A Question for Merlyn...

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

FOG says:

Merlyn now takes the classic atheist tack of insults which he earlier claimed that he didn't do.

 

When did I claim that?

 

And, like a typical theist, you're backpedalling on what the bible says. First, you claimed it didn't say what it clearly DOES say. Now, of course, you say anyone who prays who doesn't get what they pray for isn't a "true believer". I guess having to choose between "my inerrant holy book is wrong" and "these parents who bet their daughter's life on their beliefs just weren't TRUE believers" was just too hard. And if you've ever prayed for something and didn't get it, you aren't a true believer, either (or at least, you weren't at that time).

 

Of course, Ed decides to answer it yet another way, which STILL results in Matthew 21:22 being a lie, because it doesn't say "you'll get what god knows you should get", it says you'll get what you ask for.

 

But it's pretty hard to defend your religion when I can point out that Matthew 21:22 is simply a false statement. If it were true, isn't it likely that at least one true believer over the centuries would have prayed for, say, all people to be cured of cancer? I guess god is too busy with cheap conjuring tricks like making statues weep and Jesus is all booked up appearing in tortillas.

 

Ed, satan is as imaginary as any other god. Childbirth and leaves changing color and cancer remission don't involve gods, and if you think they do, why don't you suggest what part god is involved in - does he paint the leaves with a magical can of paint? Do you think angels push planets around in their orbits? People used to believe that, you know.

[packsaddle 753]

I mean no criticism to the readers. As posed, I consider the original question to be, at best, impossible for Merlyn to answer to the satisfaction of the person asking. I doubt some of the other readers could be satisfied by anything Merlyn said either. That is the best to make of the question.

At worst, the question may be a platform for another pointless argument, the content of which we are all by now familiar.

 

On the other hand, to be fair, I would be interested in hearing from those who ask the question to Merlyn. Tell the forum just what it is that Merlyn COULD say that would satisfy your curiosity. Maybe that would be a better starting point. If there is no way that he could satisfy your question, admit it. Otherwise provide some guidance to aid his attempt...in the spirit of Scouting, of course.

 

My attempt:

I can't answer the question posed originally to Merlyn - only Merlyn can do that - but I do know and associate with many persons who claim to be atheists. This is fairly common on many campuses. While I can't claim to know what is in the heart or mind of any other person, I know of no person claiming to be an atheist who seems not to have made a careful, considered decision for their belief. For them the decision is rational and objective and it factors in all information and cognitive ability that they can employ. For to believe that there is no deity is a belief, nevertheless, and it is not a condition of simple ignorance (although I grant that it may be possible to arrive at this belief in a more casual manner). The one or two persons I know who merely dismiss religion, ("..give me a rational, objective reason to believe something and I will consider it...") - usually shut off the discussion and I get the message. In those cases, I have no way of understanding their belief so I make no judgement.

 

The question, then, is how does a person thoughtfully arrive at such a belief? Especially in a world in which we are constantly bombarded by this or that religion each trying its best to convince us of their particular superiority? Can their decision be understood by anyone else, or is it just rebellion against the status quo? The few atheists with whom I have discussed this have caused me to try to answer this question prior to this forum. The answer is varied but there is some common ground for many of them.

 

The common ground exists, for want of a better way to explain it, in the concept of the null hypothesis. Rational decisions often employ this concept. It involves posing what is currently understood (or the most conservative argument) as a positive statement (the null) and then posing a rational positive alternative that can be tested in some manner (the alternative). The null hypothesis could be the rather conservative view, for example, that a new compound (penicillin perhaps) will have no effect on cultured pneumonia bacteria. While we all know that the null hypothesis in this case is rejected (penicillin does usually inhibit growth of pneumonia bacteria), the test was necessary in order to change skeptical but objective minds regarding penicillin's effect. Should the results be negative, the idea still remains but is weakened by the test failure, more alternatives are sought and the original is retested.

 

I think religious persons are sometimes suspicious of science because of this. I have sensed this suspicion in these forums. At its root, some persons think that the null hypothesis regarding deity is: 'No deity is necessary to explain everything'. And indeed some other persons do think in those terms - it is after all the simplest rational explanation (that which requires no supernatural force). And it is close to the logical positivist working assumption, 'There exist rational explanations for observable phenomena.'

