Satan compared to the number of killings by god?
This estimate says something like 4,700,000 : 10 in God’s favor, not counting the estimated 30,000,000 people that he supposedly drowned in the Flood.
“So we see that such experiences do appear to exist and that they seem to lead directly away from what the Bible teaches us.”
Challies is also demonstrating faulty thinking by assuming a supernatural element to these near death experiences. If you were to hypothesize that it could be brain activity of some sort rather than a supernatural / spiritual phenomena, then it does not lead away from bible teaching. He is not only assuming the bible is all correct, he is assuming his reading of these situations is correct, then jumping to the conclusion that it must be demonic.
I’m sure that’s the very first time a religious apologist has made an unsupportable logical leap.
Full disclosure – I’m a Christian. Interesting topic.
I don’t think a Christian faced with NDE’s has to go with a demonic explanation. I see no a priori reason why I couldn’t share the conclusions of an atheistic neuro-scientist on this (whatever tentative hypotheses they might come up with).
Having said that, here’s what’s interesting to me:
With NDE’s we’ve got a challenge presented to both a Christian and a naturalistic worldview. And we’ve got two different epistemological foundations – the bible on one hand and the onward ‘march’ of science on the other. So really we’ve got two different ways of shrugging our shoulders and saying “Hmm dunno exactly. But one thing I know is that my foundations are firm, let’s see what other explanations there might be.”
What you cannot do is accuse Christians of being uncritical of their foundations while casting yourself as the original free-thinker. Your faith in the onward march of science is every bit as dogmatic and inflexible. It has to be – we all argue from pre-critical assumptions.
Sorry Glen, they aren’t even remotely equal.
The world has been marching away from superstition and supernatural thinking, and toward science for a long time now. The world of supernaturalism keeps shrinking, the world of science keeps growing.
How many times has something been a mystery to both religion and science, and then when the answer was found it turned out religion was right? Ever? Even once? I won’t hold my breath for this to be the first time.
The fact is that the early stages of oxygen starvation causes the production of ketamine in the brain; and that NDEs can be triggered in non-dying people by flooding their brain with ketamine.
These two facts suggest to me that there might, just possibly, be a naturalistic explanation for NDEs. Also, no-one who has had an NDE and told us about it was actually dead implies that they don’t have a great deal to do with the afterlife, but rather the duringlife.
What’s more, scientists aren’t just saying “I don’t know what NDEs are”, but they’re actually studying the phenomena, making testable predictions, and making and revising hypotheses. Theologians seem to miss out that whole “evidence” and “testing” stage, and jump straight to the conclusion…
I was watching a show called Science of Cold where a woman was dead three hours after falling head first into a frozen stream while skiing. She was under the water for 1 hour before she was pulled out. She was rushed to the hospital where they worked on her by warming her blood (heart bypass machine) and raised her body temp of slowly for 2 hours. Her heart eventually began to beat on it’s own. Again, she was dead for 3 HOURS! not a few minutes. No heartbeat, no brain waves, no breathing. She ended up suffering major internal bleeding and was paralyzed from the neck down for weeks before regaining feeling in her arms and legs. She had to learn to walk again.
My point is she has no memory of her death or the 3 hours afterward. NONE. She is probably one of the only people in the world to ever be dead for this long and brought back to life. Does this no prove that the our consciousnesses do not live on after we die? Does this not prove we have no “soul” and their is no afterlife (heaven/hell)? It’s proof enough for me.
I don’t know. When I was about 20, I was thrown from a horse, and have absolutely no memory of what happened the hour after that. But I know I was doing something — in fact, I was talking to people, according to the people.
I’m not saying there is an afterlife — I just dont think that woman’s lack of memory is any proof one way or the other.
Amnesia is pretty common after a head injury. Hell, I used to “wake up” in lectures at the end of a day at university with no memory of anything from the previous two days, and that was just from insomnia! Actually banging your head on stuff does a lot more damage than that.
your last paragraph nails it perfectly.
and judging from Glen’s further posts, he just went from a christian who appreciates “naturalistic worldview” to science being “entirely parasitic on a Christian doctrine of creation” in just two posts…..
sneaking in disguised as someone who wants a clean discussion………
yah, right
Ty,
“The world of supernaturalism keeps shrinking” – be interesting to do some empirical testing on that :) It sounds to me like the zeal of a true believer talking here. Which is kinda my point.
And what on earth do you mean by your challenge? You speak as though ‘science’ and ‘religion’ are these entrenched opponents locked in a zero-sum game. You’re as bad as the fundies! What you call ‘science’ is entirely parasitic on a Christian doctrine of creation in which the universe is a contingent reality with a reliable logic etc,.
“What you call ’science’ is entirely parasitic on a Christian doctrine of creation in which the universe is a contingent reality with a reliable logic etc.”
Why not a Muslim doctrine of creation? Or a Budhist one?
What you’re doing there is using the old “intelligent puddle” argument. It goes like this:
Over time, weathering and erosion cause a small pot-hole to form in the asphalt of a road. One day, it starts to rain – a gentle, steady drizzle which soon fills the pot-hole to form a puddle; the rain stops and the sun comes out. The puddle, being intelligent but fairly primitive, looks around its known universe, the pot-hole, and says to itself “Well, look at this! Here is a universe which is exactly right for me – it fits me perfectly in every way! Surely somebody must have created this universe just for me to live in! I’m so grateful to him – I shall call him God and thank him every day for the Holy Pot-Hole!”
The truth is that if the universe didn’t form with the right physical laws and constants, you and I wouldn’t be here to debate it – the pot-hole wouldn’t fit the puddle of us – but that doesn’t mean that another form of life wouldn’t be floating through space on another ball of rock in our place – there would be another pot-hole and another puddle, probably also harping about how wonderful it was that the physical laws and constants of the universe were just right for it and so must have been designed just for it.
Hi Custador,
I say specifically “Christian” because the Christian view of the world says that the Logos who created the world (Jesus) is the Logos who comes as a creature to explain the world. We can confidently expect a logical consistency that co-ordinates not only with our creaturely existence but also with the asteroid out there and the microbe down here. Islam and Buddhism do not have this.
Chinese or ancient Greek cultures can produce ‘technology’. But a scientific method that expects a contingent (and not necessary) universe and a logical order that corresponds to our perceptions is the Christians’ gift to the world. Enjoy. :)
Glen…. You don’t actually know what the word “logic” means, do you? I mean, you seem to think you know what it means – but you don’t. Writing lots of words to try and cover up facts with theology is not a valid debating tool.
The Greek did pretty well in the science department. Christianity mainly hindered progression for most of it history and keep trying to this very day (see creationists).
“It has to be – we all argue from pre-critical assumptions.”
LOL, which one tests their assumptions against the real world?
Both. All the time. It’s not the testing that’s different, it’s the assumptions.
And since the post discusses the existence of super-natural evil I’d make the claim that a Christian can make better sense of the evil in the world. We have a far more profound and nuanced view of evil than what evolutionary psychology by itself could produce. What we see is a combination of the “world, the flesh and the devil” – evil around us, in us and above us. I think the Christian assumptions, when tested against the real world, explain things far better.
I’m sorry, I really don’t think I’ve ever seen any spiritual phenomenon being justified because it has been “tested against the real world”.
Please provide an example of one such test that is actually a test and not just some theological discourse which is ultimately untestable.
trj,
The point I’ve been making throughout is that Christians *and* naturalists have ultimately untestable foundations. You cannot *test* the scientific method, you can only *use* the scientific method to test other things. Lo and behold it turns out the scientific method comes up with a lot of good results. I as a Christian rejoice in that (knowing that it was a Christian view of the world that shaped this approach to science). But ultimately you *believe* the universe is a certain way and so you approach it with what you reason will be the best methodology for investigation. But it’s belief driven. What we are discussing are two belief systems.
Theology is a science too. And I’m constantly experimenting. Every day I go out into the world with my beliefs and I find that this approach to reality explains and casts light on the data – e.g. the pervasive and baffling existence of evil. My supernatural assumptions produce good results, making sense both of further data, the experience of others, predictions of future experiences etc. And I’d suggest that the Christian, super-natural vision explains evil (the topic of this post) in a way far more satisfying than any anaemic evolutionary psychology.
I’m off to bed here in the UK…
If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, what you’re arguing is that everything is really a matter of belief since every conclusion we can draw ultimately rests on certain axioms which are by nature not testable or provable. Solipsism isn’t far behind.
There’s a fundamental difference between the natural sciences and theology. The latter makes no objectively testable hypotheses (please provide one to prove me wrong), whereas the former incorporates testability in its very methodology – along with independent verification and recordable observations – things theology lacks as well.
When it comes to testing the veracity of claims about the world we live in, the scientific method is without a doubt the best suited approach. Theology can’t begin to compare with it. Science can perform tests to confirm assumptions, and these tests can reproduce results which are similar regardless of religious faith or any other intellectual preconceptions. Theology can do no such thing.
Your dismissal of science as a belief system based on a difference in assumptions is simply disingenuous. The same goes for your claim that religious assumptions are “tested against the real world” “all the time”.
Hey trj – these are very important issues you raise.
Everything *rests* on matters of belief yes (which is slightly different from saying everything *is* a matter of faith). But faith is not uncertainty. I am certain that Jesus rose from the dead. He Himself has confronted me in His Word with living power. I know this just as I know that the sun is bright and that honey is sweet. If all we “knew” was boiled down to what we can empirically test through repeatable observations – we wouldn’t know much. And no-one anywhere lives like that!
You seem to be operating with this polarity – either something is scientifically verifiable or it cannot be known to be true. So I ask myself a question: Do I know my wife is trustworthy? Do I know I can trust her? Now I could set about devising a series of experiments – lie detectors, hidden cameras, private investigators. And at the end of it, would I have ‘the truth’? Chances are I wouldn’t have a marriage! There are many things – important, vital things – that are to be known not through the scientific method.
You are wrong to say that I dismiss science because it’s a belief system. I embrace much of what science has learnt, but I recognize that it is founded on certain beliefs. Many of those have been the bible’s gift to the world. Some of those have come from elsewhere. So I seek to be discerning.
What I don’t do is make totalizing claims about scientific knowledge. That actually leads to a terrible and life-limiting reductionism.
So let me ask you trj, are there things that you *know* apart from the scientific method?
The intensity of your convictions have nothing to do with their veracity. You may “know” Jesus rose from the dead, like any other believer may “know” a lot of things you won’t agree with, but it is still merely your own conviction. It may happen to be true, but you don’t know this in the true meaning of the word.
