11 ms·

Well it's so good to hear someone say that faith should involve the weighing of evidence and all that. The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian who doe

Well it's so good to hear someone say that faith should involve the weighing of evidence and all that. The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian who doesn't like that I point out that their experience, like all the others, can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified, I will just say that they don't know what faith really means and they are not a true Christian. That they are being unreasonable. That the way they use the word "faith" is different from the other majority 10% of Christians. > Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement So I presume that using this method Christianity as a whole can begin to understand the true nature of the scripture and eventually coalesce into a single coherent religion? Instead of say, many many many different churches all believing things totally opposite of what the next does? I am sorry for my incredulous tone but it's just so foreign to me that any group that says that the skeptical will be punished can also be intellectually honest. I'm glad that you and presumably many like you take faith to be something that must not be anti-reason. To me that is rare, but then again that might be biased by all of the crazies that seem to get lots of attention. And I'm not talking about the Harold Campings of the world, just the average politician who rejects science.

lotharbot 15y ago
> "The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian ... I will just say [stuff]" A lot of the "unreasonableness" in modern American Christianity has a specific basis; understanding that basis is important if you want to respond effectively. Christian Liberalism was an intellectual movement in the late 1800s that sought to discard the supernatural aspects of scripture by inappropriately assuming most of it was figurative; Fundamentalism arose in the early 1900s as a response that included a series of overreactions -- treating scripture hyper-literally, embracing anti-intellectualism, and treating even the smallest everyday occurrences as supernaturally significant. While few today claim the label, a lot of ordinary American Christians have been influenced to some degree by this sort of thinking. Correcting this sort of unreasonableness is not as simple as telling them they're wrong and stupid; a less snarky and less belittling approach is usually more effective. Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help, but rather, it is helpful to explain the details of why they are mistaken and help them understand better. (The downside is that this takes more effort than the standard reddit-style "OMG UR DUMB" comment; the upside is that it's actually productive.) > "their experience ... can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified" It is tremendously important to treat one's experiences just like any other sort of data. One of the mistakes certain people make is treating common events as significant. One mistake a different group makes is treating all experience as insignificant. Do not be a part of either of those groups. Recall that "falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. An experience is not falsifiable. A generalization drawn from experience should be (otherwise it is a worthless generalization.) Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced -- historical observations, astronomical observations, fields like economics, and so on. We have systems and best practices for dealing with non-repeatable data; if it's carefully recorded, it can be analyzed and discussed rationally. It's not as good as lab experiments, but it's what you have to settle for when dealing with systems that can't be constrained to the lab. The key to dealing with experience as data is to understand the probabilities involved. Finding one's car keys after prayer and searching is not particularly signficant (after all, one normally finds their car keys after searching); praying and hearing turn-by-turn directions in your head to a place you've never been is significant. While both scenarios could theoretically be "blind chance", one is significantly harder to justify in that manner. > "Christianity as a whole can ... eventually coalesce ...?" The Bible isn't written like a legal document or a mathematical proof. In attempting to understand a fairly complex and sophisticated system with many parts contributing to the whole, there are estimates and prioritizations and judgment calls involved. Thus, there is a certain expected level of disagreement that is reasonable -- and modern Christian theologians are at that point (the "rank and file" are a little behind.) Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors (I say this as a pacifist married to a defense contractor -- we are not "totally opposite", we just disagree on the relative importance of two statements.)
- sixcorners 15y ago
  > Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help So would it be accurate to say that your argument is that the brother harassing the divorced brother from this linked article and the "god hates fags" people are not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from the same body of understanding as a group of theologians. However Christians who call themselves sheep and who would deny reason to uphold their own "unreasonable" nonmatching interpretation are still true Christians because they didn't do any of the things the group considers wrong even though embracing non-reason is one of the things that group detests. I guess I just think that the differences between the denominations are a lot larger then you do. Where the former is excluded for believing crazy unreasonable things, it seems like the latter should also be excluded on that same criteria. Anyway, if one of the things that the true Christian crowd believe is that everyone is deserving of death then I'm not sure it matters. How can that be justified? Original sin? >"falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. I guess I should have said that their explanation of their experience is not falsifiable. I can't tell if that sound you heard was a ghost or white noise/pareidolia and you can't either. >Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced Why should we need to rely on past data? What role does God take in the world today and how can we test for it? God giving GPS directions? Oh yes, I remember. He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know right? "That would take away free will." It has to be a way that can also be explained by causes outside of God. >Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors Like how many snakes to wield around at the next meetup or how to best cannibalise the blood and flesh of Jesus? I would think that the person who authored the mathematical laws of the universe would be the one most qualified to write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right? It made it in over stuff like germ theory. Now if you want rank and file, the Islam religion seems to have things going. I don't know anything about them though..
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > "your argument is [some are] not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from [theologians]" That is not an accurate characterization. The core of Christianity can be summed up thusly: everyone sins and is controlled by a sinful nature, and therefore everyone deserves death. Christ's death frees us from slavery to sin and redeems us from the deserved penalty of death, and Christ's resurrection "births" us into a new and transformed life (which grows over time.) That transformed life is characterized by love, patience, reconciliation, forgiveness, mercy, humility, and so forth. Certain people are "not true Christians" because they do not display even the slightest hint of that new and transformed life. Having wrong ideas, even a lot of them, does not disqualify a person from being Christian. Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person from being Christian. > "write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right?" The "important stuff" is the stuff that gets mentioned repeatedly and gets described in detail. For example, a large percentage of the Bible is dedicated to teaching the concepts listed above. The ideas of sin, death, repentence, resurrection, and transformation are each given significant attention on their own. Additionally, several passages discuss the ideas all together; the book of Romans is a 16 chapter long, well-formed, detailed discussion of those principles. Exorcism and laying on of hands are very minor, being mentioned on perhaps a dozen separate occasions, none warranting more than a few sentences as small parts of an ongoing narrative; as a whole they might make up a tenth of a percent of the Bible. Even so, when they are talked about, the discussion is very clear and completely understandable. There is no complex ritual surrounding either. Jesus, or someone Jesus has given explicit authority to, simply gives a command to a demon to "come out" or places their hands on someone, and the demon obeys or the sickness is cured. On occasion there is a simple prayer along the lines of "Father, heal this person." That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize. > "He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know [because of] free will" Several times in the Bible, God blatantly shows His presence and power, and yet someone still rejects or disobeys Him. Overwhelming evidence does not render "free will" invalid; proof does not prevent disobedience. God's decision not to offer proof is clearly not about "free will". I think it's simpler: God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. Consider Jesus' miracles -- He never performs them as "proof" or in order to show off; He performs them as teaching or as acts of compassion. The few times proof is offered in the Bible, it's to someone who already follows God and is looking for confirmation that a specific message or messenger is from Him, in order to move them to action. This is consistent with the experiences my friends and I have had. when my friends got GPS-style directions in prayer, they weren't "proof", but a means to an end. When friends gave, or were given, very specific gifts (often to/from strangers) because of a command given during prayer, it wasn't about "proof" but about God meeting someone's needs. When God told me to make myself vulnerable to someone who hated me, it wasn't about "proof", but about showing His love. God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved -- so the theory is falsifiable. Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not falsifiable; while I would expect ghosts and white noise to make the occasional mistake, they could just get really lucky.

