Personal relationship with God

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Guessing the agenda for this study would be just that - guessing, but let's have a little fun. Might there be a link between this study and questions about the existence of the gods these people were asked about?

There's clearly a potential link for people in the wider population who are interested in the question of the existence of supernatural agents. If you're hinting at a suspicion of an ulterior motive of the researchers, probably not; science has nothing to say about supernatural agents - by definition they're out of its scope except in terms of people's beliefs about them, and people's beliefs about things have no bearing on their objective reality (the 'default' scientific view, in the absence of objective evidence and mechanism, is to treat them simply as mental phenomena). This research is part of a branch of psychology research about 'theory of mind', the capacity to attribute mental states to self and other. Humans have a characteristic tendency to attribute agency and anthropomorphize, even inanimate objects (usually dynamically functional, such as machines, but even static objects like houses), and theory of mind is involved with this tendency, so the likely origins of it and mechanisms involved are of great interest.

Just a little bit of shorthand on my part. When I say, "spouse", you can think "average American".

There's a significant difference with respect to this research - subjects would be likely to be aware of the actual beliefs of their spouse, which would defeat the object of the study.

I am saying this is likely a false dichotomy.

How so? there is a clear difference between supernatural agents and other people.

I would have asked to include historical figures from the distant past as well: What did Caesar believe? Isaac Newton? Martin Luther? Karl Marx? My hypothesis is they would find a similar result for projections about their favorite historical figure as they do for their god.

That's an interesting question, but the specific beliefs of historical figures known to or favourites of the subjects are likely to already be known (or inferred from the particular reasons they became famous or infamous), so would not be a suitable fit for the study, which is interested in the attribution of beliefs.
E.T.A. This would also make Jesus (e.g. 'what would Jesus do?') an unsuitable target.

 

[Resha Caner]

If you're hinting at a suspicion of an ulterior motive of the researchers, probably not ...

Come now. These scientists can be curious, have an agenda, but aren't curious if gods exist? I really doubt that. I understand science doesn't look at the supernatural, but might not these scientists be trying to look at what science can say about gods by doing a study of people who believe in them? If they find a purely psychological explanation, then, well, what else is there?

And here we have the problem with such studies. If a god can physically interact with this world, won't there always be a physical explanation? But if science doesn't look at the supernatural, is it not looking to explain that physical event apart from gods? It will never acknowledge that a physical event was caused by a god, and so tacitly denies divine causality.

How so? there is a clear difference between supernatural agents and other people.

There is? Discussions on this forum seem to say otherwise. The study refers to God, supernatural agents, and religious agents. Those are 3 different things to me, and I only believe in 2 of them. So, had I been included in the study and asked what those agents believe, I would have had to ask, "For which one do you want me to answer?" Did the study distinguish those 3 the way I do? I only saw one conclusion, not 3. Further, are they talking about God (e.g. Yahweh) or gods? That would add a 4th category.

That's an interesting question, but the specific beliefs of historical figures known to or favourites of the subjects are likely to already be known (or inferred from the particular reasons they became famous or infamous), so would not be a suitable fit for the study, which is interested in the attribution of beliefs.
E.T.A. This would also make Jesus (e.g. 'what would Jesus do?') an unsuitable target.

Do you not see the bias you bring to this discussion? God isn't historical? Jesus isn't a suitable target? But when they ask me about God, they are asking about history and about Jesus. What I know about history is part of what I know about what God believes. As such, it bears very important similarities to what I know about other historical figures.

And as you said, what those historical figures believed must be inferred. Hmm. When people do that, might the result not be somewhat "self-referential"? I can't remember which threads I've mentioned it in, but for my summer history class I'm doing a paper on memories of Martin Luther. I came across a review of Richard Marius' biography of Luther that criticized him for doing just that - using his own experiences to interpret Luther's experiences. Yet we all do it.

 

[razzelflabben]

That subject tends to come up a lot when it comes to differentiating between "true belief" vs "mere religion" concepts. But, whenever this subject comes up there seems to be misunderstanding what we generally mean by word personal vs impersonal, and what religion is and how it is defined.

For example, if I say that I have a personal relationship with Michael Jordan, there are a few things are assumed.