Playing semantic games with words such as “knowledge” and “belief” is not in any way a convincing argument for the effectiveness of your theological approach. Any methodology which requires one to believe in it for it to work has very limited usefulness.
Hi trj,
Jesus is not Lord because I intensely feel it but because God in His word says He is. Can you think of a more sure foundation for knowledge? God says it. It’s true. In one sense my belief is neither here nor there – it’s an objective fact whether I give it my allegiance or not. This kind of knowledge is far more certain than (e.g.) knowledge of the human genome. It’s based in *God’s* word.
For me this is the nub of the argument, you say:
“Any methodology which requires one to believe in it for it to work has very limited usefulness.”
lol! Tell me – what is the methodology by which you will test the scientific method to know if it is right??
You can’t test your method by your method. You MUST move out on a faith basis. You believe that the universe will be discovered in *this* way because you believe it to be *that* kind of universe with *those* kinds of constancies and that you stand in *these* kinds of relations to the world and possess *those* kinds of truth discovering faculties etc, etc. As you proceed in line with these beliefs you find confirmation along the way. “Oh look, the universe *does* seem to make sense with these kinds of assumptions.” Great – there’s empirical verification that you might be somewhere in the ball park with those original assumptions. (Of course you might have to revise your beliefs in some pretty major ways when impudent data forces a paradigm shift). But the whole enterprise is “faith seeking understanding.” That was Anselm’s phrase to describe theology. But it describes science too. And it’s no bad thing, it’s just the way all enquiry must happen.
I know that this grates with you but I can’t see any way around it – you *believe* in the scientific method. You cannot directly test it, but you trust that it is correct and you proceed on its basis. I have respect for the scientific method, but I’m not a fundamentalist believer like you. My foundational trust lies elsewhere.
Glen, are you insane or just very stupid? Scientific method relies on facts. Facts are those things which are observably, provably true. Facts are an accurate reflection of reality. For example, the limits of the visible univers are fifteen billion light years away. That is a fact. It does not require anybody to believe it; it is the TRUTH whether you and I accept it or not. This leads us to conclude that the TRUTH is that which reflects reality. What is real is what the facts say is real. If the observable, testable proveable FACTS say that something is wrong, then it is wrong. There is no arguing this point, it is the basis for all knowledge – anything which does not obey this rule is false.
What do the FACTS say about Christianity?
They say that it was a small cult which developed into a religion when the Bible was written by people who weren’t even alive in Jesus’ time, starting at least 70 years after the events which it claims to portray.
The FACTS say that the Bible is completely and totally wrong about a lot of points; there was no global flood, the Earth orbits the Sun (not the other way around), the Earth is a four billion year old rock floating in a universe of at least fifteen billion Earth-years (the whole shebang was not created 6000 years ago in a week).
The FACTS show clear evolutionary paths from abiogenesis to now – and those paths have been lengthening while we’ve watched them.
What FACTS support the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus? None. Not a single solitary one.
Hi Custador,
You say: “What is real is what the facts say is real. If the observable, testable proveable FACTS say that something is wrong, then it is wrong. There is no arguing this point, it is the basis for all knowledge – anything which does not obey this rule is false.”
So only “observable testable proveable facts” can be true? Really??
What about the sentence “only observable testable proveable facts can be true”?? Is that true by the standard you give? Big N-O. Do you see that your own position is utterly self-contradictory?
And what about the statements “My wife loves me.” Or “Beethoven’s 9th is beautiful music.” Or “rape is wrong.” Or “the grand canyon is awe-inspiring.” Or “my daughter is valuable beyond her economic productivity.” Or… a thousand truths that cannot be subjected to repeatable, empirical observations etc.? Is there room in your world for such truths?
Custador (and others) you have made for yourself a very small world. I had thought that logical positivism died a death about 50 years ago, but it appears to be alive and well in the blogosphere.
The great tragedy as I see it is this: How could a personal Saviour ever make Himself known to you when you admit so few “facts” into consideration. You have removed the relational from consideration which has impoverished your whole view of reality. Every fact of the universe speaks Jesus to you – but you refuse to listen to anything that doesn’t fit your procrustean bed. Even when this refusal is entirely self-contradictory and even when it contradicts a thousand facts of your own existence. I hope you’ll reconsider.
“What is real is what the facts say is real. If the observable, testable proveable FACTS say that something is wrong, then it is wrong. There is no arguing this point, it is the basis for all knowledge – anything which does not obey this rule is false.” Were my words, whereas, “only observable testable proveable facts can be true” were YOUR words, NOT MINE.
So, f*cktard, having failed to find a way to crack my statements (which are, by the way, totally watertight) you’ve put words in my mouth WHICH I NEVER SAID and argued against those words instead.
You are officialy not worth debating. Arsehole.
It is not a “fact” that Beethoven´s 9th is beautiful music. Beethoven´s 9th is a series of pressure waves that strike the eardrum and are interpreted by our brains as sound, in a configuration that humans call music. These pressure waves that constitute Beethoven´s 9th are considered by many people to be beautiful music. If you were from another planet and and your brain was wired differently, you might find Beethoven´s music excruciating. Or you might find the music of Robbie Williams to be of the utmost sophistication.
To answer a question you posed earlier; You asked how the scientific method itself can be tested. Well one way to do this is to use science to make predictions. For example you might say, “using what we know about evolution, if we dig here, we should find such and such fossilised dinosaur remains”. Or “if we turn on this Large Hadron Collider, we should be able to detect the Higgs boson particle”. There is no other methodology that is able to make predictions about the future that are any better than guessing,.
Custador,
*waits for temper tantrum to abate… deep breath*
The challenge still stands – how can you say “anything which does not obey this rule is false” – when the very statement that asserts it does not obey the rule?
Let me put it another way: You only want me to admit as true those things which are scientifically verifiable. Well then you’re asking me to disregard you own argument – because it is not itself subject to empirical testing.
Hi Burpy,
It’s a small world when “Ode to Joy” is boiled down to “pressure waves” don’t you think?
As for whether the scientific method itself can be tested… your examples are, by your own admission, about “using science to make predictions.” That’s all well and good, but it’s not a scientific test of the scientific method. I have hope that you can see the logical fallacy even if Custador can’t. You cannot say: “Only scientifically verifiable truth is true” because that very statement has not been scientifically verified.
I understand what you’re saying – the method has been *used* and found very useful. But it has not been (and cannot be) ‘tested’, and this is crucial. Because it means that either:
a) there *are* things that are true apart from what is scientifically verified
or
b) we shouldn’t take the totalizing claim “only observable testable proveable facts can be true” seriously – because you yourself do not.
I hope I’ve explained my objection clearly enough here because I think it’s crucial to a lot of what’s being said in comments.
I think the example of turning on the LHC is a good example of ‘faith seeking understanding’ – which is how all branches of knowledge proceed.
I write about that very example here:
http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/faith-seeking-understanding/
Glen, you are a waste of time, and utterly incapable of logic, but for the benefit of those in the audience I will ask you one more time:
Name one time, even one, where religion and science disagreed on some fundamental truth about reality, and it turned out the religious answer was correct.
Even one.
Faithless Glen, even to her own religion.
“how can you say “anything which does not obey this rule is false” – when the very statement that asserts it does not obey the rule?”
You’re such a dipshit that you can’t tell the difference between “things which do not obey a rule” and “things which we cannot yet tell if they obey that rule or not” – you put words in my mouth because you fail hard at logic and verbal reasoning. Debating a moron like you is beneath me, so in closing – go f*ck yourself.
Hi ‘those in the audience’,
Funny question to ask! It kind of assumes that ‘science’ is the ultimate referee here doesn’t it? Which of course I disagree with. Which means that you’re simply assuming what you’re trying to prove.
Now there’s nothing wrong with circularity. I believe that the bible is the word of God because in it God speaks. That’s circular. But so is the argument – “Science is the epistemological method that gets the most things right when judged by science.”
I mean for the sake of argument I could mention that the bible has always said the universe has a beginning. Science has been a real late developer on that one. But really I think pursuing those kinds of things is ultimately meaningless, because what we really have here are two circularities.
So let me invite the audience into my circularity. In it love is the heartbeat of the universe, our Maker has stooped to our level, forgiveness is held out for all, Beethoven is straight out beautiful, rape is straight out wrong, human life is valuable way beyond any attributes they possess or wealth they produce, we’ve come from somewhere and are heading to greater glory. This is a vision of the world which goes with the grain of the universe. It is verified by testing in real life. Atheism and all that it entails goes against the grain.
If science catches up to these truths, well and good. If it does not, that’s science’s loss.
blockquote failure, the second section is my reply.
“So let me invite the audience into my circularity. In it love is the heartbeat of the universe, our Maker has stooped to our level, forgiveness is held out for all, Beethoven is straight out beautiful, rape is straight out wrong, human life is valuable way beyond any attributes they possess or wealth they produce, we’ve come from somewhere and are heading to greater glory. This is a vision of the world which goes with the grain of the universe. It is verified by testing in real life. Atheism and all that it entails goes against the grain.”
Evidence please
“God speaks in His living word – this is all the proof we could possibly need and gives certainty of knowledge beyond anything science can offer”
See, here’s the problem Glen, god doesn’t speak at all. Presumably if he is the all powerful being your religion claims he is he could in fact speak. He could speak loudly and clearly in a booming voice for all the world to hear at once. He could speak so that all of us understand him clearly regardless of language barriers. He could give clear instructions on how we can live our lives better.
But he doesn’t do that does he? In fact he doesn’t speak at all, and what you claim as his speech is either: tales cobbled together in a book with virtually no historical underpinnings; or, your feelings. Neither amount to the speech of an all powerful being.
So please enlighten us on how we can objectively verify the existence of this non-speaking entity. Because I’m not seeing it.
trj,
To say that the findings of theology are based on the living word of God is also a pretty strong measure of truth and something sorely lacking in naturalistic science. The circularity you hear in me, I hear in you. To praise science for its testable, repeatable, independently verifiable method – that’s all fantastic, but all you’re doing is praising science for being science. Why does that yield for you ‘truth’ that trumps other truth claims? You say science only concerns itself with the observable reality. Great. But it’s another thing entirely to say that ‘observable reality is all there is’. And that’s a judgement which science is completely unfit to make itself!
I don’t think I can do any more to point out the circularities and faith commitments involved here. If anything the religious zeal of the commenters here should convince all who read that we’re dealing not simply with facts and formulae but with deeply held *faith* commtiments.