lotharbot 15y ago

> "The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian ... I will just say [stuff]" A lot of the "unreasonableness" in modern American Christianity has a specific basis; understanding that basis is important if you want to respond effectively. Christian Liberalism was an intellectual movement in the late 1800s that sought to discard the supernatural aspects of scripture by inappropriately assuming most of it was figurative; Fundamentalism arose in the early 1900s as a response that included a series of overreactions -- treating scripture hyper-literally, embracing anti-intellectualism, and treating even the smallest everyday occurrences as supernaturally significant. While few today claim the label, a lot of ordinary American Christians have been influenced to some degree by this sort of thinking. Correcting this sort of unreasonableness is not as simple as telling them they're wrong and stupid; a less snarky and less belittling approach is usually more effective. Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help, but rather, it is helpful to explain the details of why they are mistaken and help them understand better. (The downside is that this takes more effort than the standard reddit-style "OMG UR DUMB" comment; the upside is that it's actually productive.) > "their experience ... can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified" It is tremendously important to treat one's experiences just like any other sort of data. One of the mistakes certain people make is treating common events as significant. One mistake a different group makes is treating all experience as insignificant. Do not be a part of either of those groups. Recall that "falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. An experience is not falsifiable. A generalization drawn from experience should be (otherwise it is a worthless generalization.) Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced -- historical observations, astronomical observations, fields like economics, and so on. We have systems and best practices for dealing with non-repeatable data; if it's carefully recorded, it can be analyzed and discussed rationally. It's not as good as lab experiments, but it's what you have to settle for when dealing with systems that can't be constrained to the lab. The key to dealing with experience as data is to understand the probabilities involved. Finding one's car keys after prayer and searching is not particularly signficant (after all, one normally finds their car keys after searching); praying and hearing turn-by-turn directions in your head to a place you've never been is significant. While both scenarios could theoretically be "blind chance", one is significantly harder to justify in that manner. > "Christianity as a whole can ... eventually coalesce ...?" The Bible isn't written like a legal document or a mathematical proof. In attempting to understand a fairly complex and sophisticated system with many parts contributing to the whole, there are estimates and prioritizations and judgment calls involved. Thus, there is a certain expected level of disagreement that is reasonable -- and modern Christian theologians are at that point (the "rank and file" are a little behind.) Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors (I say this as a pacifist married to a defense contractor -- we are not "totally opposite", we just disagree on the relative importance of two statements.)

