Can anything change your mind?

[Mallon]

So, if anybody is brave enough to answer. What evidence would it take to convince you there is no God? Extra kudos if your answer isn't something you know full well already...

The Bible tells us God is spirit (John 4:24a), so I don't suspect the natural limitations of science would allow us to rule God out one way or another (although some atheists and YECs like to think that way). I believe in God because I have faith -- something few Christians will apologize for.
The Bible also tells us that we can verify the real actions of the Holy Spirit by the fruits that Christians produce (Gal 5: 19-23). These are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. So long as I see self-professed Christians doing these things, I will be convinced of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
In short, there's really nothing in the way of physical, measurable evidence that could convince me of God's inexistence. The manifestation of God in my life, and in the lives of others, is what gives me faith that He is alive and well.

 

[shernren]

For me personally the historical nexus of the Christian faith is in the Cross and Resurrection. If someone could convincingly show me that those things didn't really, historically, literally happen (and all those qualifiers mean different things!), then I would well lose my faith. Even if my faith did survive, it would become something quite unrecognizable to me today.

Having said that, even if that happened, I'm honestly not sure if I'd ever be able to shake the idea of a God over everything - if not a theist God, then maybe a deist God. I've posted elsewhere that without God, the scientific endeavour (which I've heavily invested in) becomes either a matter of survival or an evolutionarily programmed directive - neither of which are appealing alternatives. This world is so much a puzzle that I'd have to believe there's a Puzzler out there - although that conception of God is certainly quite different, in isolation, from the Judeo-Christian God.

 

[gluadys]

I had a friend who sometimes spoke of the five "C"s, by which he meant compassion, curiosity, creativity, community and courage.

Compassion for those in sorrow and suffering.
Curiosity which leads to the quest for knowledge and truth.
Creativity and the love of making beautiful and useful things.
Community or the building of harmonious relationships in families and societies.
Courage to stand up for what is right and just.

As long as there are people who demonstrate these qualities, I will believe in God in some fashion. My ideas about God might change; maybe to the point I would no longer call myself Christian. But it would take the obliteration of these qualities from human nature to completely destroy my faith in God.

 

[vossler]

So, if anybody is brave enough to answer. What evidence would it take to convince you there is no God? Extra kudos if your answer isn't something you know full well already...

I saw this and had to respond.

There is no evidence anyone could ever produce that would ever convince me that there is no God. Please understand I don't say that in a prideful manner or with some naivete but solely as a humble man who has been blessed with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As such nothing from outside of me could cause me to deny that which is in me.

 

[busterdog]

The Bible also tells us that we can verify the real actions of the Holy Spirit by the fruits that Christians produce (Gal 5: 19-23). These are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. So long as I see self-professed Christians doing these things, I will be convinced of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
In short, there's really nothing in the way of physical, measurable evidence that could convince me of God's inexistence. The manifestation of God in my life, and in the lives of others, is what gives me faith that He is alive and well.

I am trying to imagine better "evidence" than this. A long list of people have presumed to have that evidence. It all burns with a nice blue flame - fuel of the prairie campfire, the buffalo chip.

You would first have to believe that evidence can have the quality to make it so overwhelming? With so much nonsense around, how could it even be possible? If it is, I can't imagine it.

 

[theIdi0t]

So, if anybody is brave enough to answer. What evidence would it take to convince you there is no God? Extra kudos if your answer isn't something you know full well already...

When my Christianity loses the power of the experience that holds it, I'll cease to be a believer. When the Cross becomes a symbol for the tragedy of meaninglessness, when the resurrection that promises to transform it ceases to no longer be true, I'll cease to believe.

 

[FallingWaters]

I would never change sides.

 

[PaladinValer]

Sides?

**Watches Christ be divided once again**

I am always amazed that TEs don't disacknowledge the Christianity of YECs, yet many YECs continuously say things, directly or indirectly, disacknowledge the Christianity of TEs.

With that mini rant aside...

As to the OP, change is a part of growth and improvement. There is always new discoveries and evidences that are just waiting to be imagined, revealed, or, in some cases, found again (Didache anyone?!). If we are ever closed to them, then our progress simply stops and we adopt an astrolabe mindset.

Therefore, I am always open to change. It isn't just good science, but it is foundational for the advancement of civilization.

 

[Dannager]

I would never change sides.

A shame. When I'm shown to be incorrect, I change my position accordingly. I'm always amazed when someone seems proud of the fact that they wouldn't. Since when is willful ignorance something to be proud of?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Agreed.

 

[vossler]

A shame. When I'm shown to be incorrect, I change my position accordingly.

You make it sound so easy...somehow I'm not convinced. I don't believe it's ever easy to change one's position on a firmly held belief, I can attest to that and I would hope you could too.

 

[Dannager]

You make it sound so easy...somehow I'm not convinced. I don't believe it's ever easy to change one's position on a firmly held belief, I can attest to that and I would hope you could too.

That's not the point. Of course changing your mind isn't easy. Having to deal with a shift in mindset is always uncomfortable because of the temporary uncertainty it brings with it.

But I, and most others here, would still do our best to deal with the change in an honest fashion. What I'm criticizing is the belief held by some here that changing your mind when shown to be wrong isn't something that needs to be done.

It is.

You should change your mind when shown to be wrong.

If you don't, you're a coward. Plain and simple. You are too frightened of the temporary uncertainty that such change brings. There's no way around it. If you are shown to be wrong and persist in being wrong despite the favor others have done for you, you are guilty of intellectual cowardice of the worst sort.

 

[busterdog]

I don't believe it's ever easy to change one's position on a firmly held belief,

I should hope so.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In another thread, we were discussing our attitudes toward knowledge ... part of that discussion was about whether it is a sin to be wrong. That's neither here nor there in this discussion, but ...

