I’m very tolerant of you, Kathleen. Nobody wants to hurt you. It will be alright, just try to calm down. Would you like a nice cookie?
*backs away very slowly*
But honestly, I must admit that these ‘revelations’ people experience seem rather odd to me. People can and do have epiphanies about their lives, but I have doubts that they’re caused by a higher power. I suspect that in many cases, at least, it isn’t so much a miracle as it is that person finally accepting something they’ve really known or believed for a long time, often secretly. Much like someone might finally come to an acceptance being gay, they might also accept God into their lives when they were having serious doubts or fears before.
This doesn’t necessarily mean they even believe it, though. Often such acceptance is simply to make other aspects of their lives easier. One might accept being gay because it would explain why you’ve made such a shambles of your life with regards to the opposite sex, and not because you actually prefer your own sex. Likewise someone might accept God into their lives because they fear the reactions of their friends and family should they refuse, or they fear the repercussions should they turn out to be wrong (and don’t even get me started on fear-based beliefs).
I’m not trying to equate homosexuality with religious beliefs, but it does provide a handy (and rude) comparison. Nor am I trying to say this self-delusion is always the case. There are plenty of other explanations that can be just as likely or valid as ‘God Spoke to me’, and such things should always be considered critically. Any time a dramatic personality change occurs in someone you should question just why it occurred. Automatically explaining it as an Act of God may be ignoring a serious problem the person might be suffering from, and could lead to even greater problems in the future.
Weeeelllll. I guess you could call it schizophrenic or something when someone goes from be an alcoholic. wife beating schlub overnight to being what one would consider a pillar of the community. (Full time job, counselling alcoholics, etc.) Not something I’ve read, something I have seen. One night he is raging drunk, unable to break his grip on a bottle/can, the next day he is cleaned up, sober, and never has another drink (or by his admission the desire for one…)
And his wife says he is a defferent, kind, caring person now. Never lays a hand on her in anger or to cause pain.
You’re right. Definatley imbalanced!
*Edited*
I’m not saying it didn’t happen, and it sounds like a good thing it did. But that doesn’t mean God had His hand in it. One would have to ask themselves why God doesn’t intervene more often, and in worse situations.
May I just point out that I haven’t asked anybody to believe a major life change was caused by God? That may be what I believe has happened at times, but I have not urged anybody to agree with me, nor do I actually expect anybody to. And I could be wrong, but I don’t think Dave has, either. I think he was just saying, “This is my experience.“ Well, it was his experience—his and not yours. Just as “Faith = potentially harmful” is Stargazer’s experience and “I have doubts that (epiphanies) are caused by a higher power” is your experience, Chary.
I don’t think you really mean to imply that your experience is more valid than his or mine, do you? Just because it’s different?
You don’t know Dave’s friend and you weren’t there when he turned his life and his world around, so you really have no data. You have no idea how miraculous or how readily explainable it is. Neither do I, of course. When it happens or when it has happened to you or at least to someone you know, that’s when you have some data to make a decision about “what really happened.“ Theory will only take you so far when it comes to the truly inexplicable things that humans can do.
If someone says “I was taken to Mars and spent a lovely afternoon floating on the canals,“ well you don’t need to have been there to doubt that because it can be proven that Mars doesn’t have canals, so this story is contrary to fact. You have facts that can help you make a judgement. But what are the facts about Dave’s friend? The facts are, he was a horrible drunk, and overnight, he either was cured or he cured himself. How it happened is pure opinion.
Here is my real problem with those smug people that I mentioned yesterday—not that I’m implying anybody here is, because I am not, and anyway, it actually applies to everybody who’s smug and self-righteous, whether they are believers or non-believers (because I’ve seen both kinds do this). The thing that really BUGS me about smug people is that they routinely assume that anybody who disagrees with them disagrees only because they haven’t really thought about it. I mean, THEY thought about it and THEY came to conclusion X, and therefore ANYBODY else who really thinks about it should come to the same conclusion. And if that other person didn’t, it’s because the other person didn’t really think about it—not really. Not the right way. Not the way THEY did, which was the correct way. Or else that other person is just stupid.
Well, to heck with that. What we owe the people around us is the dignity of assuming, until it is proven otherwise, that if they have strongly felt beliefs about things that cannot be proven one way or another, they might very well have good reasons to hold those beliefs, even beliefs we personally disagree with. I can understand not allowing this dignity to people you despise—suicide bombers, people who picket funerals with anti-gay slogans, Hitler, Stalin, or whatever. But it’s not right—it really isn’t—to assume that when considering an issue of pure, undiluted opinion, such as the existence or lack of existence of God (or even, God help me because this is the kind of thing I struggle to accept, things like the power of crystals to focus spiritual thought), the only valid conclusion is the conclusion that one came to oneself. That’s not right. That’s exactly the same as saying the only spiritual/lack-of-spiritutal experiences that are valid are those that one personally finds acceptable.
Again, I’m not saying anybody here does that. But this is something I’ve thought of before but never managed to articulate. And everytime somebody starts preaching about how you haven’t prayed enough or read the Bible enough, because if you had, you’d realize _____…or preaches that you are allowing superstition to override Reason or haven’t read Darwin or whatever, because if you had, you’d realize _____…it’s all the same. And it’s not right.
Kathleen, I think what you are calling “smug behavior” is sometimes just “good science”. I don’t mind someone guessing at the cause of something unless they are imploying bad science - such as begging the question.
