God ought to be in our Classrooms

[David Gould]

But I know them all to be false because of my personal experiences.

So: where does that leave us in the search for answers?

 

[michabo]

All I'm saying is that a person can know that at least some of these claims are true because of personal experience.

All I know is that I haven't seen you give us any means of verifying any of these claims. Even if it isn't extensive, can you give us just one means of verifying a metaphysical claim through personal experience?

 

[Sojourner<><]

All I know is that I haven't seen you give us any means of verifying any of these claims. Even if it isn't extensive, can you give us just one means of verifying a metaphysical claim through personal experience?

Answered prayer is one.

 

[David Gould]

Answered prayer is one.

So if I pray to a deity and my prayer is unanswered does that show that that deity does not exist?

If not, how does praying to a deity and having that prayer answered show that that deity does exist?

 

[Sojourner<><]

So if I pray to a deity and my prayer is unanswered does that show that that deity does not exist?

Unanswered prayer doesn't show anything.

If not, how does praying to a deity and having that prayer answered show that that deity does exist?

I don't know that it does, but an answered prayer would certainly be an event worthy of further investigation, wouldn't it?

 

[michabo]

Answered prayer is one.

Let's say I pray to be healed from cancer and my cancer goes into remission. Just what metaphysical claim have I verified?

 

[David Gould]

Unanswered prayer doesn't show anything.

Why not? Doesn't it show that either there is no metaphysical entity which answers prayer or that if there is this metaphsyical entity does not care about the particular kinds of prayer that you prayed?

I don't know that it does, but an answered prayer would certainly be an event worthy of further investigation, wouldn't it?

Would it?

Let us say that I prayed to get safely to work today, and I did.

Would that be worthy of investigation?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Let's say I pray to be healed from cancer and my cancer goes into remission. Just what metaphysical claim have I verified?

When a person prays according to some claim, and that prayer is answered, the anwer would contribute to the verification of the truth of that claim. For instance, in the story of Gideon, Gideon prayed for a sign in order to verify what he believed was an instruction from God. The first prayer was answered, and still not fully convinced, he asked for a second sign. The second sign was sufficient for him to believe.

If a person likewise prays for a sign and that prayer is answered positively, he or she can also conclude that the story of Gideon may actually be true.

 

[michabo]

When a person prays according to some claim, and that prayer is answered, the anwer would contribute to the verification of the truth of that claim.

In my example, are you saying that because I prayed to be healed of cancer and I was, then whatever notions I might have had in my head to motivate me to pray should then be considered true?

If I had, for instance, prayed to Poseidon to get my ferry across the Georgia Straight to Vancouver Island safely and we arrived without damage, would that serve as a sign that Poseidon exists or are there some other elements that you would need to confirm?

What things constitute signs?

Are all prayers according to claims equivalent, or do some claims require bigger signs?

If a person likewise prays for a sign and that prayer is answered positively, he or she can also conclude that the story of Gideon may actually be true.

Why can we conclude this?

Why do you say "may actually be true"? Isn't the point of praying according to a claim and then observing the result evidence that it is true?

 

[Sojourner<><]

In my example, are you saying that because I prayed to be healed of cancer and I was, then whatever notions I might have had in my head to motivate me to pray should then be considered true?

If I had, for instance, prayed to Poseidon to get my ferry across the Georgia Straight to Vancouver Island safely and we arrived without damage, would that serve as a sign that Poseidon exists or are there some other elements that you would need to confirm?

On the contrary, I'm speaking of a prayer made in accordance with some preexistent claim.

What things constitute signs?

A probabilistically unlikely event could suffice as evidence to verify a claim.

Are all prayers according to claims equivalent, or do some claims require bigger signs?

A sign for the purpose of supporting a claim would have to be sufficiently unusual to rule out the probability of coincidence.

Why can we conclude this?

Why do you say "may actually be true"? Isn't the point of praying according to a claim and then observing the result evidence that it is true?

