God is a Person, and not just a Theory

The point that I want to discuss is how someone comes to know God. I am a Christian, but I was not convinced of the truthfulness of Christianity by a syllogistic argument. Nor did I come to believe in God by treating the concept of God as a theory that attempts to explain why things are here. Most of us in this generation think that the way we will come to know the truth about this world is by taking a cold, hard, objective look at the facts around us and by concluding on the explanation that best fits all the data. I would object that this is the way that we will come to know truth (or God). This doesn’t mean that our ideas shouldn’t correspond to reality. They should. But may we be overestimating our ability to gather all of the fact (as inter-related and seemingly infinite as they are) and to then judge them rightly? Facts point in all sorts of directions, and can be given almost any explanation. Much like statistics, you can get them to say anything that you want. To borrow an illustration from G. K. Chesterton, facts are like the twigs and branches of a tree. You do not know the direction that the tree is growing by looking at all of the branches, for they point in every which direction. You know the direction that the tree is growing by finding the source of its growth. So too with the world.

[Tenspace]

Stained Glass wrote

But may we be overestimating our ability to gather all of the fact (as inter-related and seemingly infinite as they are) and to then judge them rightly? Facts point in all sorts of directions, and can be given almost any explanation.

First of all, welcome to the forum. Nice to have an intelligent theist contribute, compared to some of the bizarre rantings we've been subject to lately.

I would have to disagree that Facts point in all sorts of directions, and can be given almost any explanation. That may be initially true for a discovery, but the winnowing process of modern science narrows down the overwhelming facts to those that fit experiment and prediction. Also, scientists understand that their theories and predictions are malleable. And it's the study of nature through which one can derive the natural truth of the fact.

Also, what is fact at one scale or instance, is easily refuted by a different scale. Newton's laws were taken as fact, and still are. However, when you get out of the realm of "gross granularity" (high-count data sets with minimal level of detail), what were once facts are now approximations, and not very accurate ones at that. Einstein's relativity was able to explain the progression of Mercury's perihelion; in the late 19th/early 20th century, this was a big unexplained deal, much like dark matter is now. Einstein was able to predict the specifics of Mercury's anomaly, and by studying a hundred years of ephemeral data, his prediction was validated.

I haven't read much Chesterton (his writings on the evils of materialism and relativism are diametrically opposed to mine; hence my lack of interest). But I did hear that he is credited with converting CS Lewis from atheism to Christianity.

Tenspace

Stained Glass wrote

Facts point in all sorts of directions, and can be given almost any explanation. Much like statistics, you can get them to say anything that you want.

I would like to comment on these two statements.

First of all, facts are facts. They do not point in "directions", they simply ARE. However, facts can be interpreted in different ways, and I believe that this is what you are referring to. However, we must always remember that interpretations are often wrong. We must be prepared to change our interpretations when other facts come to light and contradict them.

Secondly, the comment about statistics is a canard about deceiving people. What it means is that you can slice & dice numbers in a way to convince people of your position -- especially people who do not have access to the data or do not understand the data. This doesn't mean the data supports your position; it means you have obfuscated the numbers to support your previously determined interpretations.

When you are trying to get to the truth, there is no substitute for skepticism, reason and an informed discussion.

Thanks for the welcome. I do understand what you mean by "bizarre rantings". I guess that is what I get for beginning conversations on "Raving Atheist".com. I have appreciated the tone of your responses; reading your postings gives me hope that there may be some fruitful conversation here.

I would have to say that my reading on Einstein's theory of relativity is scant. I thought is more in the direction of metaphysics. I very much agree that the process of scientific discovery refines and hones and refutes thoughts and ideas that were previously embraced, but how do we judge if there is anything beyond the material by starting with the material? And maybe it would be helpful for us to designate between truth and Truth (in the philosophical sense).

[Tenspace]

Stained Glass wrote

Thanks for the welcome. I do understand what you mean by "bizarre rantings". I guess that is what I get for beginning conversations on "Raving Atheist".com. I have appreciated the tone of your responses; reading your postings gives me hope that there may be some fruitful conversation here.

We've had several theist visitors, who usually go by the handle of "Hope", or "Faith", which attempt to convert us by spewing forty-sentence paragraphs on 1) God's Greatness; 2) Atheism/Satanism's Evilness; and 3) the evils of evolution and materialism.

I would have to say that my reading on Einstein's theory of relativity is scant. I thought is more in the direction of metaphysics. I very much agree that the process of scientific discovery refines and hones and refutes thoughts and ideas that were previously embraced, but how do we judge if there is anything beyond the material by starting with the material? And maybe it would be helpful for us to designate between truth and Truth (in the philosophical sense).

Science is much, much stranger than anything we could dream up. Cognitive Neuroscience & physiology, Quantum Theory, Information Theory... these disciplines are quite "out there".

I suggest you take some time and read some of the threads here at the forum. You'll laugh, you'll cry, but above all, you'll learn. :)

Tenspace

So then if the conversation is not overly stimulating, what keeps you here? This is really my first attempt at posting on ANY forum. I have been reading the threads here, and there has been learning alright. I feel ashamed of some of the comments that have been posted by people that call themselves Christians. In most cases this is a badge that they pin on themselves and is not something that would be assigned to them by others. Although your thoughts of the typical Christian, I am sure, are far different than mine.