It's assumed that I've actually met Michael Jordan in person. Not in spirit. Not by hearing or watching about MJ on TV. Not by pretending that MJ is really there in the room while I'm talking to him, and then reading MJ biography and gleaning some perceived answers and conversation from it.

one of the misconceptions about a personal relationship is that it has to be a face to face event. Take your illustration, I might know Michael Jordan personally but only have talked to him over the phone or on skype. It is still a personal relationship if we are communicating and have regular contract.

It also is assumed that MJ is responding in some personal way. Not through a generic "Just do it" Nike ad. Not through his autobiography, again. Not through his publicist or PR person, etc.

Everyone I know what has relationship with God says the same of God, there are multiple avenues of conversation we can have with God.

We generally mean none of the above by concept of personal relationship.

So the obvious question would be, what exactly do you mean by the "personal relationship with God", if by that it's not implied that God is sitting across from you from a coffee table and having a friendly discussion?

What is personal about it?

I addressed this on another thread and I am glad you brought it here, not sure why you didn't invite me for the discussion.

Personal relationship means a give and take so to speak. One example I previously gave was of prayer. For the religious, prayer is about making requests to God and hoping He gives us what we want. In relationship, prayer is a place of fellowship where we are talking with one another through our spirits. This can come through many different mediums, like scripture, songs, others, etc. if we are unsure, we ask God to clarify and let Him do just that, usually in the church this is called confirmation.

 

[razzelflabben]

My question though, if it's accurate to describe the above relationship as a "personal relationship" in such context? I'll give you a couple examples.

1) A teacher in a class

A teacher can pay attention to and address personal questions in front of the class personally, but that's hardly how we would describe a personal relationship. One wouldn't say "I have a personal relationship with my teacher" without context being something entirely different than what you are talking about above.

Hence, the question is whether the idea of "personal relationship" fits the description.

2) A government official

A government official, in a similar way, may address personal inquiries and may care about certain personal aspect of such inquiries... but describing such relationship as "personal" would be stretching the concept of a personal relationship, especially when a lot of Christian describe "intimate" personal relationship.


In both examples, you wouldn't describe either as a "personal relationship", although these have elements of communication that resemble a personal relationship. I guess my question is to whether such phrase is an accurate description such relationship?

I could relate to "paying personal attention to what I'm saying", but I think that the important aspect of personal relationship that's missing is personally talking back. If the listening part has to be imagined to be taking place, and the replying part has to be imagined to be taking place... then how different is it than having a "personal relationship" with an imaginary friend... or a celebrity like MJ in the OP?

according to scripture, the one who believes unto salvation is now the dwelling place of God, thus the relationship is even closer than sitting across from Joe at the table.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think that a generic counter to it tends to be a "no true Scotsman" type of deal, where only those that have the true relationship with God would exhibit certain behavior. Hence, it seems to be a re-appropriation of the "best of the best" along with attaching the causes to the claims that one makes, and then circularly supporting the validity of the causes by attributing the best of the best type of effect of these causes.

It's very difficult to explain it to believers for some reason.

If we merely assume that the evidence of God in people is certain behavioral patterns, and that if they don't behave that way it means that God isn't in them... and then we use that as evidence for God to begin with. Most don't understand why it's a problem.

for many, it isn't a problem because that isn't how they view it...that shouldn't be hard for you to figure out.

 

[devolved]

Maybe "personal" as in "subjectively perceived"...as in "not intersubjectively demonstrable"?

I think that we are using two different semantic categories here when we say "personal" and "subjectively perceived".

Generally, "personal" carries the idea of specificity. For example, I can say that I personally know Mark Cuban if I and Mark would at least met enough to have an extended conversation in person. Simply because I've met Mark in passe (which I did) wouldn't constitute a personal relationship.

Likewise, I couldn't say it if I merely read Mark's bio and was touched by it, and then asked questions into the air and gleaned some perceived answers from the bio, or attributed some successful business deals as "Mark is looking out for me, and he's orchestrating these deals".

Personal relationship, especially a close one, would likely mean that Mark is there in person. For example, that's something Moses could claim in Judaism (granted that it's true). It's something that disciples could claim in Christianity (granted that it's true). I'm not sure that it would be an accurate description of the dynamics of the everyday Christian experience one would encounter today.

 

[devolved]

Have you read the Bible?

Thank you kindly.

Yes. I was a Christian for most of my life, and I actually have a theology minor. I think both would be very difficult to accomplish without reading the Bible at least once.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Come now. These scientists can be curious, have an agenda, but aren't curious if gods exist? I really doubt that. I understand science doesn't look at the supernatural, but might not these scientists be trying to look at what science can say about gods by doing a study of people who believe in them? If they find a purely psychological explanation, then, well, what else is there?