A person who receives an answered prayer in this manner may be able to conclude that the probability of the event of a coincidence could be highly unusual. Therefore, at this point, he or she may have sufficient evidence to support the claim in his or her own understanding.

 

[michabo]

On the contrary, I'm speaking of a prayer made in accordance with some preexistent claim.

So how does my Poseidon example not satisfy?

A sign for the purpose of supporting a claim would have to be sufficiently unusual to rule out the probability of coincidence.

How improbable must the event be to support a given metaphysical claim? Can you give us an example of how you perform this calculation?

How do you deal with the confirmation bias, where we remember only hits and forget misses? How do you deal with the lack of specificity, where we pray for a sign but don't specify the sign so that the number of improbable events grows so large that it becomes almost certain that at least one of them will come to pass?

Therefore, at this point, he or she may have sufficient evidence to support the claim in his or her own understanding.

You keep hedging with "may have" or "her own understanding." Are you not saying that there is sufficient evidence? Aren't you saying that there is a rational basis for belief?

We know that people may have extremely low standards for evidence especially if it confirms something they wish to believe in. It looks like you're saying that it's just important to achieve belief, but not deal with the question of whether or not this belief is rational.

 

[Sojourner<><]

So how does my Poseidon example not satisfy?

I don't know how your poseidon example relates to what I am saying.

How improbable must the event be to support a given metaphysical claim? Can you give us an example of how you perform this calculation?

In the example of Gideon, Gideon used a fleece to test the validity of a metaphysical claim. He first prayed that in the morning, dew would be on the fleece and not on the ground. After observing that this had happened, he prayed again that the next morning dew would be on the ground but not on the fleece. These events combined with the fact that Gideon prayed for these things to happen before hand are very unlikely to occur by chance. It's so obvious that a calculation isn't required.

How do you deal with the confirmation bias, where we remember only hits and forget misses? How do you deal with the lack of specificity, where we pray for a sign but don't specify the sign so that the number of improbable events grows so large that it becomes almost certain that at least one of them will come to pass?

A healthy amount of skepticism should be enough.

You keep hedging with "may have" or "her own understanding." Are you not saying that there is sufficient evidence? Aren't you saying that there is a rational basis for belief?

I'm speaking hypothetically. If certain conditions are met, then there would be a rational basis.

We know that people may have extremely low standards for evidence especially if it confirms something they wish to believe in. It looks like you're saying that it's just important to achieve belief, but not deal with the question of whether or not this belief is rational.

All I am saying is that an answered prayer is one way we can know about the truth of a claim. It's really so obvious that even a child can understand this.

 

[michabo]

I don't know how your poseidon example relates to what I am saying.

Why not? It seems to be the same. I pray to Poseidon, my prayer comes true, so therefore my claim (that Poseidon exists and controls ocean traffic) is true. Right?

These events combined with the fact that Gideon prayed for these things to happen before hand are very unlikely to occur by chance. It's so obvious that a calculation isn't required.

So how improbable must a claim be?

Must it violate known physical laws as with the magical leaping dew example?

Why do you believe there is a causal connection between what happens in your mind with what happens in the world?

All I am saying is that an answered prayer is one way we can know about the truth of a claim. It's really so obvious that even a child can understand this.

It's not obvious at all. If it were obvious, then you could answer these questions directly instead of hedging and fobbing me off.

Give us some practical examples. What metaphysical claims can be validated by being healed by cancer? You said that there was a method, but I have seen no method. I'm just asking questions to flesh this out.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Why not? It seems to be the same. I pray to Poseidon, my prayer comes true, so therefore my claim (that Poseidon exists and controls ocean traffic) is true. Right?


So how improbable must a claim be?

Must it violate known physical laws as with the magical leaping dew example?

Why do you believe there is a causal connection between what happens in your mind with what happens in the world?