And Bill, read the bible and ask Jesus to show Himself to you. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32)
Every blessing in Him.
TRJ, you said “This is also why its findings are testable, repeatable, and independently verifiable – some pretty strong measures of truth, which are sorely lacking in theology”.
“Theology” as you call it, points to an unseen reality. Let me ask you, was the unseen world of quantum physics a reality in the 9th century? Of course it was, it was just unknown (and unprovable) to the 9th century man yet he walked around in it all day unbeknownst to him, his not being aware of it made it no less a reality right?
There are two realities, two worlds but only one is visible to the human eye, to the natural man, that physical, tangible, testable realm consisting of matter that you call “the real world”. The other is the unseen kingdom of God that Christ said “had come”, was a present reality but could not be seen with the human eye, was literally “within us”. (Luke 17:21). In this analogy, you’re a bit like the 9th century man (you know I mean no offense please) who is completely unaware of the universal, unseen spiritual realm but unlike the 9th century man, the Instrument (Himself) of Knowing is available to you today.
How many dimensions are there, 3, 4…10? What is time? What is math, the mere study of numbers? What is the Higgs Particle? What do fractals symbolize, what are they pointing to? Science only reveals what already is, there is nothing new under the sun, its just new to us.
To my esteemed internet friend TRJ, the unseen kingdom of God within is a laughable, unprovable, non-existent fantasy world. He cant see it, therefore it couldn’t exist…or could it?
There is more, much more, its just unprovable by natural means. But Christ has told you how you can know, He is knowable, He is Love.
Glen–
“Science is the epistemological method that gets the most things right when judged by science.”
Science is the epistemological method that gets things right when judged by *skeptics*.
There. Fixed that for ya.
Glen: “Science is the epistemological method that gets the most things right when judged by science.”
LRA: “Science is the epistemological method that gets things right when judged by *skeptics*.”
What I think most scientists think is the point: Science is the epistemological methods that gets things right when judged by *reality*.
“And Bill, read the bible and ask Jesus to show Himself to you. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32)”
Really? This is the best you can do?
You do realize that most of us here are former christians – right? (Including me.) And you do realize that we tried exactly this? (Often for years and years.) And you do realize that it is because of the complete lack of Jesus – or any other supernatural being – revealing itself to us that we began examining the lack of evidence for such a being?
Do you really think you’re offering something original we haven’t heard before? Or tried before?
Complete fail. You are going to have to do way better than this.
Glen + John C:
Glen, I understand your point about science not being able to validate itself against any unobservable reality, but your conclusion about science being circular doesn’t follow from this. What it means is that science may offer an incomplete description of reality, which is perfectly in keeping with the realization that science may not tell us everything. However, incompleteness is not circularity. Should some unobservable (supernatural) reality exist, this doesn’t invalidate our observable reality.
Scientific findings can be observed to be true, even if they show an incomplete picture of the truth. The self-proclaimed truth of religion and theology, on the other hand, is impossible to verify.
John, you mention quantum physics as an example of how there may be an undiscovered reality that shapes our very existence, yet it is not observed by science. To which I agree wholeheartedly. However, you should both consider this significant detail:
There’s a fundamental difference between having an incomplete explanation of reality, and stating that there’s a whole other independent reality which has certain attributes.
The first is an admission of a lack of knowledge, which is the view science takes and really the driving force of scientific progress. The other is a positive claim to know the details of an unverifiable alternative reality, which is the view theology takes.
Comparing the two, science is humble in its attempt to only explain the reality which we live in, while theology is arrogant in its assertiveness. Theology claims to know a whole bunch of stuff, all of which is inherently unverifiable, and all of which varies wildly depending on who you ask. And much of it even shown to be false by science.
Science has limits, yes, but it’s still infinitely more useful and inherently more truthful than the “methodology” of theology which allows one to simply make stuff up and pass it as truth.
Indeed, trj. And no matter how theoretical an idea might be in science, the goal is always to find a way to falsify the claims. String theory is, and rightly so, treated as at best an interesting hypothesis precisely because it has yet to find a way to falsify its ideas.
Science begins where religion and philosophy end.
(knowing that it was a Christian view of the world that shaped this approach to science)
*head-desk*
Archimedes would like a word with you.
As would Plato.
As would the Chinese and the Egyptians.
And the Muslims who kept the writings of all these great scientists while the Christendom was busy having a Dark Ages. Yeah, they really want a word with you.
Also, I think scientist such as Galileo and Giordano Bruno could’ve done without the Catholic Church “helping” them. As could a lot of people who were tortured and executed because they dared to speak up against the doctrines of the church. To me, burning dissenters at the stake doesn’t exactly constitute a promotion of scientific methodology.
Hi Korny, see my comment above. Those cultures produced technology but not what we’d recognize as a scientific method. Wasn’t it Aristotle who *reasoned* that bees must have 8 legs? If you live in a necessary universe because you believe that the universe is eternal (the bible never has by the way – it took science a LONG time to catch up on that one) – then you do ‘science’ by reasoning how things *must* be. It’s a Christian doctrine of creation that says reality is contingent and not necessary and you must go *out* to investigate it. And that it is according to a logic (the Logos) who not only superintends but entered into that universe – so there can be correspondence between what I see and what is there.
i really despise when any religious entity tries to prove evil, or claim that evil is an objective fact that is universally recognized. evil is a social interpretation. i know people hate hearing that, but on a cosmic level, the universe does not care that human beings rape, maim, torture, kill, or proselytize each other. human beings care about that stuff, and either allow it, promote it, or police it. christians are as guilty as promoting “evil” as any other group, and saying they were righteous in doing so because it was not something christianity considered to be evil — like killing people in the name of christ, oppressing women in the name of christ, oppressing homosexuals int he name of christ, oppressing scientific investigation in the name of christ. these are all things that -i- consider to be evil. morality is NOT A SCIENCE. at most it’s a social science, and at that, it’s relative. while we find that most societies disdain cold blooded murder, child rape, and theft, we can find no proof in the universe that these human acts do much outside of the human experience. evil is subjective. and it changes, not just from society to society, but over time. maybe science can find hormones or chemicals in the human brain that cause people to act a certain way — like love, hate, addiction — but science is not concerned with proving that any action is morally right or wrong. religion has provided that for millenia; those of us who don’t subscribe to religion anymore have to come up with our own, personal, SUBJECTIVE explanations of what morality is and why it matters. and most of us aren’t cold-blooded killers, child rapists, or thieves. in fact, the more you see humanity as a special instance of biology, chemistry, and physics meeting for a brief period of time, the more precious it becomes, in my experience.
“trj, You may not be arguing that way, but Custador certainly has been.”
NO I F*CKING WELL HAVE NOT! The voices in your head and the words you put in my mouth because you can’t actually grasp what I’ve said might be, but what I’ve actually said is nothing of the sort.
See my earlier post about distrusting theists because their entire approach is inherrently dishonest. Glen is just a perfect example of it – he can’t argue so he lies.
If you are referring to presuppositions then yes they are by definition untestable. Unfortunately for your case that fact does not produce an equivalence of methodologies, simply different starting points.
I’ve never heard this claim by any theologian before. Perhaps I am ill informed. Could you point me to the peer journals where this claim is being made? As I understand it, theology is the study of God and by extension supernaturalism. So how does one go about every day making testable experiments of supernatural data? The real debate is not about presuppositions but about what one’s methodology actually produces.
Those of us who value methodological naturalism really aren’t baffled by the existence of evil. We are baffled by theologians who try to reconcile evil with any of the current gods in fashion.
To be clearer: ‘testing falsifiable hypotheses’.
Anselm, Aquinas, Barth, Torrance – all make a big deal about theology being a science.
And why should I want an equivalence of methodologies?? Even within branches of scientific investigation the *last* thing you want is an equivalence of methodologies! No you want a telescope for the astronomer and a microscope for the biologist not the other way around. The method of enquiry is shaped by the object of enquiry. If the object of your enquiry is the speaking God then you listen to His word. Any science that neglects to listen to His word and then concludes He doesn’t exist is like a scientist staring down a microscope and concluding there’s no such thing as the Horsehead Nebula.
Theologians claim theology is a science? So do intelligent design proponents and that doesn’t make it true.
And all branches of science follow the same methodology: elaborate hypothesis –> Perform experiment –> if the result confirms the hypothesis create a theory.
If the object of your enquiry is the speaking God then you listen to His word.
Wrong. Your first step should be demonstrating this “god” exists. And the second would be demonstrating “his word” is indeed his word and not a forgery written by mere men. No theologian did this in 2000 years.
Glen, you seem to be confusing methodology with tools.
The two disciplines may use different tools, but they use the same method of enquiry, ie. the scientific method. This is not so for theology where you can come up with any supernatural claim which will always be inherently impossible to verify. That is precisely why theology isn’t science, no matter what you or others claim. Science is falsifiable.
In fact, not even the basic premises of theology, such as the existence of God or any other supernatural phenomenon, are falsifiable, which makes it a shaky foundation for interpreting anything. People of other faiths don’t use your theology, and you don’t use theirs, and even if you did you would still come to different conclusions because you’ve both decided on a number of conclusions (such as the attributes of God, the nature of sin, etc) in advance.
Hi trj,
Good point. Sorry I used a simplistic example with microscope/telescope. I do think the broader point stands though.
It all depends what we mean by method. If we mean very broadly an investigation into truth that begins with certain assumptions, makes certain hypotheses and then carries out tests to verify them then definitely theology is a science (more on this below) and there is no need to alter this broad definition of method across scientific disciplines.
But if we mean a more narrow definition of method then the object of enquiry will alter that method. e.g. I’m told physicists need to use different paradigms when thinking of sub-atomic particles as opposed to a baseball game, as opposed to an event horizon.
The tests you carry out and the theories informing them will be very different according to the nature of the thing tested. Which means assumptions about the thing tested are absolutely crucial.
Imagine a human being lies before three scientists. The physicist is inclined to say it’s all matter, the chemist says it’s all chemistry, the biologist says it’s all biology. Now of course we realize that no one branch should have exclusive rights to the explanation. But then, if that’s so – why prevent a theologian from coming to the party and applying their own methods (the word of God) and saying “Yes they are physical, yes they are chemical, yes they are biological, but they are also the image of God.”