I can't speak for the scientists involved, but science can't say anything about gods, only god beliefs. This branch of research is interested in how people form and apply their beliefs.

And here we have the problem with such studies. If a god can physically interact with this world, won't there always be a physical explanation?

Yes, if something can interact with this world, it makes that something a detectable, measurable, observable, physical, influence or phenomenon, and therefore it would not be considered supernatural and would be amenable to scientific study. But this study was looking at people's beliefs about gods, not whether those gods existed or not.

But if science doesn't look at the supernatural, is it not looking to explain that physical event apart from gods? It will never acknowledge that a physical event was caused by a god, and so tacitly denies divine causality.

If some phenomenon is observable, it is considered part of the physical, natural world. Science will attempt to discover the best explanation for that phenomenon, and will consider whatever hypotheses are put forward. This is a process known as abduction, meaning inference to the best explanation. There are criteria for assessing an explanation in abductive reasoning - I posted in another thread what these criteria are, and the reason why god makes a very weak hypothesis. Further to parsimony and simplicity - an hypothesis that raises more questions than it answers explains nothing, especially if the questions raised are unanswerable. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable. The god hypothesis is of this kind. I'll skip the 'conservatism' criterion (does it accord with established knowledge?) because that applies if other criteria are equal.

So the god hypothesis fails all the criteria for a good hypothesis, which makes it useless in abductive reasoning - any other untestable imaginative explanation is as good or better. In this kind of situation, in the absence of better hypotheses, the default response is, "we don't know".

There is? Discussions on this forum seem to say otherwise.

By 'other people', I mean humans; i.e. it seems to me that there is a clear distinction between supernatural agents and humans (e.g. the 'average American' target in the study). If you're suggesting that humans are supernatural agents because of a soul, or something, fine; in that case, I'm talking about non-human supernatural agents; otherwise, please explain.

The study refers to God, supernatural agents, and religious agents. Those are 3 different things to me, and I only believe in 2 of them.
So, had I been included in the study and asked what those agents believe, I would have had to ask, "For which one do you want me to answer?" Did the study distinguish those 3 the way I do? I only saw one conclusion, not 3. Further, are they talking about God (e.g. Yahweh) or gods? That would add a 4th category.

The study was interested in beliefs in all three, but overwhelmingly encountered and looked at God beliefs. I'd guess that in the event of someone believing in more than one type of supernatural agent, they'd want to know about the one the subject felt most closely associated with, the one they'd use to guide or set their moral compass.

Do you not see the bias you bring to this discussion? God isn't historical? Jesus isn't a suitable target? But when they ask me about God, they are asking about history and about Jesus. What I know about history is part of what I know about what God believes. As such, it bears very important similarities to what I know about other historical figures.

Yes, it's only my opinion about what the study was trying to establish for its targets. I don't think it's a matter of whether the target is historical or not; I'm presuming the researchers wanted targets for which the subjects had as little specific information on their beliefs as possible, so that they lacked a specific referent. Jesus's beliefs on specific issues are pretty well-documented. In the case of God, it's less clear; the subject has more degrees of freedom to interpret what they think God might think of some situation.

And as you said, what those historical figures believed must be inferred. Hmm. When people do that, might the result not be somewhat "self-referential"? I can't remember which threads I've mentioned it in, but for my summer history class I'm doing a paper on memories of Martin Luther. I came across a review of Richard Marius' biography of Luther that criticized him for doing just that - using his own experiences to interpret Luther's experiences. Yet we all do it.

Yes, it is likely that personal bias is involved in such interpretations. But it seems to me that the documented history of what that figure was known to have felt about things would be the major factor, and that would tend to obscure the degree of personal bias.

But hey, that's just my interpretation, the study didn't concern itself with historical figures, just the beliefs of self, the imagined average American, and the supernatural agent/God/religious agent the subject believed in.

 

[devolved]

Should we ever feel completely satisfied?

It seems like a lot of people who report being happy are extremely ignorant.

It is better to be a fool satisfied than Socrates dissatisfied?

Assuming that one has a purpose, is that enough? Don't you need to know and understand what that purpose is? Don't you need to be able to accept and be at peace with it?

Do you mean like when people meditate?