It's not obvious at all. If it were obvious, then you could answer these questions directly instead of hedging and fobbing me off.

Give us some practical examples. What metaphysical claims can be validated by being healed by cancer? You said that there was a method, but I have seen no method. I'm just asking questions to flesh this out.

I have answered directly.

 

[michabo]

I have answered directly.

You said it was obvious, but can't quantify.

You said that prayer confirms the claim, yet when given a claim you say it isn't applicable.

You've responded, for sure. But you haven't answered.

 

[Sojourner<><]

You said it was obvious, but can't quantify.

Well I suppose if Gideon happened to be a trained meteorologist, he may have been able to provide us with a probabilistic model from which the procedure could be duplicated. Come to think of it, isn't the purpose of quantifiability to ensure that experimentation can be repeated? Yet we have already presupposed that these verifications can only be useful for the individuals that witness the results. Why bother with it then?

You said that prayer confirms the claim, yet when given a claim you say it isn't applicable.

I only stated that I didn't know how it applies. You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth now would you?

You've responded, for sure. But you haven't answered.

I've both responded and answered. What sort of game is it that you are playing?

 

[michabo]

Well I suppose if Gideon happened to be a trained meteorologist, he may have been able to provide us with a probabilistic model from which the procedure could be duplicated.

Gideon, always Gideon. I notice that you won't entertain the possibility that Poseidon was responsible.

It doesn't seem like these tests yield much useful information.

Come to think of it, isn't the purpose of quantifiability to ensure that experimentation can be repeated?

No, it's to quantify how improbable it was that they were coincidence. After all, some percentage of people won't die from cancer. In a nation with so many Christians, no doubt 80% of them prayed that they would survive. Does this mean that their prayers were answered, or just that everyone that didn't get their wish, died?

I don't see how any of this gets us closer to determining anything about metaphysical claims. Wasn't that what you were instructing us on?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Gideon, always Gideon. I notice that you won't entertain the possibility that Poseidon was responsible.

It doesn't seem like these tests yield much useful information.


No, it's to quantify how improbable it was that they were coincidence. After all, some percentage of people won't die from cancer. In a nation with so many Christians, no doubt 80% of them prayed that they would survive. Does this mean that their prayers were answered, or just that everyone that didn't get their wish, died?

I don't see how any of this gets us closer to determining anything about metaphysical claims. Wasn't that what you were instructing us on?

I see your point. However, I still think that Gideon's fleece is much more unlikely than recovery after cancer. How many Gideon's would it take then to generate one chance occurrence? I suppose we'll never know. However, if it did happen to me, I would have to conclude that it is most likely that the prayer was truly answered.

 

[SolomonVII]

Of course it's not a coincidence. It's not true at all. We owe modern science to the pagan greeks.

The ancient Greeks were not the ancient geeks. They were rationalists to be sure, but they fully realized that not every question about our humanity would have a technical solution.
The New Testament, starting from the Septuagint, is as much more a product of the mind of the ancient Greek as is modern science. But the critical thinking necessary to science and the willingness to put the wisdom of the ancients to the emprical test is very much a product of a Christianized European mindset that came much later than the ancient Greeks.
The empricism of modern science is based as much on the philosphies and methods of medieval and enlightenment thinkers more than it was upon the ancient Greeks.

 

[Morcova]

The ancient Greeks were not the ancient geeks. They were rationalists to be sure, but they fully realized that not every question about our humanity would have a technical solution.
The New Testament, starting from the Septuagint, is as much more a product of the mind of the ancient Greek as is modern science. But the critical thinking necessary to science and the willingness to put the wisdom of the ancients to the emprical test is very much a product of a Christianized European mindset that came much later than the ancient Greeks.
The empricism of modern science is based as much on the philosphies and methods of medieval and enlightenment thinkers more than it was upon the ancient Greeks.

Uh.. huh... we wouldn't have science without the ancient greeks. They created the scientific method.