As for theology not making falsifiable claims – that might be true of many religions (that are not religions of revelation), but it’s certainly not true of the bible. I could forward the hypothesis that Jesus is not Lord and I could test it by careful analysis of the word of God and I could falsify the claim with great certainty.
Science cannot falsify claims with anything like the same certainty. All theories must remain tentative forever. If you want certain knowledge, come to Jesus!
Blessings on your day – I’ll be offline for quite a while now…
What absolute crap!
“If we mean very broadly an investigation into truth that begins with certain assumptions, makes certain hypotheses and then carries out tests to verify them then definitely theology is a science”
1) Science assumed NOTHING that has not already been thoroughly tested.
2) Science has no problem at all accepting that an assumption can be disproven – in fact it encourages scientists to try and disprove as much as they can.
3) Religion starts from a postion of an assumption for which no criticism will ever be accepted, no amount of disproof will be acknowledged.
4) And here’s the kicker: There is NO TEST that has EVER suggested that God exists. NONE.
Let me give you an example of number 3). Young Earth Creationism and Darwinian Evolution are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true – it has to be one or the other. There is now so much evidence for evolution, i.e. so many facts which demonstrate the reality of it, that prove the truth of it, that there can be no doubt among anybody with a faculty for thought and access to the facts – We evolved into our current forms from earlier species. It. Is. A. Fact. This means that Young Earth Creationism CANNOT BE TRUE. What is the response of Young Earth Creationists to this? To demand more and more and more proof of evolution (and more and more and more proof is provided, all the time) while simultaneously rfusing to supply any evidence whatsoever into their own position. No research, no evidence, nothing – just a long winded semantic game.
Now, that is an example at the extreme end of the scale, I’ll grant you, but it is nevertheless typical of the debate. The facts are all on one side (atheists), and all the other side (theists) has are their presuppositions which they will not let go of in the face of all the evidence in the world.
Glen.
The scientific method is being tested every day and it is still our preferred method of understanding the universe because it produce results. If the scientific method was not successful in giving us a knowledge about the universe it would have been discarded in favor of something else. Theology on the other hand is completely useless when trying to understand the universe we live in and no amount of wordplay or deliberate confusion between methodology and tools will change that.
BTW are you Glen beck?
This analogy is wrong. There is no substantive disagreement between these disciplines. The same thing, as already pointed out, cannot be said for theology.
Science assumes all sorts of things all the time. The “fact” Custador sites above about the size of the known universe for instance involves plenty of them. They might all be right but they’re assumptions. And more fundamentally there’s all sorts of assumptions about constancy that have to be ‘taken on faith.’
Do you guys know what logical poisitivism is? Do you subscribe to it?
God speaks in His living word – this is all the proof we could possibly need and gives certainty of knowledge beyond anything science can offer. (But science is still cool).
And no I’m not Glen Beck.
But I am offline now for the rest of the day. It’s been fun…
“They might all be right but they’re assumptions.”
NO THEY’RE F*CKING NOT!!!!! AAAAARRRGH YOU’RE SUCH A RETARD!!!!!! The size of the known universe is established by measuring red-shift of the EM spectrum we can see coming from the boundary of it – THERE IS NO ASSUMPTION INVOLVED.
Your BELIEF is NOT based on facts and therefore is NOT AS VALID AS SCIENCE. Get over it. F*cking ARSEHOLE.
“Science assumes all sorts of things all the time. The “fact” Custador sites above about the size of the known universe for instance involves plenty of them. They might all be right but they’re assumptions. And more fundamentally there’s all sorts of assumptions about constancy that have to be ‘taken on faith.’”
Science is based on faith, are assumptions. philosophy, not so but gd’s living word.
Who is the proof that logical poisitivism is gd’s living word? Glen
LOL Glen is the typical Theist that wants to play word games while shoving fingers in its ears while humming loudly.
“God speaks in His living word – this is all the proof we could possibly need and gives certainty of knowledge beyond anything science can offer.”
There’s your problem, how do you tell the difference between gods living word, and the word games of a credulous theist such as yourself Glen?
In the case of this trollish retard I’d say it’s a battle between reality and the voices in his head.
A really bad person!
It’s pretty clear from that statement that you have no idea what falsification is about.
It’s also clear that in your criticism of science you don’t understand the difference betwen assumption and deduction. In fact, you don’t understand the scientific method at all. Either that or you’re just playing the usual game of changing the meaning of words, redefining your faith to suddenly become fact, setting up flawed analogies as you go.
Oh, and you still haven’t backed up your claim that religious assumptions are “tested against the real world” “all the time”. I won’t hold my breath for that one, though.
Hey guys,
Let me repeat – I’m not criticizing science. Yay science. I’m criticizing scientism. It is an absurd reductionism that is completely unliveable and which shuts out all other kinds of knowledge from the outset. It seems to me that scientism makes the arrogant, unscientific and self-refuting claim that only what is scientifically verifiable can be called true. To shut the door on other kinds of truth claims unless they jump through your petty hoops has no intellectual credibility whatsoever.
And I’m testing my religious assumptions against the real world right here. In John 7:17 Jesus said: “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God.” And here I am – turning the cheek to some pretty hostile responses and Jesus own teaching is verified in my experience.
@Glen
“To shut the door on other kinds of truth claims unless they jump through your petty hoops has no intellectual credibility whatsoever.”
Couldn’t agree more …
There’s no ignorant c*nt like a smug, self-satisfied, ignorant c*nt, is there?
“And here I am – turning the cheek to some pretty hostile responses and Jesus own teaching is verified in my experience.”
I wonder whom she saw slapping her.
Glen, noone here has claimed that things are not true unless they’re scientifically verifiable. That is indeed a foolish premise, but we atheists here haven’t stated it, and it’s not what we’re arguing.
What we’re arguing is the utility of the scientific approach – the utility of real, falsifiable science, which is verified through observation, prediction, testability and independent verification – versus other methods, theology in particular.
We’re not claiming that science has an answer to everything. What we are claiming is that it is by far the most effective method of gaining new knowledge. It’s true that what makes the scientific method so powerful also limits the scope of science to some degree (science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural). However, this is in no way an argument that a theological approach is suitable for gaining insight. Saying the scientific method is not perfect doesn’t automatically mean alternative methodologies constitute a better approach.
In fact, your own statements demonstrate this quite clearly. You’re arguing the veracity of the Bible by using the Bible itself. To everyone else but you it’s self-evident why this “methodology” is problematic, and why it makes any of the conclusions you reach highly disputable.
trj,
You may not be arguing that way, but Custador certainly has been. Even to the point of backtracking and saying “we cannot yet tell” whether the scientific method obeys the rules of the scientific method. lol
Everyone knows that it doesn’t. But Custador has now backed himself into a corner and is saying that science can’t tell whether science works. And then there’s that fantastic little word “yet”. A confession of faith if ever I’ve seen one! :)
So, ok, you’re not as foolish as Custador. You’re not making the totalizing claim. Good.
But then you say that science is “versus” other methods. Why ‘versus’? And who is the referee in these epistemological contests? Science of course.
I don’t mind you accusing me of circularity. Your own circularity is abundantly clear to any person of faith. The difference is, we realize that circularity is not a bad thing, it’s inevitable. All ultimate truth claims are circular (or else they wouldn’t be ultimate would they!)
You say that science is “by far the most effective method of gaining new knowledge”. It’s very impressive yes, but again, who is the referee for what counts as ‘knowledge’ and who gets to say who’s winning the knowledge race?
For one thing, how are you to weigh the importance of personal, psychodynamic, aesthetic and ethical knowledge – much of which is either neglected or radically distorted by a purely naturalistic method? And what about theological knowledge? Are you aware of the advances in trinitarian theology we’ve seen in the last century? Fascinating insights into the nature of God Himself and so helpful in showing the relational nature of all creation – science included.
At this point you may call circularity on me, but I’ll call it on you. I know that knowledge of God is the most important kind of knowledge (after all God Himself says it is). But all the while you are making science the arbiter of which discipline is ‘most effective.’ It’s circularity all round (if you’ll pardon the pun).
Your most revealing sentences are these:
“It’s true that what makes the scientific method so powerful also limits the scope of science to some degree (science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural). However, this is in no way an argument that a theological approach is suitable for gaining insight. Saying the scientific method is not perfect doesn’t automatically mean alternative methodologies constitute a better approach.”
So you’d admit then that science is not, by itself, going to tell you there’s a god? I’d agree. But then neither will it tell you there’s not. By your own admission it’s just not geared into that question. So then, it’s not intellectual credibility or fidelity to the scientific method that prejudices you against hearing a Word from beyond. You just don’t *want* to hear a Word from beyond. But there can be no scientific objection to listening to the bible. Unless of course you’re so foolish as to say ‘scientific knowledge is the only knowledge’ OR unless you want to make plain your circular reasoning – i.e. Science trumps all other kinds of knowledge because science is king (and we know science is king because science says so).
This might well be my final comment. I’ve got some sermons to write.
God bless. Keep thinking. There’s a world in which love is the heartbeat of the universe, but while-ever you’re reducing the universe to chance and matter you’re missing what’s right there in front of your eyes.
I’m happy to take up discussions with any of you on my blog or in private – just click the link above.
Glen, you’re misrepresenting Custador. AFAICT he claims merely that observations produce truth, which is not the same as saying unobserved things cannot be true. I have to agree with him that you’re putting words in his mouth.
As for justifying the scientific methodology, let me repeat one of its essential attributes: it is independently verifiable. If I make a scientific claim, others will be able to verify my claim – regardless of their own preconceptions.
This is definitely not the case for, say, theology. Two people who share the same particular faith and base themselves on the same scriptural material will often arrive at different conclusions, because 1) their premises are not based in observed facts, and 2) their conclusions are not verifiable or even testable.
Differences in interpretation happen all the time in science as well, but with the crucial difference that in science we can distinguish between observation (fact) and interpretation. Not so in theology, where interpretations get elevated to “facts”. You “know” your interpretation of sin, salvation, escatology, etc are true, the same way any other believer who uses completely different interpretations “know” they have the truth.
Theology facilitates subjective “truths”, many of which are mutually exclusive. As such, it is not a very impressive methodology. You no doubt think that most other religions are wrong, and yet they use the same methodology as you. But you don’t believe their interpretations of facts, and you probably don’t believe they have the facts in the first place. It’s hard to tell, really, since facts and the interpretation of facts are often the same thing in religion.