It is probably marching down the road that is right for you to the beat of the drum that is right for you at the pace that is right for you.

Growing as you march.

Not a station/state to settle on/into.

It is probably going to be a struggle no matter who you are. I am not a theologian, but I think the fact that Jesus struggled is not an uncommon view.

You've seemingly avoided the question - what do you mean by spiritual well-being? How does it differs from physical well-being, and psychological well-being?

 

[Resha Caner]

Either you don't yet understand my point or you're ignoring it.

The study was interested in beliefs in all three ...

Now I wonder if you read the abstract. It was me who said I think of them as 3 different things. The abstract appears to make all 3 synonymous. For example: "Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent's beliefs (e.g., God)."

Jesus's beliefs on specific issues are pretty well-documented.

vis-a-vis God's beliefs are "pretty well documented".

I expect the results for historical figures would match their results for "supernatural agents", thereby meaning religion is not the differentiating factor. It would invalidate their study. Correlation is not causation.

- - -

[edit] I had to step away for a bit, so my reply was a bit rushed. I understand the whole "how science is done" thing. But this reminds me of my visit to Rockpile Mountain in Missouri. The mountain gets its name from a Native American monument at the top. And "rock pile" is the perfect description. Had someone not told me it was a monument, I would have thought it was just a naturally occurring pile of rocks. That there is a natural explanation for an event does not mean it couldn't be duplicated by other means by an intelligent agent. I don't expect science to validate the intelligent agent. What frustrates me is behaving as if the other possibility doesn't exist. As has been discussed in the Christians only forums, there is a growing trend for secular psychiatrists to treat claims of a spiritual experience as some kind of pathology that ignores the possibility it might have been real.

As I said, I don't expect science to validate God. What would be nice is for science, when it says, "we don't address the supernatural" to acknowledge there are other ways to approach such things.

Not everything humans do is science, and the fact that it isn't science doesn't mean those activities are invalid.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Either you don't yet understand my point or you're ignoring it.

I don't know which point you mean - perhaps if you stated it explicitly I could say...

Now I wonder if you read the abstract. It was me who said I think of them as 3 different things. The abstract appears to make all 3 synonymous. For example: "Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent's beliefs (e.g., God)."

The abstract describes that they were interested in "any religious or supernatural agent presumed to have beliefs". So what do you see as the differences between them? is God not a supernatural or religious agent?

vis-a-vis

God's beliefs are "pretty well documented".

The moral stance seems quite variable, e.g. the God of the OT compared to the God of the NT. But I'm no expert on the biblical God, and my interpretation may well be wide of the mark as far as the study targets is concerned.

I expect the results for historical figures would match their results for "supernatural agents", thereby meaning religion is not the differentiating factor. It would invalidate their study. Correlation is not causation.

It wouldn't invalidate the study - they got the results they presented, and your imagined results wouldn't contradict them; but it would mean that it isn't just people's beliefs about God's beliefs that are more self-referential than their beliefs about other people's beliefs, but their beliefs about historical figure's beliefs too. It might well change the wider inferences you draw about the results of the study.

That there is a natural explanation for an event does not mean it couldn't be duplicated by other means by an intelligent agent. I don't expect science to validate the intelligent agent. What frustrates me is behaving as if the other possibility doesn't exist.

I can see how it might be frustrating, but as I explained, as it stands, the God hypothesis isn't workable until God starts presenting as a testable, distinguishable, physical entity - an observable in its own right. Science doesn't explicitly dismiss it, but there's no way to evaluate it.

As has been discussed in the Christians only forums, there is a growing trend for secular psychiatrists to treat claims of a spiritual experience as some kind of pathology that ignores the possibility it might have been real.

I don't know much about psychiatry, but I don't think religious, spiritual, or superstitious beliefs are pathological; they seem to be a natural part of the human psyche, and have been as far back as we can tell. However, I don't think that means their subjects are objectively real.

But this study was only concerned with people's beliefs about other agent's beliefs.

As I said, I don't expect science to validate God. What would be nice is for science, when it says, "we don't address the supernatural" to acknowledge there are other ways to approach such things.

The scope of science is methodological naturalism;it has nothing to say outside that. If people want to use alternative means, they can do so (and they do). But I'm curious - how would you investigate a claim that God was the direct cause of some physical phenomenon?

Not everything humans do is science, and the fact that it isn't science doesn't mean those activities are invalid.

