Is there a God?

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

HRB,

Thanks for the link to Simpson's paradox. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

You're welcome. Incidentally, SP is a good illustration that we can be dead wrong when we let our intuition and feelings dominate over our reasoning abilities. Although it isn't a true paradox (i.e. there is no contradiction after using reason), yet nevertheless even the experts see no problem in calling it a paradox, just because our initial knee-jerk mental reflex is contradicted.

Here's a list of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases. Have fun going through the list and realizing how inadequate it is to rely on feelings and emotions, when the objective is to make a reasonable decision. I'm certain that you'll find a lot of biases that you were unaware of when you made the conscious choice to believe in a god. This isn't proof that you're wrong, but it should cast doubt on the validity of your conclusion. Doubt is good because it encourages critical thought, which is a good thing in general, since it requires one to think more and feel less no matter what.

P.S. A strong bias that influences my decisions is obviously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance, which means that I tend to overcompensate for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behavior.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

First, you are committing the fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

I think you are confusing that aphorism with something else.

You claimed that the author was biased, and that the statistics were used in an unscientific manner. I replied that those were no more true than for other contributors to this thread. That's not making a right out of two wrongs.

If you want to insist, then please state exactly what the two "wrongs" and the "right" were. (But please calm down and have someone else proofread your response first.)

It doesn't matter how biased or unscientific other posters have been. That doesn't mean you should introduce another source which does so.

... and I didn't -- I introduced a source that was, in my opinion, more scientific and less biased than some other contributions to this thread.

(And I hope no one's going to claim that by this I mean that this source is more valuable than anyone else's contribution, at least in any aspect other than bias or scientific value -- which are not by any means the only aspects that have value.)

What isn't obvious was why you didn't notice the great deficiencies and unscientific use of statistics.

The supposed deficiencies and unscientific uses you purport to have shown, so far, do not exist.

Explain them in greater specificity and detail than you have, please, if you want to continue to insist. (But please calm down and have someone else proofread your response first.)

You seem to have to misunderstood my simple assertion, which was simply that the sentence I quoted from the article was false, on the face of it.

No, I understood your assertion perfectly: you were asserting that the sentence you quoted was false. But that assertion was false, because the quoted sentence does not have the falsity you claim it does.

(It seems that the real flaw here is that you don't understand the definition of "supported".)

You also seem to have misunderstood what the author wrote in that single sentence. Namely, that if the data concerning a single nation (i.e. the U.S.) showed that they enjoyed higher rates of societal health (as defined by the author of the article) than pro-evolutionary democracies then this would support the notion that belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national culture.

No, I had no trouble understanding that.

I'm wondering if you think "would be supported" at the end of the quoted sentence (corresponding to "would support" in your paraphrase) means "would be proven beyond any doubt". Your response seems more appropriate to the latter than to the former.

At http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/support definition 2a(3) ("to argue or vote for") seems to be the closest meaning for how "supported" is used there. Other meanings may be applicable, but "supported" does NOT mean "conclusively proven beyond doubt without needing any corroboration", so why do you seem to respond as though it did?

It is possible for there to be multiple independent pieces of evidence that support a statement. Each of them supports the statement. That's all the quoted sentence is saying; it's not saying that a single piece of evidence conclusively proves something or other.

We might ask why you have so much trouble seeing that.

Consider a three-legged stool. Each leg supports the stool. Right? No leg's support is individually sufficient to do the entire job of support, but that doesn't justify saying that "this leg supports the stool" is a false statement. It doesn't justify saying that someone who claims "this leg supports the stool" is being ridiculous, biased, unscientific, or untrustworthy.

If someone said, "this leg is the entire and sufficient support of the stool without any need for any other leg", then that would be a different matter.

The fact that he buys into the idea that such data would support such a position is as ridiculous as when theists do the same. Do you really want to appeal to such a source?

I don't mind appealing to a source that has a better grasp of the definition of the word support than another source has, all else being equal.

(to be continued later when I have more time)

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

What isn't obvious was why you didn't notice the great deficiencies and unscientific use of statistics.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

[...blah, blah, blah...]

@Zeta-Flux

It is pointless to use rational arguments when dealing with cheesehead, because all higher brain functions are performed by his spinal cord.

The trick is to get him upset enough that he'll put you on his ignore-list, after which you're free to post unsourced claims about the number of his unique grandparents (2), which would explain the observation.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

(It seems that the real flaw here is that you don't understand the definition of "supported".)

Zeta-Flux,

Let me clarify that I'm referring to your understanding (of "supported" or "support") during the time you were composing your post. I think that when you're calmer, you'll have no difficulty in that regard. I can't think of any other plausible reason why you'd misinterpret the "would be supported" sentence so badly.

(Might it help to think of "would be supported" as something like "would have a piece of evidence in its favor"?)

