Sure - it was just the phrasing which I was remarking on. They talk in terms of a relationship with the sacred, but that has a different connotation to what I took to be the sense of the phrase in the context of the OP. — Wayfarer
In your arrogance, you've left out the most obvious reason people might believe in god - they have experienced the presence of God in their lives. I assume you've never experienced God. — T Clark
Okay, I'll try again with a reiteration. I agree that that's one of the most obvious reasons that someone might give for believing in God, but that's also one of the reasons that should least be taken seriously. Why? For the same reason that someone who believes in extraterrestrials should not be taken seriously, or someone who believes in ghosts should not be taken seriously, when they talk about the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their lives. — Sapientia
Furthermore, you speak of arrogance, but I think it's arrogant to treat belief in God as some kind of special exception which deserves special treatment. To be insulted by the kind of comparisons I've made seems to suggest pride. I make no apologies. If it besmirches your reputation, or the reputation of your God, then so be it. — Sapientia
I don't understand why it shouldn't be taken seriously. You and I both believe people's reports of what they experience every day. — T Clark
You're saying reports of personal experience with God are not to be taken seriously as evidence for God's existence because God doesn't exist and no one can experience something that doesn't exist. — T Clark
I said what I meant - your statement didn't advance the argument. — T Clark
It was, as andrewk wrote, a sneer. — T Clark
I don't believe that belief in God deserves some kind of special treatment. The opposite, I think it deserves just as respectful a hearing as any other position. And - it's not my God. I am not a theist. I only believe people deserve to have their beliefs treated with respect. — T Clark
Happy to engage. What is your claim and its supporting argument? — andrewk
Also if Jesus didn't exist or if he never claimed he was the son of God, than I'm pretty sure that would be a major flaw with Christianity. — dclements
My claim - and I maintain that this was quite apparent from the start, and in retrospect you might be able to see this - is that the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life. — Sapientia
Too vague. Different interpretations of the 'in ways' can lead to it meaning anything from simply that the claimant can speak a human language (claims are made in human language) at one extreme to that the claimant is an untrustworthy loon at the other.the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life.
Also if Jesus didn't exist or if he never claimed he was the son of God, than I'm pretty sure that would be a major flaw with Christianity. — dclements
Extraterrestrials and ghosts are thought to be external entities, what if God shows His presence from within? — Metaphysician Undercover
And if what you said involved wordplay which you think renders such analogies inappropriate, then I can play that word game too.
[...]
I assume that you've never experienced the presence of God in your life, or extraterrestrials, or ghosts. Unless perhaps we mean by that something other than what one might expect - something more natural, more ordinary, less controversial... — Sapientia
My claim - and I maintain that this was quite apparent from the start, and in retrospect you might be able to see this - is that the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life. — Sapientia
Too vague. Different interpretations of the 'in ways' can lead to it meaning anything from simply that the claimant can speak a human language (claims are made in human language) at one extreme to that the claimant is an untrustworthy loon at the other. — andrewk
Analogies are a marvellous tool to help somebody understand a difficult, non-controversial concept - like the balloon analogy in cosmology. They are hardly ever of use in debate - at least, not in rational debate (which, admittedly is a tiny proportion of the debate that goes on out there in the world). — andrewk
You mention evidence. — andrewk
Whether evidence is appropriate depends on the context of the claim. If somebody knocks on my door and tells me I should believe them about their experience of God, and join their religion, then a demand for evidence is appropriate.
On the other hand, if I am conducting a survey, and approach someone to ask them whether they have experienced communication with God and they reply 'Yes', a demand for evidence is inappropriate. — andrewk
What is it you want to say about evidence? We have this:The context makes it highly appropriate to talk about evidence. — Sapientia
to which the obvious answer is 'to somebody else - probably none, and so what?'What evidence is there that someone has experienced the presence of God, as opposed to having had an experience and concluded that they experienced the presence of God?
It wouldn't be at all bizarre to claim one had experienced the presence of extraterrestrials, ghosts, spirits, devils, angels, or any other spooky phenomena IF one had been taught that these beings were real and that one could experience them.
Look, some people see in P.M. May and President Trump splendid, thoughtful, and effective leaders. I don't know why they do; it's probably the work of the devil. But whatever the cause, rational people can believe all sorts of things.
If my memory serves me right, you grew up without any significant religious education, and didn't feel any need to go out of your way to get any. Under those circumstances, it would make sense for you to not believe in God, and to be at least somewhat unsympathetic toward the idea of belief. What would be far more remarkable than your disbelief is for you to experience a spontaneous conversion. God could certainly arrange a bolt out of the blue and turn you into an ardent Jehovah's Witness or Southern Baptist, but hasn't seen fit to do so. — Bitter Crank
What is it you want to say about evidence? We have this:
"What evidence is there that someone has experienced the presence of God, as opposed to having had an experience and concluded that they experienced the presence of God?"
to which the obvious answer is 'to somebody else - probably none, and so what?' — andrewk
not very well at all.And how does that compare if you swap "God" with "extraterrestrials" — Sapientia
Granted. Was that meant as just a comment or as an argument against something I've said? — Sapientia
not very well at all.
Firstly, because aliens are claimed to manifest physically, it defies reasonable expectations based on our scientific knowledge to believe that such manifestations would occur without being observed by others. That consideration does not apply to communications from a deity which are reported as internal psychological events, observable only to the recipient. — andrewk
Secondly, claims about having been abducted by aliens tend to be made by people that typically have limited education and intelligence, not occupying positions of significant responsibility or influence. In contrast there are many highly intelligent, high-functioning people in positions of social importance that appear to believe they have a relationship with a deity. — andrewk
What does that mean?Crazy is crazy, now matter how you dress it up, how widespread it is, how prominent it is, and so on and so forth — Sapientia
I'm talking about 'logical' type reasoning for believing in 'God', if such a means even exists. — dclements
I'm talking about 'logical' type reasoning for believing in 'God', if such a means even exists. — dclements
Anyways, my point is that many Christians who believe they have some direct access to 'God' are about as crazy as C.C Lewis said about someone who tried to claimed they where a fried egg — dclements
You had commented on belief in god(s) being like belief in extraterrestrials. "the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life."
I assume you meant that experiencing the presence of extraterrestrials or God was a bit nutty.
It could be nutty. Sometimes it is nutty. But IF one had been taught that it was the case from childhood up, it would be natural rather than nutty to claim that they were present in one's life. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.