Very much agreed.

 

[Resha Caner]

Very much agreed.

I'm glad to hear it. For the record, I'll note that you seem one of the more reasonable atheists I've conversed with.

The abstract describes that they were interested in "any religious or supernatural agent presumed to have beliefs". So what do you see as the differences between them? is God not a supernatural or religious agent?

Don't you think if that's what they wanted to study, they would have clearly defined it? Maybe they did in the paper, but given how unbelievers frequently throw out the myriad variations of god definitions, I'm surprised you would think their results could represent a specific type of belief.

It's not as if I can't grasp that they're using the terms synonymously. So, had I been in the study, I would have answered regarding God and ignored the other 2 terms. However, I've been surveyed before, and they usually get frustrated with me because I don't want to pick from their predefined choices. Again, I think they've created a false dichotomy.

Anyway ... to answer your question:
1) I think of religion as a human response to God. It's a man-made thing. So, a "religious agent" would be a minister.
2) I don't think anything supernatural exists, at least not in the way the word is commonly defined. So, "supernatural agents" are fictional.

I don't know much about psychiatry, but I don't think religious, spiritual, or superstitious beliefs are pathological; they seem to be a natural part of the human psyche, and have been as far back as we can tell. However, I don't think that means their subjects are objectively real.

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I've dealt with them because I had guardianship of someone who needed counseling. Sometimes the questions they ask can be very condescending, and my ward stopped cooperating because of that. Maybe not a professional psychiatrist, but do you mean you've never been questioned by an authority figure where you get some kind of, "Yes, so tell me about your imaginary friend," remark?

It wouldn't invalidate the study - they got the results they presented, and your imagined results wouldn't contradict them; but it would mean that it isn't just people's beliefs about God's beliefs that are more self-referential than their beliefs about other people's beliefs, but their beliefs about historical figure's beliefs too. It might well change the wider inferences you draw about the results of the study.

It wouldn't invalidate their data, but it would invalidate their categories should they try to promote them as the only two. Suppose my hypothetical study found no statistically significant difference between responses about supernatural agents and responses about historical figures. Then what justification would they have for creating those categories?

I realize I only have a hypothesis, but it's not as if I'm asking for the moon. Given the extent of the study it would have been a simple detail to add. The fact they didn't think of it makes me skeptical of how much they really considered these supposed categories.

But I'm curious - how would you investigate a claim that God was the direct cause of some physical phenomenon?

I wouldn't. It seems I've had this conversation a thousand times, but maybe not with you. I just don't know how to get the point across. My impression is that because for unbelievers a god is only a mental image, they can't seem to separate it from their other intellectual investigations. Though you agreed not all of human action is scientific, it seems unbelievers can't shake free of the idea that finding a god must involve the scientific.

God is a person, not an experiment.

What physical evidence do I have that I walked alone in the park yesterday?

 

[devolved]

it seems unbelievers can't shake free of the idea that finding a god must involve the scientific.

I think that there's a misconception that scientific method is separate from our personal experience, and it's not.

We use the same method for virtually everything we do in our lives, and the very reason that we've developed it is because of the limitations of our memory, mental abilities and perception. Hence, we generally reach beyond ourselves for validation of any given belief in order to derive some degree of certainty and likelihood.

God is a person, not an experiment.

It's a straw man statement. Obviously God as defined isn't an experiment. The claim though, in order to be a person that we know about, God has to interact in some measurable and perceivable way.

If it doesn't, then such God isn't distinguishable from non-existing one from what we can tell. If God interacts with reality, then there should be consistent evidence and methodology to determine that God is responsible, and it's not an unnecessary interpretation of "natural" occurrence that may better explain the phenomenon.

What physical evidence do I have that I walked alone in the park yesterday?

I don't really think it's a fair comparison. A more analogous statement would be "What physical evidence do I have that I teleported from one end of the park to other?" If you did, then it would be an entirely different scope of conversation.

 

[Resha Caner]

We use the same method for virtually everything we do in our lives ...

No, we don't. There seems to be a misconception that if something makes sense to a person it is scientific.

Do we walk scientifically? Do we dance scientifically? Do we hear music only scientifically? Do we taste our food scientifically? Do we get tired and sleep scientifically? Do we appreciate Mona Lisa only scientifically? Do we play sports only scientifically? Do we fall in love scientifically? Do we procreate only scientifically? Do we find joy scientifically?