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by rogue

I just wanted to raise a point that which shows some of the major problems I have with theistic belief systems, mainly Judeo-Christian ones since I am most familiar with them. It all revolves around how we are supposed to "behave" according to some "moral code" because if we don't, then we will go to hell, or at least, not make it to heaven.

I'd like to respond to this. I understand why you would have a problem with this. Before I respond though, I'd like to answer the questions you asked.

Question 1: Does god really care how or where I pray?

Yes, He does. Just as a parent who really cares whether or not their teenager communicates with them, God does care if you build a relationship with Him. On the other hand, I believe God cares more about intent of the heart than precise phrasings.

I believe God wants us to "pray always", so where one prays is moot.

Question 2: Does god care about the words I use or the language in which I use them?

Does a parent care what words their child uses? Of course. Respect, honor, and truth are important aspects of communication with those we love.

Would a caring parent find fault with a child who made honest mistakes, or were trying their best? No.

Question 3: Can a bad (or even evil) person recant on their deathbed and make it to heaven?

If they truly repent. That would include making restitution as much as possible; and we don't know what that would entail in the next life. Only God knows if someone's heart has changed. Only God knows whether if that person was allowed to live they would change their course.

There is an interesting scripture in our church. Our founding prophet had a vision of heaven, and his brother, who had died before being baptized, was there. He wondered how that was possible. The Lord's answer was "I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."

Question 4: Is the most good-hearted and moral human being denied entry to heaven because they weren't baptized or didn't get last rights, even if they practiced a faith throughout their lives?

According to my faith's beliefs, the answer is both yes and no (mostly no). This will take a little explaining.

Heaven and hell are not big conglomerates. There are many mansions in God's kingdom, and people receive as much as they are willing. There are different glories available.

Further, the works of God don't cease when we die. Those who have not heard the gospel in this world have a chance to hear it in the next, and accept it if they so desire. They can be baptized, by proxy.

On the other hand, eternal life is more than just being good-hearted. It is coming to know God. And by that I mean coming to be like God. Choosing good in every action. Heaven is more than a place, it is a process. An eternal process of bettering one's self; and becoming like Christ. We are to come to "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Those who are good-hearted, but are not willing to be good in all things, will not receive the same reward.

Does anyone really want to be a member of a religion that answers any of those questions in the affirmative?

It depends on what they imply. But I can understand that affirmative answers could turn one away.

Can any of you theists understand why so many of us non-theists, atheists, and agnostics scoff at religion?

I can understand why one wouldn't believe certain doctrines of certain sects; and even believe them foolish. Yes.

As for scoffing at religion in general; I think that is a mistake.

My wife I is what I would call a "theistic Catholic" (which fits most Catholics) while I consider myself an "agnostic Christian". She believes that God has an active roll in our lives and I don't believe that it is possible to know god. If it weren't for her fear that there is no afterlife I think that she would share the same beliefs that I have. Anyways she told me earlier this year about a friend who was talking to her about how they envisioned the afterlife. They envisioned it as sitting in front of god's throne giving him perpetual adoration. My wife explained to me that if that is what the afterlife has to offer, then she wouldn't want it. So much of the belief in the afterlife is what things we will receive in heaven, about the freedom to learn and grow and do the things that are not possible in our physical lifetime. My wife said that perpetual adoration of god (according to his one person) seemed to be robotic, where one has no free will. How can one enjoy life (or the after-life) if there is no free will?

We cannot. Free will is essential to joy. Furthermore, sitting at God's throne and giving praises continually does not (in my opinion) glorify God. The glory of God is intelligence. We glorify Him by being better.

So, to get back to your original sentences. Moral codes of conduct are not meant to be the dividing lines by which one is given judged as deserving eternal punishment or not. Rather, they are keys to teach us how to be more godlike. The goal isn't some cloud to sit on, plucking a harp, and shouting to God how great He is. It is eternal progression. And God, as a loving Father, will give us as much light and truth as we are willing to receive. Only those who refuse to repent, who truly hate their fellowmen and wish ill on others, will be shut off from any kingdom of glory.

[cheesehead]

Zeta-Flux,

Maybe I overlooked something because of upsetness, so that I've misevaluated something you wrote. Let me try some alternatives:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

What isn't obvious was why you didn't notice the great deficiencies and unscientific use of statistics.

It would help if you actually explained just what those great deficiencies and unscientific uses were, instead of merely asserting that such exist.

You also seem to have misunderstood what the author wrote in that single sentence. Namely, that if the data concerning a single nation (i.e. the U.S.) showed that they enjoyed higher rates of societal health (as defined by the author of the article) than pro-evolutionary democracies then this would support the notion that belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national culture.

I'm wondering if your paraphrase, accurate enough though it seems to me for most purposes, might somehow be omitting or changing some subtle meaning so as to result in our different evaluations.

Let's go back to the exact wording from the article:

If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported.

... and carefully parse it.