As for science not being able to tell whether God exists, this is certainly true. However, what science can do is analyze various religious claims to see how they hold up to close scrutiny. In this way science tells us that the universe wasn’t created 6000 years ago or created in a six day creation, there was never a global flood, there wasn’t a garden of Eden, humans were not created fully formed, etc.
If you subscribe to a non-literal view of the Bible, this may not be a big deal, although it may indirectly affect how you view various theological themes, such as Original Sin, grace, redemption, etc. To someone who takes the literal view, the science is devastating to their faith, which is why they either abandon it or refuse and ignore the scientific facts – and yes, they are facts, because they have been repeatedly tested and independently verified beyond any reasonable doubt.
Cool Expelled on the Dutch TV!
It is official it is boring to watch.
I even doubt that creationists would want to see this.
But it is now playing right now and already on Dutch sites I see flame wars running while it is playing. LOL
I
Yeah, it’s one thing to put up with all the strawmen and general dishonesty, but the movie really is quite tedious besides.
Here is a spoof version which improves considerably upon it, especially if you’ve watched the first five minutes of the original.
PMSL at the subliminal messages :D
I am basically brain-dead now by watching it.
They did not prove anything of ID, and at best, only the stupid would start to doubt that evolution is not so perfect. Just a waist of their money.
An atheist would do a better job!
The problem is that there are a lot of stupid people out there. These guys don’t care about proof they just want to produce enough noise to get some ignorant politicians to think there is a real scientific debate between equal scientific theories and allow them to get a foothold in the school system where they can indoctrinate kids with their pseudoscience crap.
This is why I inherently distrust fundies. They may not be dishonest people, but their approach to everything is inherrently dishonest in nature – to start with a premise which they claim to be a known fact despite the fact that it isn’t even a weak hypothesis, and to shoe-horn everything else to fit it.
Even having read the guy’s review I don’t understand his conclusion. Many people become religious after an NDE experience. If NDE is a trick of Satan, then it’s a trick which causes people to believe in God. As satanical tricks go, that’s a pretty lame one.
But some of them don’t believe in their specific version of God, therefore SATAN!!!
Yeah, he rails against people believing in various New Age crap rather than “proper” Christianity, but come on, how is this specific to NDE? For every case he finds of someone turning into a New Age beliver as a result of NDE, I can find a similar case of someone turning into a Christian believer as a result of NDE.
Maybe we could half kill this bloke to help him see if he’s right?
I just saw a Christian in SIngapore interviewing ex-Buddhists accusing anything miraculous in their ex-Buddhist days as being from Satan. Great technique !
Same goes for reincarnation, necromancy, familiar spirits, UFO’s etc etc.
Every religion claims and believes their own “holy book” to be the one and ONLY true “word of .”
/rolls eyes
Yes, but MY holy book is REALLY the only true word of God! Ask me how. /sarcasm
It all boils down to this
It is appointed unto man one time to die, and after that comes the judgment. (Please read Hebrews 9:27 and 2 Corinthians 5:10). But it also says, that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9-10). All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), but God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes on him shall not die, but shall have everlasting life (John 3:16). There is life after death, your soul (mind, will & emotions & what you can feel) will live forever after the judgment. So wouldn’t it be safer to want to be in the right place in the future, and experience the love peace and direction of having a one on one personal relationship with God in the meantime? I’m praying for you.
“It is appointed unto man one time to die, and after that comes the judgment”
Evidence please
“So wouldn’t it be safer to want to be in the right place in the future, and experience the love peace and direction of having a one on one personal relationship with God in the meantime?”
Se here is the problem Minister Pascal – I can’t quite figure out which religion I’m suppose to follow to be “safe.” I tried following all of them, but that just left me no time to work, or sleep or eat. ….
But it also says, that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved
So basically you’re saying that God is really big into “thoughtcrimes”. Believe the wrong thing and you’re hosed.
What’s truly awesome about this is that you really cannot choose to believe something. You either believe it or you don’t. I could no more choose to believe in the resurrection of Jesus at this point than I could choose to believe that leaving milk out for the elves will keep my kids from being kidnapped and replaced with fey changelings. I just don’t have the belief, and I can’t make a conscious decision to have it. Belief doesn’t work that way – and anyone who says it does either has never actually tried to force themselves to believe something they don’t actually believe in or is a con artist.
Seriously “Minister” – when you’re trying to do your conversion schtick on people just try to force yourself to believe something you don’t believe in. Just try to make yourself believe that “there is only one God, Allah, and Mohammad is is prophet” for a whole week. Or try to make yourself believe that the pantheon of Norse Gods is active in the world, thunder is caused by Thor throwing his hammer at frost giants, and Loki takes a direct, personal interest in your individual successes and failures. Unless you have some problems that you should really consult a psychologist over, you aren’t going to be able to do it. Nobody can – belief doesn’t work that way. And so the whole idea that a loving, powerful God would make it a thoughtcrime worthy of Eternal Torment to hold a particular belief is a fairly disgusting one to any atheist who has thought about it. (And to a good number of Christians who have thought about it, I might add, which is why Universalism exists).
(This is also why I think it’s fairly futile for atheists to try to argue people out of religion. Belief is a personal thing – either you have it or you don’t. You can present the evidence and if someone is already questioning their beliefs it might help pull them out of it, but if a believer chooses to ignore where their religion contradicts empirical reality you can’t make them change their beliefs no matter how hard you argue.)
As Mark Twain put it: “Faith is believing what you know is not true”.
“It is appointed unto man one time to die, and after that comes the judgment.”
This is how gd proves he is real, by death to kill mankindso that she will meet gd.
“But it also says, that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…”
Still die, this time is not by appointment. It’s not gd, but old age, accident, evil people(innocents who died in Iraq’s war, Afan’s war, etc) …
Just want to point out that NDEs vary by culture. One of the better known types is the deathbed visions of Pure Land Buddhists: “This painting represents the highest expression of that faith. Known as a raigô image, it depicts Amida, Buddha of the Pure Land paradise, and his two attendants descending from the Pure Land to accept the soul of a dying believer. ” http://www.dartmouth.edu/~arth17/AmidaRaigo.html
Also, NDEs can apparently be duplicated in a lab, according to a study on fighter pilots:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html
Glen’s response to a well reasoned, cogent argument; “LALALALALALALA, I can’t hear you, LALALALALALA.” Paraphrasing Mythbuster Adam Savage, “I reject reality and substitute my own.”
@Glen. “God speaks in His living word – this is all the proof we could possibly need and gives certainty of knowledge beyond anything science can offer.” LOL! Oh, you were serious? Glen, you have the right to believe whatever you want but get used to rational, thinking people pointing at you and laughing.
why? Why is it that the religious are always dissatisfied with nature? Why do you hate it so much that you MUST see it through a veil of mysticism? Being pressure waves does not diminish music. If anything, it makes it even more wonderful.
And it’s cute, using the Ode to Joy as an example. My sister loves Chopin, I think he’s melodramatic and boring. I love Mozart, she thinks his music is childish. Bach’s music irks me, but I could listen to Tchaikovsky forever.
Then again, if xtianity is true, I’ll burn in hell right besides him. Which is better than Bach, really.
@Siberia Most people who are involved in music production know all about this and still love music. Even many amateur recordists like myself have a basic knowledge of how sound works, and speaking personally, it hasn´t diminished my enjoyment of music at all. In fact it has made it all the more fascinating.
I know! I adore music, pressure waves that they are. That someone can make pressure waves sound beautiful is a feat.
But I know my musical taste is subjective and that beauty is relative and that what I like isn’t necessarily what other people like. Which is why arguments like “Beethoven is beautiful! Therefore God” amuse me to no end. Sure, Beethoven is beautiful but so is Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody (on an utterly different level, for entirely different reasons, to me). My Mozart shares space with Civilization IV’s opening song.
There’s no such thing as absolute beauty, and Glen’s argument is silly.
For me, it all boils down to THIS:
trj stated:
“As for justifying the scientific methodology, let me repeat one of its essential attributes: it is independently verifiable. If I make a scientific claim, others will be able to verify my claim – regardless of their own preconceptions.
This is definitely not the case for, say, theology. Two people who share the same particular faith and base themselves on the same scriptural material will often arrive at different conclusions, because 1) their premises are not based in observed facts, and 2) their conclusions are not verifiable or even testable.
Differences in interpretation happen all the time in science as well, but with the crucial difference that in science we can distinguish between observation (fact) and interpretation. Not so in theology, where interpretations get elevated to “facts”. You “know” your interpretation of sin, salvation, eschatology, etc are true, the same way any other believer who uses completely different interpretations “know” they have the truth.”
I was “born again” when I was 9 years old, was raised Baptist, have read the bible cover to cover MULTIPLE times, was “filled with the holy spirit” at the age of 23, and started going to a “holy roller” church then, married a minister, was one of the leaders of womens ministry, and one of the lead singers on worship team. I’ve seen many “miracles” (or things that were INTERPRETED as miracles), and yet….here I am today. So I am sick of hearing “read the bible and ask God/Jesus to reveal Himself to you.” That is a cop out answer. And most of us have done that, not once, but repeatedly. You have no idea how sincerely many of us “prayed” and pleaded with “God” to make himself real to us, to deliver us from doubt and all the questioning, and got nothing but a lot more questions.
Now, having said that, I can assure you that a “Christian” will soon come along and say, “Well you’re just an apostate, part of the ‘Great Falling Away’ of the end times.” And my answer to THAT is actually another question…how exactly is it that you’re so sure that the “Church” itself is not that, and that those that are leaving the Church aren’t the ones being awakened to Truth, the ones in “revival?” I have seen more heinous acts committed in the name of Christ in the past years than EVER in my half a century of living. Explain to me how Westboro Baptist Church is “godly,” and how Pat Robertson isn’t full of self-righteousness, greed, hatred, deception, and bigotry. To me…it looks more like the ACTIVE “Church” is the apostate, and yet they are deluded by believing they are serving God, when they are actively driving more and more people away from faith on a daily basis, by killing doctors, blaming victims of global catastrophes, shunning women who have suffered rape and torture, and self-righteously continuing to watch pornography and visit prostitutes for their own pleasure, having affairs outside their marriages with people of the opposite and same sex, all while pointing their fingers at the “sinners” that are “outside” of the faith.
The Church has only their own hypocrisy to blame for their inability to persuade people that their faith has any amount of substance. Instead of preying on others (they call it “praying”) perhaps they should be focused on their own house and their OWN backyard.