Do we spend time with our friends and get to know them scientifically?

It's a straw man statement.

It's not. Science begs the defined, the falsifiable, and the experiment. And if you have not met God, why do you get to define him? You don't define Abraham Lincoln. You don't define Billy Joel. You don't define Barack Obama. You don't define people in this forum. You don't define Frumious. You don't define razzel. You don't define me. I am who I am in spite of what you think. You don't even define people you know. You don't define your parents. You don't define your teachers or your boss. You don't define your friends or your siblings.

You don't define God. You can't ask me where God is, and then define him in a way that precludes me from answering.

God has to interact in some measurable and perceivable way.

Perceivable yes. Measurable no. I don't measure an apple before I eat it. I don't measure Beethoven before I listen. I don't measure my television before I watch it. I don't measure a light switch before I touch it. I don't measure my spouse or my children before I talk to them. You don't measure God.

I don't really think it's a fair comparison. A more analogous statement would be "What physical evidence do I have that I teleported from one end of the park to other?" If you did, then it would be an entirely different scope of conversation.

Why is it not fair? You know for sure that God has never walked in a park?

Besides, it seems you've missed my point. Science is about repeatability. Singular events don't repeat. I can show you apples, but not the apple I've already eaten. I can show you music, but you can't hear the music I listened to yesterday. I can show you a sunset, but not the sunset I saw yesterday. I can show you people, but I can't guarantee a particular person will appear when and where you demand them to be.

 

[devolved]

No, we don't. There seems to be a misconception that if something makes sense to a person it is scientific.

Do we walk scientifically? Do we dance scientifically? Do we hear music only scientifically? Do we taste our food scientifically? Do we get tired and sleep scientifically? Do we appreciate Mona Lisa only scientifically? Do we play sports only scientifically? Do we fall in love scientifically? Do we procreate only scientifically? Do we find joy scientifically?

Do we spend time with our friends and get to know them scientifically?

Yes, we do. It's an analytical process that's embedded in our brain, hence how we got to it in the first place. We merely externalized it to plug more than one brain into equation.

But when it comes to all of these things you mention, our brain uses a function that follows the methods of creating a hypothesis, testing it, and adjusting the hypothesis and retaining both passing and failing results.

It's not. Science begs the defined, the falsifiable, and the experiment. And if you have not met God, why do you get to define him? You don't define Abraham Lincoln. You don't define Billy Joel. You don't define Barack Obama. You don't define people in this forum. You don't define Frumious. You don't define razzel. You don't define me. I am who I am in spite of what you think. You don't even define people you know. You don't define your parents. You don't define your teachers or your boss. You don't define your friends or your siblings.

You don't define God. You can't ask me where God is, and then define him in a way that precludes me from answering.

Why would the above matter? I'm not defining either of these. They are self-evident when it comes to certain scope of reality and presenting such reality to other people.

I don't need to "define" them.

God on the other hand, you have to define into some form of formal existence in order to convey the concept in the very least. I'm not doing that. You are doing that. I claim that I don't observe such concept in existence. You claim that you do. And then you begin to define the concept of God that seems to evade question about reality, as you attempt to retreive it deeper into "indefinite concept" in order to detach it from any idea viable evaluation.

We can perceive and evaluate all of the above and below things that you describe. We can replicate these, and even measure these, even though you make some point that we don't.

I'm not asking whether we can measure God. I'm asking whether we can perceive God in a way that we can replicate an experience that you are talking about. If not, then why should it matter beyond your personal concepts and opinion about your own interpretation of reality?

Perceivable yes. Measurable no. I don't measure an apple before I eat it. I don't measure Beethoven before I listen. I don't measure my television before I watch it. I don't measure a light switch before I touch it. I don't measure my spouse or my children before I talk to them. You don't measure God.

But all of these things are measurable along with being perceivable. That's the very reason why we can perceive them, because all of the above are physical concepts that we do perceive. In fact, if you were playing Mozart, and claim that it was Beethoven, we could use some objective criteria to make the judgement and settle the dispute.

It doesn't seem to be the case with God.

We are not merely talking about perception. We are talking about an interpretation of any given perception in a way that's consistent with known facts about reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For the record, I'll note that you seem one of the more reasonable atheists I've conversed with.

Thanks, I try. There are some here who wouldn't agree.