[Tenspace]

I find the conversations here to be extremely stimulating. I never stop learning. I am an information junkie.

Ten

[Rhinoqulous]

Stained Glass wrote

I would have to say that my reading on Einstein's theory of relativity is scant. I thought is more in the direction of metaphysics. I very much agree that the process of scientific discovery refines and hones and refutes thoughts and ideas that were previously embraced, but how do we judge if there is anything beyond the material by starting with the material? And maybe it would be helpful for us to designate between truth and Truth (in the philosophical sense).

Ahh, a nice change from the Sparky's and other nuts that have been posting. :)
My first question for you Glass is how would you differentiate between truth and Truth? Are you talking about Language Games? Ontological Relativity? (oh, please, let's start a discussion on ontological relativity, if anyone has read Quine) Or something else? We should hopefully get some interesting threads from these questions.

Rhinoq

Stained Glass wrote

You know the direction that the tree is growing by finding the source of its growth. So too with the world.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand naturalism and the scientific method. This is probably because a religious mind is conditioned to think in analogy, to the point that the process becomes automatic. But like all such figurative language, your (Chesterton's) tree analogy does not map well onto the way in which naturalism works. An obvious and immediate objection would be "but how did I get close enough to examine the branches without perceiving the tree, to begin with, and thereby immediately recognizing the similarities between that tree and others I've observed?" Trying to stretch, bend, compress the tree analogy so that it addresses actual methods of naturalistic inquiry will instantly demonstrate how facile and useless this manner of thinking really is.

And no, you can't get statistics to "say what you want". Not to someone else who understands them. The problem is: statistics, like scientific information, can be improperly used in rhetorical contexts to "say what you want" and this succeeds only because the tactic depends on listeners going into "dumb mode" as soon as numbers (devoid of their original contexts) enter a discussion. This not intrinsic to statistical comparison, as a tool.

A good introduction for the layman is Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences.

As an afterthought, my sister, who lectures undergrads in biology, likes to check their understanding by asking them this counterintuitive question:

"We know that an acorn can grow into a 60-foot oak tree. Where does it get most of its mass?"

The incorrect answer is "the ground", which would be what we would intuitively deduce from our observations of trees.

The correct answer is "the air around it". That's right, trees get most of their mass from the air. I point this out because it's another example of how flawed your tree=world analogy is, and why reasoning by analogy is generally dangerous.

Stained Glass wrote

The point that I want to discuss is how someone comes to know God. I am a Christian, but I was not convinced of the truthfulness of Christianity by a syllogistic argument. Nor did I come to believe in God by treating the concept of God as a theory that attempts to explain why things are here. Most of us in this generation think that the way we will come to know the truth about this world is by taking a cold, hard, objective look at the facts around us and by concluding on the explanation that best fits all the data. I would object that this is the way that we will come to know truth (or God). This doesn’t mean that our ideas shouldn’t correspond to reality. They should. But may we be overestimating our ability to gather all of the fact (as inter-related and seemingly infinite as they are) and to then judge them rightly? Facts point in all sorts of directions, and can be given almost any explanation. Much like statistics, you can get them to say anything that you want. To borrow an illustration from G. K. Chesterton, facts are like the twigs and branches of a tree. You do not know the direction that the tree is growing by looking at all of the branches, for they point in every which direction. You know the direction that the tree is growing by finding the source of its growth. So too with the world.

This isn't about knowing God. Something has to exist before you can know it. I haven't gotten past the existence part.

Facts may point in slightly different directions, but it's not so wildly pointish as you say it is. And that is why the scientific method was created, to filter the bias, and to allow for falsification, so your point is moot there...

I don't even understand your point about the tree...

But basically you're saying you converted through subjective emotional means, and therefore HAVE no facts, or proof to back it up.

Stained Glass wrote

how do we judge if there is anything beyond the material by starting with the material?

Good point, how shall we go about discovering the extramaterial universe? God refuses to give any real evidence of its existance, because that would destroy the concept of blind faith, a Christian essential! Without blind faith, it's no longer a religion, but a science. :(

stained glass wrote

how do we judge if there is anything beyond the material by starting with the material?

Well, we look at everything that we have, and we see if there is anything anywhere that hints at a god, if there is any explination only obtainable by saying there is a god.

If there isn't, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in a god. As far as I know, there is no reason to believe in a god. The only reason people worship a god is because they were taught that he exists by others- if I told you that purple unicorns (yes, they ARE purple) controll the universe, and if I had told you this every day of your life since the day you were born, and if nearly everyone around you belived in them, chances are you would worship the purple unicorns.

My point- there is no reason to believe in god except that people tell you to. Personally, I don't trust them.

I think of science as a process; Basically, it entails looking at things to see what they do. So, for something to be outside the realm of science, it would either have to be invisible (And its effects would have to be invisible too) or behave in an entirely nonsensical fashion. So, I don't really see it as productive to talk about things that might be outside of science.

Your tree analogy reminds me about how I feel about religion; religious experiences go in all different directions; We can't take all religious claims at face value, because they are contradictory. At the surface, religious experiences are just a mishmash of data; We have to try to search for what lies behind the religious experience, the source.