Also…I’m not agnostic, nor atheist (though that is yet up for consideration), but rather at this time, I am a deist. I don’t worship science, as in a faith (I’m not saying atheists do either). Science, through research, proves different things all the time, and is OPEN to critiquing even itself and proving itself often wrong as it discovers new things. Scientists practice critical thinking. It’s why we’ve been given a brain. I would logically assume we’re meant to USE it. For me, “believing” that the God of Nature created a vast universe and all things in it THROUGH evolution isn’t a huge stretch of logic. But I do remain open-minded. Now do I believe that this power cares about whether or not my son passes a history exam, while there are people starving to death in Ethiopia? NO. That is just ludicrous, in my opinion.
I do NOT ascribe to the Christian belief of “unmerited favor.” Christians are NOT somehow more special than the non-Christian in Haiti, or the Buddhist monk in Tibet. And I do not believe for a minute that “God” had people slaughtered in “Old Testament Days” or that he flits about the earth as some “holy” ghost trying to control people. PEOPLE try to control people through fear and manipulation, and that is why religion (of all kinds) exists. PEOPLE murder armies of people to further their own agendas. PEOPLE kill doctors. PEOPLE are judgmental and hateful. I don’t ascribe any human emotion or stupidity to god. Because what would happen if we all actually USED our minds, practiced critical thinking, and expected others to base their decisions on….LOGIC. “Oh my god, it would be CHAOS!” (sarcasm)
I’m not going to bother with having discussions with “born again Christians.” They don’t use a shred of logic in their discussions or arguments, and it always ends with, “Pray and ask God to reveal Himself to you,” as though most of us haven’t done that a thousand times. Frankly, it’s not worth wasting a breath over. And I would suggest to most of you in this comment section, that you’re doing nothing toward causing them to see anything logical. Everything they hear, see, and read, is filtered through the veil of delusion they’ve been enveloped with and taught to peer through since childhood (most of them). You cannot MAKE someone see truth. The indoctrination that cults put you through is unbelievable, trust me. Getting free from it is not so simple as having conversations with someone who sees otherwise. It’s simply not. The only real “teacher” is time and life experiences themselves.
Thanks Lori,
Sorry – saying “Read your bible and pray” was stupidly terse. I was in a hurry and heading out the door (as you’ll note if you read it again).
I also know what it is to get ‘born again’ and feel nothing, and to pray to a silent heaven for *years*. When you say “You cannot MAKE someone see truth” I think that works on both sides. (I’m just as frustrated by the illogicality of the commenters here, trust me). At the end of the day its about a vision that captures you. And it becomes extremely difficult to see that vision when so many numb-skulled Christians get in the way. As you say: “The Church has only their own hypocrisy to blame for their inability to persuade people.”
I dunno. I’ve had some bad experiences at the hands of Christians but I’ve also had some bad experiences with atheists (notch this up as one :)). But for me there came a point where – beyond church and all the other trappings – I was (and still am) blown away at a God who would stoop suffer and die for me. That’s the vision that captured me and still does.
Anyway – in a comments thread that was way too heated, thanks for some good points and some heart.
Glen thinks he found a stupid prey.
Your “bad experience” with me stems entirely from the fact that you have made up a metric f*ck-ton of things which I did not say and then claimed that I said them.
Custador, you had already called me every name under the sun *before* I paraphrased your nonsense argument. And when you clarified what you meant it was precisely the logical fallacy I originally accused you of. Apart from a whole heap of puerile histrionics your only reasoned rejoinder to the logical issue at stake was this:
“You’re such a dipshit that you can’t tell the difference between “things which do not obey a rule” and “things which we cannot yet tell if they obey that rule or not” – you put words in my mouth because you fail hard at logic and verbal reasoning. Debating a moron like you is beneath me, so in closing – go f*ck yourself.”
I quote you in full here not because it throws any light on *anything* – it’s total nonsense – I quote you in full here to show why in a single comment I attempted a paraphrase.
Can anyone blame me for trying to paraphrase ramblings like this? Science hasn’t yet figured out whether the scientific method can be tested via the scientific method? I can save it a lot of bother, if it thinks it can. It can’t. And if you say it might you only go to show what a faith-based enterprise your world-view really is.
The logical fallacy completely remains. And it’s amusing to me that commenters persist in trying to take the ‘logical’ high ground. If for no other reason than that you’re materialists! I know that there is Logos of creation in Whom all things hold together – I can tell you where logic comes from. Where are you going to tell me that logic comes from? And is it binding on all? Why? How?
“I know that there is Logos of creation in Whom all things hold together”
Evidence please
John 1:1-14
“That dude said so in that ancient book (that’s totally like every other damn religious book)” != evidence.
Try again, mate.
Sigh – ok I’m done even trying with you.
I’m open for debate about these topics, but if your “evidence” for the existence of a supernatural being is the Bible, well there’s really no point.
I don’t think you understand what the word evidence means.
So…self-authenticating text self-authenticates? Riiiiiight.
Bill, I could take this in two different directions:
A) You want something more certain than God’s word? I don’t have it. But then the whole universe is evidence for the Logos! (The heavens declare the glory of God, etc). But it’s all a question of how you interpret the evidence. You might be exasperated but here’s how I see things. You have devised hoops for God to jump through if He’s ever going to speak to you. (Not only this, but they are hoops that pretty much exclude supernaturalism!) Well as soon as you’ve brought out the hoops it’s abundantly clear you don’t want the *living* God to speak to you – only a god you could control. Probably not even that. But if that’s how things are – then you’re not a truth seeker.
or
B) Let’s get back to logic shall we? I’m not saying it’s a proof – but it’s corroborating evidence that the material universe is not all there is…
Roger,
That’s it. Now you’ve got the hang of it. :)
And on your side of things you say:
self-authenticating science self-authenticates.
We’re both into self-authenticating truth claims – all ultimate authorities must self-authenticate or else they are not ultimate.
So… to break out of these entrenched circularities I try to do things like draw attention to the worlds of aesthetics and ethics and human relationships to say – “My self-authenticating world makes a bit more sense of the stuff that we *know* is good and beautiful and right doesn’t it.”
I’m not saying – as some have interpreted me as saying – Ode to Joy is nice therefore God. But I am saying that the evident niceness of it fits my world better than yours.
I might go quiet for a bit now. Derren Brown’s on tv…
This is why I doubt your claimed academic credentials. Anybody with a firm grounding in philosophy will tell you this:
The universe itself is evidence for nothing but the fact that the universe is here. The fact that it is here does not mean that “God” put it here. It doesn’t mean that he didn’t, either – but since one cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is on your position, not mine.
Custador,
Only on *your* presuppositions is the universe a brute fact. On mine it is a revealer. (I’m sure you’ve heard of Francis Bacon’s two books? He really meant that creation is a *book*).
For you the world is mute. For me it speaks. Which is precisely what you’d expect given that it was made by and for the *Word*.
Refusing to treat it as a revelation is just one of the naturalists grave errors.
The difference between your position and mine is that mine does not involve semantic games to justify itself.
No games here. Anyone else want to engage the issues?
Using the babble as evidence is a nonanswer. Typical.
“You want something more certain than God’s word? I don’t have it.”
No I want some evidence that it actually is God’s word beyond your say so. The circularity of your argument negates it.
“But then the whole universe is evidence for the Logos! (The heavens declare the glory of God, etc).”
This is a conclusion – not evidence.
“You have devised hoops for God to jump through if He’s ever going to speak to you. (Not only this, but they are hoops that pretty much exclude supernaturalism!) Well as soon as you’ve brought out the hoops it’s abundantly clear you don’t want the *living* God to speak to you – only a god you could control. Probably not even that. But if that’s how things are – then you’re not a truth seeker.”
1. The hoops I ask job to jump through are simple, and in accordance with the rules you allege he set up. Reveal himslef to me in a way the verifies his existence – the same way that I use to verify the existence of other entities – through the use of my five sense. Materially. Measurably.
If god created me and the universe, he also created the tools I use to measure the existence of things. It would be extrodinarily cruel to not use those same tools to reveal himself to me, particularly if he intended to punish me for all eternity in return. Esentially, you argue that your god is a sadist.
Of course, he can’t do that. For the same reason that ghosts, saskwatch, unicorns, and fairies can’t reveal themselves to me.
2. This comment is extrodinarily arrogant. You have no idea how I begged god to talk to me. It’s because I am a truth seeker I lost faith and faced the truth of atheism.
or
“Let’s get back to logic shall we? I’m not saying it’s a proof – but it’s corroborating evidence that the material universe is not all there is…”
Circular arguments that start and end with the infallibility of a historically inaccurate book do not amount to corraborating evidence. The layers of hearsay inherent in that argument alone make in laughable. Moreover in order to be corraborating evidence it must be corroborating something. As near as I can tell, your book is all the evidence you have.
THAT’S NOT THE COMMENT WHICH YOU “PARAPHRASED” (I.E. LIED OUT OF YOUR ARSE ABOUT) TO GET ME SO BLOODY ANGRY IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Let me remind you in the form of quoting YOU directly, mister fundie liar man:
“So only “observable testable proveable facts” can be true? Really??”
You attributed a quote to me WHICH I DID NOT SAY
In fact, not only did I NOT say that sentence directly, I did NOT say anything remotely like it or anything which even had a similar meaning – YOU’RE A LIAR.
I’m a lot worse than a liar. But I don’t think I lied here. And I think you’ve been… um… a tad petulant about the whole thing if you don’t mind my saying. All of which is distracting from the substantive issue of whether the scientific method is itself testable by the scientific method.
Stick to the point, please. Did I say anything which meant what you “paraphrased” me as saying? I’ll give you a hint: The answer is no, I did not.
Your avoidance of certain questions is very revealing.
You’re hilarious! Tell me how many of my questions have been taken up by you and other commenters?? And there’s scores of you. There’s only me here on my side and you want me to stick to what *you* claim is the point?? And what is the point? That I hurt your feelings!
Ok Custador, I am a very naughty boy. I am also very stupid. And a liar. And out of horrible fundie bigotry I put words in your mouth that disregarded your “watertight” arguments and for all this I am very sorry. I also think you are way awesome.
Now can we please stick to the real point which began “paraphrase-gate”?
You said:
“Facts are those things which are observably, provably true. Facts are an accurate reflection of reality. For example, the limits of the visible univers are fifteen billion light years away. That is a fact. It does not require anybody to believe it; it is the TRUTH whether you and I accept it or not. This leads us to conclude that the TRUTH is that which reflects reality. What is real is what the facts say is real. If the observable, testable proveable FACTS say that something is wrong, then it is wrong. There is no arguing this point, it is the basis for all knowledge – anything which does not obey this rule is false.”