Don't you think if that's what they wanted to study, they would have clearly defined it? Maybe they did in the paper, but given how unbelievers frequently throw out the myriad variations of god definitions, I'm surprised you would think their results could represent a specific type of belief.

The way I interpret it, they wanted to know people's beliefs about the beliefs of whatever non-physical (spirits, supernatural entities, deities, etc) agent they believed in.

... to answer your question:
1) I think of religion as a human response to God. It's a man-made thing. So, a "religious agent" would be a minister.
2) I don't think anything supernatural exists, at least not in the way the word is commonly defined. So, "supernatural agents" are fictional.

By 'religious agent', I'm sure they meant a non-physical entity associated with religious belief. Many people feel that 'supernatural' means any proposed phenomena outside the laws of nature or scientific understanding. You would presumably have responded to the survey with your beliefs about the beliefs of God (?)

... do you mean you've never been questioned by an authority figure where you get some kind of, "Yes, so tell me about your imaginary friend," remark?

Not to my memory, but then my all friends are (or were) demonstrably physical humans and animals.

Suppose my hypothetical study found no statistically significant difference between responses about supernatural agents and responses about historical figures. Then what justification would they have for creating those categories?

Creating what categories? The categories of 'supernatural agent' (meaning any non-physical agent considered to have beliefs, as above) and 'historical figure' wouldn't change, they would just share a commonality in the way people thought about their (the category representatives) beliefs. I don't know what other categories you mean.

I realize I only have a hypothesis, but it's not as if I'm asking for the moon. Given the extent of the study it would have been a simple detail to add. The fact they didn't think of it makes me skeptical of how much they really considered these supposed categories.

They can only study one thing at a time, and the more specific, the better. I don't know if they wanted to do more (I expect they probably did). They only get a grant if their proposal passes the strict criteria of the funding committee(s) - in this case, the Booth School of Business, the National Science Foundation, and the Templeton Foundation. I suspect it is part of a wider, directed body of research into 'theory of mind'.

I wouldn't. It seems I've had this conversation a thousand times, but maybe not with you. I just don't know how to get the point across. My impression is that because for unbelievers a god is only a mental image, they can't seem to separate it from their other intellectual investigations. Though you agreed not all of human action is scientific, it seems unbelievers can't shake free of the idea that finding a god must involve the scientific.

I was asking how you would do it outside of science - you said, "What would be nice is for science, when it says, "we don't address the supernatural" to acknowledge there are other ways to approach such things." You said you don't think anything supernatural is real, so I assumed that by 'such things' you meant things you do think are real but that science can't address, such as God. I'm curious to know what you mean by 'other ways'.

God is a person, not an experiment.

OK... are you saying God is a real person but there's no objective way to demonstrate His existence?

What physical evidence do I have that I walked alone in the park yesterday?

Possibly CCTV or satellite imagery; if you have a mobile phone, there may be a rough track of your movements; you'll definitely have left a trail of material containing your genetic code. Of course, it's likely that such evidence can't be easily discovered, but I have little doubt it could be established that you walked in the park.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, we don't. There seems to be a misconception that if something makes sense to a person it is scientific.

Do we walk scientifically? Do we dance scientifically? Do we hear music only scientifically? Do we taste our food scientifically? Do we get tired and sleep scientifically? Do we appreciate Mona Lisa only scientifically? Do we play sports only scientifically? Do we fall in love scientifically? Do we procreate only scientifically? Do we find joy scientifically?

Do we spend time with our friends and get to know them scientifically?

In the broadest sense, science involves making observations, building models to explain them, and testing those models. It's been said that even children playing are 'doing science' without realizing it. Recent discoveries in the neurology of perception tell us that contrary to earlier (and popular) ideas, the world we perceive isn't what comes directly from our senses, we actually use an internal model of the world, built up over time. This is used to make predictions, and these are what we perceive. The inputs of our senses are compared with those predictions and any discrepancies are corrected in the model (so updating our perceptions). This explains many puzzles of perception, including change-blindness, and how we perceive such an apparently complete world from such extremely limited and low-resolution sensory inputs. This perceptual model suggests that we are 'doing science' just by perceiving the world.

Perceivable yes. Measurable no. I don't measure an apple before I eat it. I don't measure Beethoven before I listen. I don't measure my television before I watch it. I don't measure a light switch before I touch it. I don't measure my spouse or my children before I talk to them. You don't measure God.