If

(the data showed that

(the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health

than

the more secular, pro-evolution democracies)

),

then

(the opinion that

(popular belief in a creator

is strongly beneficial

to national cultures)

would be supported).

Might you be saying that something in the first half is not parallel to something in the second half that is presented as though it were parallel?

Perhaps we could try carefully substituting equivalent phrases to make the wording more parallel -- such as substituting "societal health (as defined by the author of the article)" for both "societal health" in the first half and "national cultures" in the second half, resulting in:

If

(the data showed that

(the U.S. enjoyed

higher rates of societal health (as defined by the author of the article)

than

the more secular, pro-evolution democracies)

),

then

(the opinion that

(popular belief in a creator

is strongly beneficial

to societal health (as defined by the author of the article))

would be supported).

The idea would be to ask at each step: does this change the overall meaning of the part in which the substitution was made, or at least change it so much that the attempted clarification by use of parallel wording is outweighed by the degradation of meaning?

If not, then proceed with some second substitution. If so, then backtrack and try a different substitution than the first one.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

[...blah, blah, blah...]Our founding prophet had a vision of heaven[...blah, blah, blah...]

Even if we assume the founding prophet was honest about the vision, why do you rule out the more likely causes for such visions, such as brain tumors, sleep-deprivation, delirium tremens and similar consequences of drug-abuse?

Just because you see stars when you hit your head doesn't mean that aliens are teleporting your consciousness through space at superlight-speeds either.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Even if we assume the founding prophet was honest about the vision, why do you rule out the more likely causes for such visions, such as brain tumors, sleep-deprivation, delirium tremens and similar consequences of drug-abuse?

Do you have reason to believe he was a drug user? Or had a history of brain tumors in the family? In other words, what makes those causes "more likely" to you? (Depending on the answer, I could see where you are coming from. But I'd like to hear the answer first.)

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Zeta-Flux,

Maybe I overlooked something because of upsetness, so that I've misevaluated something you wrote. Let me try some alternatives:

Thank you. (By the way, the italics in my previous posts to you did not represent anger. In at least one case, it was due to the fact one is supposed to italicize words in other languages. In the other cases it was for emphasis.)

It would help if you actually explained just what those great deficiencies and unscientific uses were, instead of merely asserting that such exist.

1. Hasty generalization. The author's sample size is way too small. He is making claims based on statistics for very few nations.

2. Cherry picking results. Why does the author seemingly leave out results for nations which do not support his thesis: like Russia?

3. As pointed out by HRB there is Simpson's law to consider.

4. Here is one I didn't mention previously: the author is supposedly correlating national homicide rates with national religiosity. And yet, the high homicide rates in the U.S. occur in the secular, large-population areas.

These issues, and others, were brought up in my previous posts.

I'm wondering if your paraphrase, accurate enough though it seems to me for most purposes, might somehow be omitting or changing some subtle meaning so as to result in our different evaluations.

Let's go back to the exact wording from the article:

... and carefully parse it.

If

(the data showed that

(the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health

than

the more secular, pro-evolution democracies)

),

then

(the opinion that

(popular belief in a creator

is strongly beneficial

to national cultures)

would be supported).

Are you saying that

Yes. I'm saying that that statement is false. Such evidence does not support the ensuing opinion. It does not follow. (I gave some reasons in my previous posts; including those listed above.)

[cheesehead]

Zeta-Flux,

I've continued to modify post #116 since you started composing #119. Take another look now.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

2. Cherry picking results. Why does the author seemingly leave out results for nations which do not support his thesis: like Russia?

From the article's title ("Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"):

Prosperous democracies.

1. Hasty generalization. The author's sample size is way too small. He is making claims based on statistics for very few nations.

How many prosperous first-world democracies did he leave out?

For how many prosperous second-world democracies are the same statistics on societal health (as defined ...) and religiosity available? (See paragraphs 9 and 10 of the article) What is their total of GNP and population, compared to the corresponding totals for the 18 nations (17 first-world, 1 second-world(Portugal)) included in the study?

4. Here is one I didn't mention previously: the author is supposedly correlating national homicide rates with national religiosity. And yet, the high homicide rates in the U.S. occur in the secular, large-population areas.

1. Hmm ... why is it that the religiosity of Mexico is "Completely irrelevant" to its homicide rate, but the religiosity of secular, large-population areas in the US _is_ relevant to their homicide rates?

You brought up "The homicide rate in Mexico is huge" but are oddly shy about Mexico's religiosity. Why?

2. "the author is supposedly correlating national homicide rates with national religiosity" Yes. National

"And yet, the high homicide rates in the U.S. occur in the secular, large-population areas." But those are all within the one nation of the United States, right? Or have the secular, large-population areas seceded?

If you're going to divvy up the US, then you have to divvy up all the other nations, too, to be scientific, right? You're welcome, as always, to sponsor your own study (but be careful of discovering that the secular, large-population areas of other nations simply don't have such high homicide rates as those in the US).