by B_Deserter 111 Replies latest jw experiences
B_D
What makes you think any 'presuppositions' have taken it's place?
Well, Now, when you come across something you don't understand, don't you presuppose (assume) that there is always a natural explanation.
Example: There is no natural explanation for Origin of life.
Well, Now, when you come across something you don't understand, don't you presuppose (assume) that there is always a natural explanation.
Example: There is no natural explanation for Origin of life.
Well for one your example is flawed. There is a natural explanation for the origin of life. It's called abiogenesis. It is a theory in its infancy with a lot of work to be done in the field, but that's the difference between science and religion. Science changes with new evidence while religion claims to already have the conclusion and bends new findings to fit into its worldview. I do not claim to know everything, or even to know for a fact there is a God or not. I simply don't believe that there is a God because I have not seen evidence presented that is satisfying to me. There is a difference. When someone says "I don't believe X" it is NOT the same thing as saying "X cannot be true."
Anyway, what you ask is a good question. I guess that would depend on what you mean by "natural." I define the natural universe as something that we can detect and (to some degree) predict. So if I were to say that yes I do presuppose that there is always a natural explanation, what I would mean is that I believe that we have to potential to understand how anything in the universe works. Once that happens, it becomes part of the natural universe. Postulating on the supernatural is useless because 1) by definition the supernatural is something that cannot be detected and therefore 2) there is no way of knowing anything about it at all.
Imagine how backward and disadvantaged we'd be if we simply presupposed a supernatural conclusion for everything we don't know. What would have happened if we answered every unknown question with "well, God must have done it" and left it at that? Supernatural conclusions are harmful because 1) there is no way to prove them empricially and 2) they stifle further exploration into the subject. Those explanations are the reason there was a lack of progress lasting millenia during the Dark Ages, and why the Islamic world is no longer the breeding ground for advanced philosophy and mathematics it once was. Back in the middle ages, an Arab philosopher named Mohammed Al-Ghazzali stated that all things were the result of Allah's will. Holding a flame to a ball of cotton didn't cause the cotton to catch on fire, Allah's will did, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the experiment. If the cotton caught on fire every time, that must mean that Allah likes to catch cotton on fire, but only when held up to another fire. That kind of backward thinking got Muslim society in the middle east where it is today.
A couple of thoughts. As an Evangelical, I define an atheists as a person who has proof that God does not exist. Is this accurate and if yes, what proof was the clincher for you?
Lets give thomas15 some credit, people. He asked an honest question and asked me to confirm his belief. He was not dogmatically asserting his own definition of Atheism, but merely put what he thought out there and asked for confirmation. So I'd appreciate it if everyone refrained from mocking him for saying something he didn't say. Now for my answer.
Your definition is incorrect, at least in my case. The word "atheism" can be broken down into two parts: "A" meaning "without" and "Theist" meaning "Someone who believes in a God" (some attach the belief in personal revelation to the word theism, meaning that theism is belief in the "whole package" of a God that communicates his will to select human beings. In contrast, a deist is a person who believes in God but not in personal revelation, which is the root of religion. Notable Deists include Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson). So technically, an Atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. Now, there are those who may believe firmly that God does not exist (I am unaware of any atheists who do, however. Even Richard Dawkins does not go quite this far), and those are typically defined as "Strong Atheists." Richard Dawkins, a popular Atheist figure, actually has a sliding scale of seven levels of atheism, with 1 being purely agnostic to 7 being absolutely sure no Gods exist. He describes himself as being between 6 and 7, very close to 7. Personally, I am not as high on the scale. My beliefs are dependent upon the evidence and so far I have not seen compelling enough evidence to change my viewpoint.
Let me explain what it means when most atheists say "there is no God." Have you ever heard the phrase "there is no such thing as ghosts"? Perhaps you've even uttered it once or twice in your lifetime. Now, you might believe in ghosts, but there is a sizeable population who don't. Why? Not because they have proof that ghosts don't exist, but because they haven't seen good evidence of them, and therefore simply do not believe. So why would someone say "there is no such thing?" To understand that, one has to understand the difference between absolute certainty and practical certainty.