sixcorners 15y ago
> Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help So would it be accurate to say that your argument is that the brother harassing the divorced brother from this linked article and the "god hates fags" people are not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from the same body of understanding as a group of theologians. However Christians who call themselves sheep and who would deny reason to uphold their own "unreasonable" nonmatching interpretation are still true Christians because they didn't do any of the things the group considers wrong even though embracing non-reason is one of the things that group detests. I guess I just think that the differences between the denominations are a lot larger then you do. Where the former is excluded for believing crazy unreasonable things, it seems like the latter should also be excluded on that same criteria. Anyway, if one of the things that the true Christian crowd believe is that everyone is deserving of death then I'm not sure it matters. How can that be justified? Original sin? >"falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. I guess I should have said that their explanation of their experience is not falsifiable. I can't tell if that sound you heard was a ghost or white noise/pareidolia and you can't either. >Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced Why should we need to rely on past data? What role does God take in the world today and how can we test for it? God giving GPS directions? Oh yes, I remember. He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know right? "That would take away free will." It has to be a way that can also be explained by causes outside of God. >Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors Like how many snakes to wield around at the next meetup or how to best cannibalise the blood and flesh of Jesus? I would think that the person who authored the mathematical laws of the universe would be the one most qualified to write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right? It made it in over stuff like germ theory. Now if you want rank and file, the Islam religion seems to have things going. I don't know anything about them though..
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > "your argument is [some are] not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from [theologians]" That is not an accurate characterization. The core of Christianity can be summed up thusly: everyone sins and is controlled by a sinful nature, and therefore everyone deserves death. Christ's death frees us from slavery to sin and redeems us from the deserved penalty of death, and Christ's resurrection "births" us into a new and transformed life (which grows over time.) That transformed life is characterized by love, patience, reconciliation, forgiveness, mercy, humility, and so forth. Certain people are "not true Christians" because they do not display even the slightest hint of that new and transformed life. Having wrong ideas, even a lot of them, does not disqualify a person from being Christian. Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person from being Christian. > "write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right?" The "important stuff" is the stuff that gets mentioned repeatedly and gets described in detail. For example, a large percentage of the Bible is dedicated to teaching the concepts listed above. The ideas of sin, death, repentence, resurrection, and transformation are each given significant attention on their own. Additionally, several passages discuss the ideas all together; the book of Romans is a 16 chapter long, well-formed, detailed discussion of those principles. Exorcism and laying on of hands are very minor, being mentioned on perhaps a dozen separate occasions, none warranting more than a few sentences as small parts of an ongoing narrative; as a whole they might make up a tenth of a percent of the Bible. Even so, when they are talked about, the discussion is very clear and completely understandable. There is no complex ritual surrounding either. Jesus, or someone Jesus has given explicit authority to, simply gives a command to a demon to "come out" or places their hands on someone, and the demon obeys or the sickness is cured. On occasion there is a simple prayer along the lines of "Father, heal this person." That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize. > "He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know [because of] free will" Several times in the Bible, God blatantly shows His presence and power, and yet someone still rejects or disobeys Him. Overwhelming evidence does not render "free will" invalid; proof does not prevent disobedience. God's decision not to offer proof is clearly not about "free will". I think it's simpler: God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. Consider Jesus' miracles -- He never performs them as "proof" or in order to show off; He performs them as teaching or as acts of compassion. The few times proof is offered in the Bible, it's to someone who already follows God and is looking for confirmation that a specific message or messenger is from Him, in order to move them to action. This is consistent with the experiences my friends and I have had. when my friends got GPS-style directions in prayer, they weren't "proof", but a means to an end. When friends gave, or were given, very specific gifts (often to/from strangers) because of a command given during prayer, it wasn't about "proof" but about God meeting someone's needs. When God told me to make myself vulnerable to someone who hated me, it wasn't about "proof", but about showing His love. God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved -- so the theory is falsifiable. Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not falsifiable; while I would expect ghosts and white noise to make the occasional mistake, they could just get really lucky.