I had mentioned that my beliefs about certain things have no impact on my behavior or attitudes -- that accepting evolution was like accepting that the sun is made of hydrogen.

Just today, I learned from my wife that I was likely incorrect in my pronunciation of "bonobo". My response ... "oh" and to begin pronouncing it correctly.

One advantage of being TE is that all knowledge falls in that category. New things are learned with gratitude and are experienced as a new revelation from God. Rarely is new knowledge a threat to faith.

Each change is an opportunity to come closer to the truth of the glory of God.

 

[vossler]

You should change your mind when shown to be wrong.

If you don't, you're a coward. Plain and simple. You are too frightened of the temporary uncertainty that such change brings. There's no way around it. If you are shown to be wrong and persist in being wrong despite the favor others have done for you, you are guilty of intellectual cowardice of the worst sort.

I find statements such as these easy to say but rare to find, that's been especially true since my joining CF. Making sure you understand my disbelief isn't in what you said, just in the application. People are constantly being shown they are wrong and very few, if any, change their minds. BTW, I would be more apt to call it spiritual cowardice as opposed to intellectual, but ultimately they stem from the same source, pride.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannager
You should change your mind when shown to be wrong.

If you don't, you're a coward. Plain and simple. You are too frightened of the temporary uncertainty that such change brings. There's no way around it. If you are shown to be wrong and persist in being wrong despite the favor others have done for you, you are guilty of intellectual cowardice of the worst sort.

Vossler: I find statements such as these easy to say but rare to find, that's been especially true since my joining CF. Making sure you understand my disbelief isn't in what you said, just in the application. People are constantly being shown they are wrong and very few, if any, change their minds. BTW, I would be more apt to call it spiritual cowardice as opposed to intellectual, but ultimately they stem from the same source, pride.

Good response.

I kind of think it is courageous to refuse to submit simply to consensus.

The choice of an a priori, be it the literal Word or consensus on scientific observation, is not such a simple matter of "courage." If that were so, then the literal Word would be so obviously wrong that only cowards or idiots would prefer it as witness. With a number of TE folks here, I think we are past that. If Dannager wants to say that, maybe he should let us know that its time to end the discussion. I think some TEs respect that choice as something that has some integrity, be it personal, spiritual or intellectual.

 

[Vance]

Busterdog and Vossler,

I think you are both honest and committed and not at all like some of the creationist yahoo's we seeing doing serious damage to Christianity over in the Creation and Evolution forum. You are convinced that the way you read Scripture is the correct way to read it, and that way entirely contradicts what modern science is saying.

What I would suggest is that you consider that we are not talking about pitting God's Word up against Man's Science (a battle we would ALL agree that God's Word wins, hands down). No, the battle is between fallible Man's interpretation of God's Word up against fallible Man's interpretation of God's Nature. Either of these could be wrong, and that truth must be the starting point for any true analysis.

With geocentrism, it turned out that it was the fallible human interpretation of Scripture that was wrong, and the fallible view of Nature (science) which was correct. And, so we all just adjusted our view of how a number of Scriptures should be read and went on our merry way, with no damage to Christian thinking at all.

And, in truth, the same has happened in regard to an old earth and evolution for the majority of Christians around the world. When the evidence from God's Nature piles up high enough to overwhelm our human interpretation of Scripture, we recognize that fact, and say "well, I need to consider whether I have that Scripture right". For me it was a bit different, since I changed my view of Scripture before reaching a conclusion on the natural evidence (while I was still technically a YEC) and that opened the door for objectively reviewing the scientific evidence. But I think that is the reverse of the process for most.

But, Busterdog, one thing you said was telling. You said that you think it is courageous to refuse to submit to consensus. There are a couple of things I would ask about this:

1. What is the consensus view in your church? Your denomination? Is it courageous to submit to that consensus?

2. Do you think it was courageous for the Christians to dig in their heels at the concept of heliocentrism? If so, at what point did that courage become prideful stubbornness?

 

[Dannager]

Good response.

I kind of think it is courageous to refuse to submit simply to consensus.

The choice of an a priori, be it the literal Word or consensus on scientific observation, is not such a simple matter of "courage." If that were so, then the literal Word would be so obviously wrong that only cowards or idiots would prefer it as witness. With a number of TE folks here, I think we are past that. If Dannager wants to say that, maybe he should let us know that its time to end the discussion. I think some TEs respect that choice as something that has some integrity, be it personal, spiritual or intellectual.

There is no integrity in continuing to hold an incorrect view despite it being explained to you. I'm not making a punitive judgment on creationism here. I'm talking about any falsity. Wouldn't you agree that such willful ignorance indicates a lack of integrity?

 

[Vance]

"There is no integrity in continuing to hold an incorrect view despite it being explained to you. "

I think you would have to rephrase that from simply having it explained, to actually being convinced. I have had creationism explained to me plenty of times, but find it utterly unconvincing, for example.

I think it is the unwillingness, as a matter of policy, to be convinced regardless of the strength of the argument, that becomes a bit problematic.

 

[Dannager]

"There is no integrity in continuing to hold an incorrect view despite it being explained to you. "

I think you would have to rephrase that from simply having it explained, to actually being convinced. I have had creationism explained to me plenty of times, but find it utterly unconvincing, for example.

I think it is the unwillingness, as a matter of policy, to be convinced regardless of the strength of the argument, that becomes a bit problematic.

If a correction is explained in an understandable fashion to someone who is intellectually honest enough to listen to the correction with the intent of revising his or her viewpoint should it turn out to be valid, I can see no reason why such a person would not change their mind. Therefore I submit that in any case where the person does not change their mind, there are two possibilities: a) the correction was not explained in an understandable fashion, or b) the person it was explained to is not being intellectually honest.