Absolute certainty is the active belief that something is absolutely true or absolutely false, with no gray area in the middle. No atheist I've ever heard of is really and truly absolutely certain that god doesn't exist. It is impossible to be certain of anything that is unfalsifiable (something that is falsifiable has realistic criteria that can be met before it is considered false. God or anything supernatural is unfalsifiable, meaning that there is no realistic criteria in order to prove it false), but one can gauge the likelihood of an unfalsifiable claim to be true.
If I told you there is an invisible horse named Ricky sitting next to me right now, you'd have no way to prove that false. So would you need proof that Ricky doesn't exist in order to say that you don't believe me? I'm going to guess no. You wouldn't believe me because invisible horses are a ridiculous and unlikely idea, but even then you could not be absolutely certain, because given enough caveats there is no situation in order to prove me wrong. Doesn't sound fair does it? That's where practical certainty comes in. If you tell me "I don't believe you, invisible horses aren't real," then you would be saying that with practical certainty. Practical certainty is the belief that something is true or false based on the likelihood of it being true or false. I am practically certain we are not all living in a dream world a la the Matrix, but I can't prove we aren't. If new evidence were to come to light that demonstrates it as fact, then I would reevalutate the likelihood and change my belief. The same goes for God. I don't think a God is very likely, therefore I am practically (not absolutely) certain it doesn't exist. But if very compelling evidence were to appear on the subject, then I would reevaluate my position. That's the key difference between practical and absolute certainty. When someone is absolutely certain about something, he or she will not change their mind regardless of any new information. When someone is practically certain, he or she will at least consider changing their mind in light of new information on the subject.
Finally, I want to leave you with some thoughts about burden of proof. Although I covered this in my previous comments, I feel it bears repeating. If you think back to my invisible horse example, what would cause you to believe my story? My presenting evidence to support my claim would probably be more compelling than a few "eyewitness" testimonies, am I right? Well this all ties into the burden of proof. If I am the one claiming that there is something out there that nobody else can confirm and verify, then the burden of proof is on me to prove my claim. Those who believe in God are the ones making the claim, and therefore the burden of proof is upon them to support their position. My position is simply "I don't believe you, prove it."
I cannot quite say that Watchtower didn't make me into an atheist. It depends on how you look at it.
I became a JW as a young adult, exposed to it in childhood. When I came in, I firmly believed they made sense of the Bible.
Years later, I was questioning the doctrine. I figured if the WTS could make the Bible say what they wanted it to say, then I should also look into the Bible and see what others are able to make it say, what experts say about the Bible.
I confirmed that the Bible was developed by men completely different from what I was told. David ruled a tiny village-state that did not include the 10-tribe kingdom. Ezra and others most likely compiled the loose writings into one book while the Jews were in Babylon. Prior to their freedom from Babylon, the people of that area worshipped many gods, but Yahweh won out for these people. Nobody in their past had lived by the Mosaic Law and there was no bondage in Egypt. It was just inspiring to those in bondage in Babylon.
The Bible contradicts itself, reveals a god who approves genocide, rape, slavery, capturing virgins after killing their parents and forcing them to become wives. Such a god does not exist, and if he did, is not worthy of worship.
WTS made me a believer, and getting out of WTS caused me to see the real truth.
Can't religion change to fit existing evidence too? Mine does. LOL
I guess it depends on how you define religion. If it's something unchangeble and stuck in traditions that are no longer or were never useful, then yeah, it's a problem for me. I don't want that.
I think I can be spiritually incorrect enough to accept change, though and still have this notion that God exists.
I find myself wondering if God is like Schroedingers's cat or Tinkerbell...if we quit believing in a god, does he exist anymore?
Maybe Odin or Zeus don't exist anymore simply because no one believes in the poor old things these days. Except for your few odd pagan groups, of course.
Yeah, I'm having an existentialist kind of day here. LOL I need a black beret, a cafe au lait served in a dirty cup at a sidewalk cafe in Arlens and a pack of nasty Turkish cigarettes.