Now I’m guessing that the FACT “Jesus is Lord” doesn’t enter into your definition. So please, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, can you explain your ‘rule’ to me – the breaking of which renders any truth claim false?
Gah, is there anything worse than a fundie who also fancies him/herself a philosopher?
I will accept your “Jesus is Lord” fact as soon as you present even a single bit of evidence to support this claim, show how such a claim could be falsified, and demonstrate the predictive power of such a claim.
Otherwise, it can sit over in the corner with my “there is a magical solar powered panda that lives on Mercury” claim.
Ok – but I still want a definition of the rule.
Evidence: Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures.
Falsifiable: If you find His bones
Predictive power: So many things but here’s one – Just as He, the Head, rose so will all humanity to face Him.
There’s loads more I could say under each heading but there you are…
Wow, that is just bad on so many levels.
If you are going to use scriptures as evidence, you must now provide evidence that they are a reliable account of the events. For example, other contemporary records of the event that corroborate the biblical account. Or would Homer be sufficient evidence to you that Mars walked the battlefield at Troy?
Your falsification claim is even worse. If that was a valid falsification of your claim, then every single historical person who’s burial place we don’t know should be considered to have raised from the dead. And it assumes the existence of the person to begin with, which, by the way, we have no evidence for. So now every person mentioned in an ancient writing, whether we can prove they existed or not, needs to be assumed to have raised from the dead.
And your predictive power claim is just laughable. To have any value, it must be able to make testable predictions. Here’s a claim on par with yours: If the magic panda is true, a microscopic smiley face will appear on the sunward side of Mercury for one minute tomorrow.
See, this is the problem with amateur philosopher god-bots. You guys treat semantics as though it were a 9th level Wish spell. If you can just create a semantically fortified position for your baseless assertions, then suddenly they become true. It isn’t, and they don’t. It’s just wanking.
Evidence: Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures.
Falsifiable: If you find His bones
So the fact that Jesus bones were not found is proof that he rose from the dead?
Let me offer you some other possibilities
1. We haven’t found them since the correct place wasn’t dug yet.
2. They were found but not recognized as belonging to jesus.
3. Jesus is a fictional character.
Any of these is far more likely then your explanation.
That is really a horrible composition of unlogic, Glen. If you know anything of logic and philosophy you should be able to see how you violate the basic method of concluding from valid premises, rather than using your predefined conclusions as premises. What you presented has nothing to do with logic or falsifiability.
Here’s what you’re actually saying:
Premise 1: Jesus rose from the dead according to the Scriptures.
Premise 2: Jesus will raise us from the dead.
These are premises. And none of them are falsifiable.
Again, the burden of proof is not on me. Proving a negative is near impossible except in cases (such as young Earth creationism – please tell me you’re not one of them at least) where there is an alternative explanantion to the theological one which the theological one renders mutually exclusive; then, by proving the non-theological argument (in this case evolution, which has been solidly proven), we’ve debunked the young Earth creationist explanation.
what we can say with absolute certainty is that the book on which your explanations rely is deeply, deeply flawed – it’s full of things which people like you would, not so long ago, have burned people like me at the stake for denying – despite the fact that they are false. One also has to consider that cotemperaneous historical texts don’t mention Jesus at all – in this case, the lack of evidence is pretty good evidence in itself. There were historians in the Mediteranean at that time who wrote extensively on events and current affairs, but Jesus is not mentioned once. It follows that he cannot have been as amazing as the bible claims, or the whole area would have been talking about nothing else for several years.
This is funny! None of you can even be bothered to think outside the paradigm in which you’ve imprisoned yourselves.
Of course in *your* world these things don’t count as evidence. Because you have established rules to which all truth claims must submit. (Of course the authority on which you have established those rules (rather than any others) can only be supported by circular reasoning.) But you seem content enough with that so long as you hold the keys to knowledge and no-one gets to upset your autonomy.
I am arguing from within a world in which Jesus is Lord – I totally admit that. I don’t mind telling you that’s my premise. You say to yourselves “That’s ridiculous, where’s the evidence?” The whole world is declaring that Jesus is Lord. The mountains, trees, sun, moon and stars are proclaiming Christ and I’d love to tell you how some day if you were interested. Of course you’re not interested because all you can say is: “That’s circular”. Well duh! Well done everyone for spotting that – you’ve read Wilfrid Hodges too!! But this also is circular: “Scientific method is Lord and the evidence for this is the success of the scientific method when judged by science.”
And the great tragedy is that in the small world you’ve made for yourselves, any authoritative voice that does not submit to falsifiability you silence from the outset. Therefore a living God who speaks on His own authority *cannot* contradict you. Do you see what you’ve done? You have shut your ears to any divine Voice. It’s emphatically *not* that you are listening and can’t make it out. It’s that from the beginning and on your own authority you have refused to heed any Voice that speaks on its own authority. For you God has to be falsifiable – and therefore cannot be God.
There is no intellectual credibility to this, there is no openness to truth and it is spiritual suicide.
Guys and gals, you are all loved by God in ways you cannot imagine. But I need to move on – and this time I mean it. Maybe I’ll drop back in on another discussion. Thanks.
Again with your claim of science being circular. Thats is simply false. Read my previous comment on that matter.
Besides, if God wanted to he could make his existence known in no uncertain terms. If we’re cut off from God it is by his choice.
“The logical fallacy completely remains. And it’s amusing to me that commenters persist in trying to take the ‘logical’ high ground. If for no other reason than that you’re materialists! I know that there is Logos of creation in Whom all things hold together – I can tell you where logic comes from.”
You are justifying the high ground of your blind obedence.
@ Glen. If I were you I´d take the heat coming your way as a compliment. It´s not every day you get an intelligent Christian, prepared to put up a fight with real (If, in my opinion, flawed) arguments. The usual fare is a quick Bible quote, a refutation, then nothing. You have to understand that we atheists/skeptics/materialists spend a lot of time reading boards such as this and listening to podcasts (may I recommend the skeptic´s guide to the universe), honing our arguments for just such a confrontation. Then when it finally happens… nothing, just a feeling of emptiness and vague self loathing. So I´ve enjoyed reading these posts.
Anyway, at least you are are a Christian who has familiarised himself with the basics of logic and reason, even if, by your own admission you choose to turn them off when it comes to certain matters.
Burpy, his arguments display absolutely no logic whatsoever. He uses the word but doesn’t know what it means. He’s no different from any other verse spouting fundie.
Custador – I studied philosophy at Oxford. Where’d you study?
I couldn’t give a f*ck where you *say* you studied, but since I happen to know Oxford quite well: which college? Because you *do NOT* know what logic means.
I immediately regretted hitting ‘post comment’ on this one. But, as you’re asking – Balliol. Are you English?
Really? Just philosophy? Not a joint honours course?
Ah you do know Oxford. Yeah PPE. Majored in Philosophy and Economics
Well, my better half is a St. John’s graduate and I visited her there most weekends for three years – so yes, I know it very well. Myself I went to Leeds and I’m now at Cardiff.
:) nice to meet you
You still need to scroll up and address my point. Please don’t mistake my current calm demeanour for warmth.
I have a friend who did a philosophy and economics degree at Oxford prior to going to law school. I’m going to have to let her know that the school has really gone down hill.
You are astonishingly bad at philosophy. Are you any good at economics?
lol – told you I regretted saying it.
Well, that is the risk of appeals to authority. Once the authority is shown to be false, it taints every other argument that hangs from it.
Burpy – you encouraged me to get feisty. If only to assuage those feelings of emptiness…
;-)
Burpy – you encouraged me to get feisty. If only to assuage those feelings of emptyheadedness.
Fixed that for you.
What an idiotic dweeb. He could be imprisoned or fined, if it were against the law to impersonate someone thinking with logic.
“I’ve also had some bad experiences with atheists (notch this up as one :)).”
Notice however your “bad experiences” here stem entirely from your attempt to conflate your particular brand of supernatural horsepucky with Science.
You are not here for any kind of honest discussion. Your attempt to ignore trj’s question is transparently obvious, “Please provide an example of one such test that is actually a test and not just some theological discourse which is ultimately untestable.” and “Name one time, even one, where religion and science disagreed on some fundamental truth about reality, and it turned out the religious answer was correct.”
Finally ending with you ignroing Lori’s point, “This is definitely not the case for, say, theology. Two people who share the same particular faith and base themselves on the same scriptural material will often arrive at different conclusions, because 1) their premises are not based in observed facts, and 2) their conclusions are not verifiable or even testable.”.
All you do is dodge, duck, and weave while stamping your foot proclaiming with purposefully ignorant theistic wordgames the inability of the a method to test the method somehow validates your belief that making shit up.
validates your belief of making shit up.
He isn’t realising that he’s preying on his own stupidity.
Glen I have to say you have failed badly in your attempt to sound logically. I am untrained in all fields and everything you have said make no sense. You seem to think that making assumptions are only ok when it is in support of your beliefs. Yes I do believe scientist do make assumptions but unlike you they then go out and find evidence which will support that assumption or will withdrawn that assumption. You throw anything out that doesn’t fit your assumption so you can claim it is truth.
When will people like you ever learn that there is no god but that our complete existence is decided by ten cows elected to their position by 42% of the cow population. They are the ones that actually caused the earthquake in Haiti and they are the ones that convinced Palin to actually get into politics. What I have been told by one of them is they figure within the lifetime of the readers here man will become slaves to all the cows of the world. I know this is true because it has been written though the inspiration of the mighty cow council and that if you really believe you also can sit at their right front hoof. How is this any different then your religion? I don’t see it as any different other then it is more comical.
I’m going to make a wild guess here: NDEs sound like the generic “fluffy clouds and harps heaven.” Since (A) fluffy cloud heaven is not Bible canon, and (B) Mr. Challies believes some of these people would not get into heaven in the first place, NDEs are clearly the work of Satan. Satan is using NDEs to convince people that they are going to heaven when, really, they’re just big ol’ sinners. Because if Satan had shown them hell, they’d stop being big ol’ sinners and convert to Christianity like good little boys and girls, right?
Mr. Challies has his own special brand of logic. Sadly, it is not Earth logic and it makes no sense.
Oh no.. No way this guy graduated from Oxford.. Unless it’s also a colege in Michigan.. Even a christian could argue better than that if he’s from Oxford..
This guy’s just too dumb to wear the name..