This may be another instance of the different terminology of science. In science, an observation is a measurement and a measurement is an observation (it doesn't necessarily need to be quantifiable). This makes a perception (an observation) a measurement, in the simplest sense.

 

[Resha Caner]

Many people feel that 'supernatural' means any proposed phenomena outside the laws of nature or scientific understanding.

Yes, and while that may be partially true of God, that part is beyond my experience. The only things I can speak of with respect to God is when he has interacted with the world - when he has participated in history (the past) and my life (the present). In that way, he is no different than historical figures or people I know.

Creating what categories? The categories of 'supernatural agent' (meaning any non-physical agent considered to have beliefs, as above) and 'historical figure' wouldn't change, they would just share a commonality in the way people thought about their (the category representatives) beliefs.

It is more than commonality. They would be confounding variables.

I know what you mean by "non-physical", but if you recall I would use the term "fundamental". From my perspective, what we know of God is physical. We can't know the non-physical.

They can only study one thing at a time, and the more specific, the better.

They need to address confounding variables. Nah. My bet is that they never even considered the historical aspect rather than that they decided not to address it.

I was asking how you would do it outside of science - you said, "What would be nice is for science, when it says, "we don't address the supernatural" to acknowledge there are other ways to approach such things." You said you don't think anything supernatural is real, so I assumed that by 'such things' you meant things you do think are real but that science can't address, such as God. I'm curious to know what you mean by 'other ways'.

I gave the beginnings of a response, but I wanted to see how you would respond to the last line of my post. Depending on how that goes, I may have to retract my comment that you're reasonable.

Possibly CCTV or satellite imagery; if you have a mobile phone, there may be a rough track of your movements; you'll definitely have left a trail of material containing your genetic code. Of course, it's likely that such evidence can't be easily discovered, but I have little doubt it could be established that you walked in the park.

I don't carry a cell phone (much to my wife's chagrin). And I don't think satellites would work, as the park I refer to is covered by trees - the paths shaded by trees. When I walk in the park, I want to be alone. Should it later become necessary to prove I had been there, it would be a difficulty beyond human ability. A genetic trail? Really? How long would that last? I'm pretty sure any such material is beyond recovery by this point.

Is this how we're going to do it, or do you get my point? You said you agreed not all things are science. Neither do all things depend upon applied science. Sometimes I don't measure, but only perceive.

 

[Resha Caner]

In the broadest sense, science involves making observations, building models to explain them, and testing those models. It's been said that even children playing are 'doing science' without realizing it.

This is an obfuscation of what professionals mean when they speak of scientific method. By this argument everything is science. Animals do science. Plants do science. Creation "science" is science.

Yes, we do. It's an analytical process that's embedded in our brain, hence how we got to it in the first place. We merely externalized it to plug more than one brain into equation.

My answer to you is the same as to Frumious.

I'm not defining either of these. They are self-evident when it comes to certain scope of reality and presenting such reality to other people.

Exactly. You're not defining them. That's what I said. You're observing them - experiencing them - perceiving them. It's the same for God.

God on the other hand, you have to define into some form of formal existence in order to convey the concept in the very least. I'm not doing that. You are doing that.

No, I'm not, and I won't. Do you want to win semantic arguments or do you want to encounter God?

 

[devolved]

This is an obfuscation of what professionals mean when they speak of scientific method. By this argument everything is science. Animals do science. Plants do science. Creation "science" is science.

Sure. We are largely talking about "try/fail/adjust" type of method. It's inherent in any logic of everyday being. Where do you think we get it from? We merely improved on it and set up constraints to do less tries by eliminating what will likely to fail.

My answer to you is the same as to Frumious.

I'm not quite sure what that answer was.

Exactly. You're not defining them. That's what I said. You're observing them - experiencing them - perceiving them. It's the same for God.

So... I'm not sure what your point is. Experience is subject to interpretation of that experience, and interpretation can be wrong. That's why we are having this discussion to begin with.

I'm not attempting to define God. Again, you are defining God , and I merely attempt to see if you are wrong or not based on what I observe.

No, I'm not, and I won't. Do you want to win semantic arguments or do you want to encounter God?

Of course I want to encounter God, and so do most skeptics. And I've actually been Christian and "encountered" God, but I now recognize that such encounter is clearly a projection of my presuppositions.

If you have anything more conclusive for me, then I'm all for it.!