Can't religion change to fit existing evidence too? Mine does. LOL
I think the change religions go through is done in a "god of the gaps" kind of sense. For what we don't know, religion says "God did it" until something is proved otherwise. Of course these changes take a long time and often involved a lot of beheadings and stake burnings. Religion is often the slowest to accept change, and when it does it does so begrudgingly, and only when a fact becomes so undebatable that the people who still cling to it become the vast minority.
You’re Welcome rebel8 as you don't seem to have a response to anything I stated anyway.
I didn't read your drivel because, as I pointed out, you're not worth my time.
Anyone who does not possess knowledge of basic manners probably does not possess knowledge of more complex topics.
Please commence the ignoring as promised. Or are you not in mastery of your emotions enough to not have the last word? Let's see. Bye now.
First of all nice attempt in using reverse psychology in trying to keep me quiet. It seems that someone needs to go back for their psychology degree again. If you had actually taken the time to read my "drivel" you would have noticed what I actually meant. Go back and read it for a change.
"Anyone who does not possess knowledge of basic manners probably does not possess knowledge of more complex topics."
How did you ever graduate from college? Seriously, for your patients (God help them, oh I'm sorry wait, NOTHING help them) and yourself learn logic. One's ability to be polite has nothing to do with one's ability to reason on things.
But thanks for allowing me to put you on that ignore list as giving my personal opinion about you will be a lot easier. I did not say when you say something stupid that I would not make a comment. I simply meant that if you have nothing worth saying I am going to not respond.
And Oh, BTW, suggestion...
"I didn't read your drivel because, as I pointed out, you're not worth my time."
Psychologist, counsel thyself. Before you talk about being rude to people, take a good look in the mirror and fix your own problem with insulting people first.
But what do I expect from a person who on the one hand says
Anyone who does not possess knowledge of basic manners probably does not possess knowledge of more complex topics.
And then proceeds to be rude by saying
"I didn't read your drivel because, as I pointed out, you're not worth my time."
So congradulations Rebel 8. Not only have you shown that you cannot read well, but that by your own criteria you do not have enough knowledge for discussing more complext topics.
But don't worry I am leaving the board for this type of reasoning is what I have come to expect.
So have a nice life. I am sure that one day you will fix that reading probelm of yours. :)
B_Deserter
Your post was one of the best I have read on this forum in many a year. Thank you.
Thomas Covenant
GREAT Post! I couldn't agree more, and honestly haven't seen it put quite so well before. Your experiences mirror my own on so many levels here. Thanks for sharing that!
B_D
There is a natural explanation for the origin of life. It's called abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is a pipe dream. It has no basis in fact. Abiogenesis has never worked or been observed in the laboratory.
Finally, I want to leave you with some thoughts about burden of proof. Although I covered this in my previous comments, I feel it bears repeating. If you think back to my invisible horse example, what would cause you to believe my story? My presenting evidence to support my claim would probably be more compelling than a few "eyewitness" testimonies, am I right? Well this all ties into the burden of proof. If I am the one claiming that there is something out there that nobody else can confirm and verify, then the burden of proof is on me to prove my claim. Those who believe in God are the ones making the claim, and therefore the burden of proof is upon them to support their position. My position is simply "I don't believe you, prove it."
Let's call your invisible horse "Abiogenesis". What would cause me to believe in your "Abiogenesis" story? Your presenting evidence to support your claim would be very compelling. This all ties into the burden of proof. If you are the one claiming that there is something out there that nobody else can confirm and verify, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. Those who believe in "abiogenesis" are the ones making the claim, and therefore the burden of proof is upon them to support their position. My position is simply "I don't believe you, prove it."
Dr. Stanley Miller's famous 1953 experiment showed that organic molecules could be formed rather quickly and easily. The organic molecules he produced, were not the organic molecules necessary for life, nor were they produced in an environment simulating the primitive Earth's atmosphere, as was commonly reported. He spent his life looking for ways to produce organic molecules that could have produced the first living cell, but was unsuccessful.