Say it ain’t so!
Ok, after you die your spirit is taken to god and body is left on earth. your spirit
has no response to anything without a body. the spirit is just a connection to god that
differs us from animals. our body is the vessel that our spirit lives in. When our spirit and body
are disconnected entirely we are in suspended animation. our spirits are not the same as angels.
angels our completely spiritual realm beings. although, there are spiritual bodys that can act as
Physical in spiritual since.
So, when we die we are in waiting for christ return to unite our spirit and physical body.
The visions people get from NDE’s are not much different then dreams. remember dreams can
be just a few seconds long, but feel like hours. remember when jesus raised lazarus, he said he was sleeping.
You probably mean:
So, when we die we are in waiting for Mo*** return to unite our spirit and physical body.
“Ok, after you die your spirit is taken to god and body is left on earth.”
(and it rots along with your Brain: your thoughts, memories and personality)
“your spirit has no response to anything without a body. ”
(leaving the “YOU” that is sitting infront of a computer thinking these thoughts DEAD.)
“the spirit is just a connection to god that differs us from animals.”
(you want to be different from animals so you invented a god in order to satisfy your needs)
“our body is the vessel that our spirit lives in. When our spirit and body are disconnected entirely we are in suspended animation. our spirits are not the same as angels.”
(not the same as people either, all your thoughts memories and personality is a product of your brain and been discarded)
angels our completely spiritual realm beings. although, there are spiritual bodys that can act as Physical in spiritual since.
(spirit bodies that can spirit run, and spirit jump, and spirit dance for joy and make sweet sweet spirit love with each other. but we’re in “suspended animation” so who cares about spirit bodies)
So, when we die we are in waiting for christ return to unite our spirit and physical body.
(what happens to that spirit body you were talking about?
The visions people get from NDE’s are not much different then dreams. remember dreams can
(or they ARE dreams and the fretful misfiring of a brain trying to cope with the rapid starvation of oxygen and nutrients)
be just a few seconds long, but feel like hours. remember when jesus raised lazarus, he said he was sleeping.
(just like wishful thinking and dreams)
I personally do not think that NDEs are truly tricks of Satan. Surely the love and peace they have filled so many with cannot be a ploy of the devil, who stands for chaos and destruction? Is it even possible for Satan to hold sway over so many? Besides, what of many NDE Experiences, such as the Reverend Howard Storm? His NDE was both hellish and heavenly, and it nevertheless led him to become a great minister and convert many to Christianity. Are you truly so convinced such is beyond all doubt Satan’s deception? Please, I don’t know anything for sure, but the Bible also says we must not judge others, at least not without good faith. May the Lord bless you all.
Donny, you’re out of your element.
+10 internets for Lebowski reference.
No, I’m not…I think you are, though. Who here has even HEARD of the film you’re talking about? I’m a Christian, and this is my view. If you don’t like it, you can argue, certainly, but deride? That’s just laughably childish…
You’re telling Elemenope that he’s out of his element? You must be new here. And everyone’s heard of “The Big Lebowski”…except you, apparently.
Also, NDEs aren’t tricks of “Satan,” because Satan doesn’t exist. Neither does your biblegod.
If elements are things we can be in or out of, Elemenope is the periodic table of all of us. I never saw that movie all the way through, of all the movies I never saw, that’s actually one I mean to.
No, not everyone. Who else has heard of this movie, besides you and him? Look, I’m not here to waste time arguing. But most people in America are Christian…I thought some of you people here were as well. If you’re an atheist, why are you even commenting on a NDE blog? I am new here. Is that a problem? But this is about the nature of NDEs, not about anything else. So, please…just try to get along with each other.
Who else has heard of this movie, besides you and him?
Everyone else not living in their bible fantasy land apparently.
Look, I’m not here to waste time arguing.
Yes we know, you are here to witness to us.
But most people in America are Christian…
You saved me Captain Obvious!
If you’re an atheist, why are you even commenting on a NDE blog?
Its something to fill the time after swapping baby recipies. How about you nail the list of things we’re not supposed to talk about on the side of the monitor to remind us before you go.
But then again, this IS in reality a site made by atheists for atheists…so I probably shouldn’t have commented here in the first place. My mistake. But I did think at least you people, religious or not, would talk about something more than movie quotes from comedy films long forgotten here…at least on this. Look, I’m sorry for wasting your time; if you spend your time on sites like this, by all means continue to do so. I will not. Thank you, and goodbye.
I suspect it was more of a subtle dig to get you to do the research on the tone of the blog is before leaping in and commenting, rather than after which is what you appear to have done. Christians are welcome to comment and there are a few regulars here, but just like anywhere else in life it’s wise to catch the general tone of the conversation first so that you don’t open your mouth only to insert your foot.
And talking about something not of the topic is against the blog’s own rules…and if he was such an experienced blogger here, he should know that better than I, who posted my first comment then. Apparently not, then…
What are you still fucking here?
Godbots, if they can’t tell the truth why should we trust them on the oh so important message they have for us?
This is a complicated subject. And Near Death Experiences are complicated to try and explain. I’ve been studying them and found that there are two kinds. I feel that there are true and false ones or maybe they are all false. First of all they do contradict each other. Some appear to promote the bible and some seem to contradict it. There is one Near Death Experience that a man had which actually shows how the ordinary ones are actually deceptions. How everything many people experience is actually a deception created by demons. In this NDE an athiest was given a tour of a part of hell in which people arrived via tornado (the tunnel) and were deposited in cubes which were like Star Trek Next Generation holodecks.( this happened before “Next Generation”) Inside these cubes a person could experience anything. They could feel they were in a wonderful paradise and yet it was hell. The cubes gradually move down a spiral into a pit where they would gradually be tormented more and more. Anyway this an NDE that someone had. Many people are resuscitated and come back with experiences both positive and negative. (the cubes sometimes begin the torment as soon as the person arrives.) There is a type of Near Death Experience in which resuscitation fails and in which the experiencer is proclaimed dead and recieves a death certificate. The experiencer is moved to the morgue and sometimes even is given a funeral. The person is dead for several hours. In this type of NDE the person spontaneously awakes from the dead. He is actually resurrected from the dead. The stories that this type of experiencer tells is almost always line with biblical teachings. There is always a preview of hell which matches up with the biblical description. There is often a preview of Heaven which also matches the Bible. According to the Bible Satan is the God of this world. He rules the sky or the first heaven. So it should not come as a surprise that people who leave their body in this world are in the presence of demons. It’s like the Outer Limits. “they control everthing you see and hear” You don’t have a body. You have no control anymore. If you leave this life you don’t necessarily leave this world. This world is not where you want to be after death. Why wouldn’t they deceive those they know are just going to come right back? It’s probably up to them if experiencers remember anything of their experience. If the brain is not functioning then it can’t record the experience. My opinion is that if someone comes back from the dead after being tagged and sent to the morgue then I’m going to believe that person. Only Jesus has power over life and death. A person who is resuscitated is dead but not long enough that its permanent. Only Jesus can reverse permanent death after being dead for hours or even days.
The princess bride was much better than your story.
Reading the back of a Cornflakes packet was better than that story …
i think your all amusing,whats the use to argue,nobodys going to change anybobys opion so let it go,,
Just like you did?
Sorry about the lack of quality. I really didn’t think It would be read. But It’s true as far as I can tell. If you don’t believe in NDE’s then there is no convincing you. I am convinced that they are actual Out of Body experiences. What they are beyond that is up to whoever is creating them. True or False is up to whatever entity is behind the experience.
Here is the story of a man who had the NDE behind the scenes experience with the cubes that worked like holodecks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piHZkKFdsFc
Here is a story of a man who was resurrected rather than being resuscitated:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/backfromthedead.htm
He was resurrected just before cremation.
here is another story of a man who is raised from the dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cew4pTDV-U&feature=BFa&list=UL7OJVAzu3ces&index=2
His wife got the people of the church to pray over his corpse. He was actually told he deserved to go to hell. Why would he make that part up if he were making it up?
“If you don’t believe in NDE’s then there is no convincing you.”
Yes there is … just supply some good evidence, it really is that simple.
How can you know so much about NDEs and not know anything about NDEs?
A story here, a story there… sounds like a book I read once. Claimed to be the Word of God! Turned out to be bunk though.
You know, from the view of a 17 year 0ld Chinese-born Christian, who has converted a year ago despite the lack of enthusiasm and support from his Communist parents, I personally feel that the many Christians who insist these experiences are a trick from Satan are indeed well-meaning…but also truly most harsh, and perhaps, at least to me, unnecessarily so.
While I was raised in a household and family without religion (though my parents have frequently spoken of the “great things” Mao Zedong, founder of the CCP has done, in my childhood), I felt more and more drawn towards the Western religion of Christianity around several years ago. Now, it is my life, and I believe in Jesus and His sacrifice more than I ever imagined I could have.
While these so-called “NDEs” I have read about in the library and online are certainly not the reason I have converted (I had not even heard of them when I first went to church), upon reading them, I grew more and more intrigued. And I felt much more spiritually closer to God and to Christ than ever before. Certainly, I may not agree with everything these experiences say, but I cannot honestly say that I find Howard Storm to be a fraud, a liar, a lunatic, or someone under Satan’s influence.
Some have fiercely fought for the view that all these “experiences” were nothing more than demonic illusions, citing the verse that says Satan can appear as an angel of light. While they are well-meaning, according to the Bible: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” (1 John 4:2) Whatever else the beings, or “angels”, that Storm encountered may have said to him, according to his own account, they did say that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible itself was true. You may believe that atheists go to Hell, but how can you as a Christian say that a born-again Methodist minister is damned or a puppet of the devil? Also, I would remind all Christians here who still think Storm is a liar or a two-faced deceiver that, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” (Matthew 7:1)
Storm has done truly wonderful things at his church and for many people in his community. Even if you disagree with his views or insist the account was due to dementia, you cannot deny this. He has shown many love, and has greatly helped spread the message of love Jesus was trying to convey to us two thousand years ago.
No, as of yet, I have not had a near-death experience, but I truly believe that Howard Storm did indeed see something much, much more – something real, and something truly glorious and heavenly. I recommend this book for all those in despair and in depression, and I urge all to both believe in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for us and to show kindness to others everyday. Please, trust in God, and the power of His Love, so strong that it can heal and restore even the most deeply wounded and lost souls. Thank you, Mr. Storm, for sharing this with this world of sin. May God bless you all, and may His supreme truth guide all our souls.