If you want to guess that God caused someone to have a life change we can do that! But, first, you have to prove that there is a God, or else you are begging the question. I no more care to guess whether God changed this person’s life than I do that Klegor the Invisible Gnome did it, until you prove one of those two are real. Otherwise it is a meaningless discussion because it starts with flawed logic.
The only other thing I disagree with you about is this:
or preaches that you are allowing superstition to override Reason or haven’t read Darwin or whatever, because if you had, you’d realize _____…it’s all the same. And it’s not right.
I disagree. If you show someone scientific evidence and they decide to ignore it or pretend it is false because it contradicts something they only believe on faith, then that is one of those problems I’m talking about.
Likewise, I have a problem with this statement:
You have no idea how miraculous or how readily explainable it is.
If anything, the course of human history has shown us more and more evidence that everything is explainable. Maybe not today, but we no longer have to invent fantasies about why there is lightning, and seasons, and what the sun is, etc. etc. We no longer have to believe fairty tales about a creator making us from sand or forming the Earth 7,000 years ago.
So-called miracles are events that happen that could have happened on their own. Always. (Unless you just believe that God just hates amputees, I guess.)
Here is the line I’m drawing. If you want to believe Jesus was God and came to save us from our sins that’s totally fine. When your beliefs trickle down to bad reasoning or science about real world events, then there’s a problem. So, no, you will never see me be “smug” about a belief (or lack) in something, like God. (In fact, I’ve never claimed, for a fact, that there isn’t a God.) But you will see me be very steadfast in, say, the position that Evolution is correct and Young Earth Creationism is not. Because YEC contradicts mountains of scientific evidence that has been tested and retested.
Stargazer, NOBODY in this thread has suggested anything that’s contrary to science. Nobody. Other threads, perhaps, but not here, and not by me. (And in my case, I don’t believe I’ve ever suggested anything contrary to science. If I have, point it out.) Just to be clear, I happen to believe in science, including evolution, so I’m not sure who you are arguing with here re. creationism, but it’s not me.
It is when somebody argues about something that cannot be proven or disproven by fact or reason and pretends that it can—something such as the lack of existence or the existence of God—that’s when we enter what I have referred to as the smug territory. It’s true that I can’t prove there is a God. Neither can those smug (or fearful?) religious people who claim they can. But it’s equally true that nobody can prove that there isn’t one. And I don’t think I need to argue with you on that. It’s a plain fact, after all.
So you can argue with creationists as much as you like and you won’t hear a word of criticism from me. But I reserve the right to criticize anybody who assumes, “If you believe in God, it’s because you haven’t thought about it.“ Because that is not necessarily the case. I assure you, I’ve thought about it a lot. Even though you’ve come to a different conclusion that I have, I’m sure you have thought about it, too. Let’s just respect that about each other.
Okay. I can see Stargazer’s view. (I think.) I can see Kathleen’s view. (I think.) I can even see Chary’s view. (I think.)
The reason I say ‘ I Think ‘ is because we are all using some of the same words but I don’t believe they may have the same meaning to all of us.
As a believer myself, I am constantly barraged by a series of comments elsewhere (everyone here is at least polite in allowing me my little indulgence) that tend to paint any belief in a supreme being as being unscientific and therefore nonsense and stupidity. It is true that proving the existance of a supreme being is not possible using the tools/techniques available to common scientific research. To automatical assume, therefore, that such a being does not exist then falls to reason, personal experience, and logic. I know many downplay the significance of personal experience, but I don’t.
I believe that since we are all imprisoned in our white bone cells, (heads) that we must ese whatever means at our disposal to clarify our own existance and the how the world functions around us. We can augment our own senses with tools, but we are still using our own senses. As long as one is not trying to force their own observations on another, there should be no problem. But there is! I think Kathleen is refering to the common experience of being talked down to our ridiculed merely for saying that , in our opinion, there is a supreme being. Nothing makes our deductions any less valid than anyone else’s as long as we don’t try to force this belief on others.
Believers, however, are not often given that same courtesy. Often those of a scientific belief system feel that they are somehow ‘superior’ or ‘smarter’ than those who believe. They have ‘seen the light’ in their own way, and forcefully push their beliefs on others! That is why some believers refer to the science community as ‘over-zealous’ and partakers of their own religion.
Here on the forum, however, that does not seem to be the case. (Or I wouldn’t be here.) If someone wants to belive that Blinky the Clown delivers their xmas packages, then so be it. More power to them! Just don’t try and make anyone else here belive it!
If someone wants to belive that Blinky the Clown delivers their xmas packages, then so be it. More power to them! Just don’t try and make anyone else here belive it!
No bloody clown had better try coming anywhere near my Christmas presents!
Here the majority would go “Aye, there’s something out there. Like, God or something.“ without perhaps agreeing with any set religion. But most people seem to hold a belief in a higher power (referred to generally as “The Big Man” or, indeed, “Big Yin”). I’m a little taken aback by the 44%.
But then again how accurate are these polls? Since I saw that Yes, Minister episode about surveys I’ve mistrusted the lot
That is always a problem—there are polls…and then there are other polls. And for that matter, there is poll reporting and then there is poll reporting. Lots of otherwise fairly good reporters are just not good at reporting on polls because there are so many ways to screw up.
If someone wants to belive that Blinky the Clown delivers their xmas packages, then so be it. More power to them! Just don’t try and make anyone else here belive it!
No bloody clown had better try coming anywhere near my Christmas presents!
I’ll say. I mean, goodness knowns what weird stuff Binky would come up with.