 

But such construct is a pointless exercise because there is no objective way to perform the test (the alternative depending on non-rational forces). And factions supporting one view or the other have no way to resolve the difference. The caveat of 'observable phenomena' excludes anything that cannot be rationally 'observed', preferably in a repeated, controlled manner by multiple persons working independently. Miracles are simply not available for such examination. Nor are visions, feelings, or manifestations of spirit. The inability to rationally or objectively examine these things is the limitation placed on science, not religion - indeed such unique phenomena are central to many religions.

 

Here I do note that while one view would be delighted with evidence to the contrary, the other, historically, has not been so gracious. You guess which is which, or ask Galileo.

 

Most atheists I know fully realize that the difference is unresolvable in a rational arena. Their belief has a more profound basis. And this is where I begin to see personal variation, just as there is personal variation among the deists and theists. One approach is to accept the difference and (while maintaining the 'null', that is, absence of deity) to look for evidence that provides either a pseudotest (they wait for a personal miracle or epiphany) or try to discover rational alternative explanations for the things that are written in religious texts. Once in a while such a person will have the epiphany. They readily admit an inability to rationally explain or communicate their experience but they claim to have had the experience. I accept their personal claim while admitting an inability to know it. However, most such persons usually are more successful in discovering those rational alternative explanations. In this manner the basic 'belief' in absence of deity becomes more robust (using the experimentalists' terminology) and their belief becomes stronger. Without taking a great amount of time, this is the kernel of the process that I have come to understand.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Pardon me Merlyn, I stand corrected, you never did say that atheists aren't rude and you are living up to that standard.

 

You do seem to spend an extraordinary amount of time disproving something that you don't "believe." Funny, I know that the world isn't flat so I don't give the "Flat Earth Society" two thoughts. "Methinks [thou] doth protest too much."

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

The Flat Earth Society would get a lot more flak if they were trying (and in some cases succeeding) in getting flat-earthism taught in public schools as "equal time" for the round-earth theory, laws passed which advance flat-earth philosophy, monuments promoting a flat earth in public court buildings, and a recent president who has said that people who aren't flat-earthers shouldn't be considered citizens or patriots.

[hops_scout 9]

Merlyn, I also have a question for you.... Why do you hang around here if you dont believe in the basis of the forum? It is for "scouting discussions". The Boy Scouts of America state in both the Scout Law and the Scout Oath that there is a God and a scout should believe. Isnt that right?

 

Scout Oath

On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to GOD and my country to obey the Scout Law and keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

 

Scout Law

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteseous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and REVERENT.

[red feather 10]

Packaddle thank you for your post. Some ideas to ponder.

 

To me the beliefs of an individual is just that the beliefes of the inividual.

 

Each of us keeps our own peace. Whether it is to an esatblished belief or one that is not is established.

 

I believe in an overbeing of some kind. (I keep My own peace)

 

The world is too vast to deny the possibility of other beliefs.

 

yis

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

hops_scout writes:

Merlyn, I also have a question for you.... Why do you hang around here if you dont believe in the basis of the forum? It is for "scouting discussions".

 

And this group is for scouting issues, particularly the "three Gs", and that's what I've been discussing (except when sidetracked, such as this thread started by OGE).

 

I usually post in threads concerning the BSA's discrimination and government; since various government agencies have BSA charters, and it's unlawful for the government to practice the BSA's discrimination, the government will be forced to drop them (mostly due to ACLU lawsuits, since the BSA is too dishonest to drop them, and most government reps are either likewise dishonest or too stupid to realize the BSA expects them to unlawfully practice religious discrimination when they charter a BSA unit).

[evmori 11]

No Merlyn, I didn't dodge anything. I answered about the passage the way I and others have interpreted it. You, however, have failed to answer my questions again so I'll give it one last shot. Since you don't believe in God, explain childbirth, the leaves changinf colors & a person with cancer going into complete remission without medication! C'mon Merlyn! Give us some answers!

 

Also, do you believe there is air? Can you see it? Can you touch it?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Twocubdad 665]

Oh, come on, Ed. Do you believe in air only as a matter of faith?

 

For the record: yes, I can touch air (I'm doing so now) and under the proper conditions, I can see it. I can prove its existence by conducting replicable experiments. I can measure it, I can weigh it, I can show its effect on other objects. The Webelos Scientist Activity Pin has some good, easy to do experiements which will deomonstrate these things.

 

Are there not things in the material, physical world that you accept as a matter scientific fact? That the sun will set at precisely 7:54 this evening is a fact which can be proven and predicted accurately by astronomical observation and mathmatical calculation. The meaning of that sunset or the awe it inpires in you is a matter of faith between you and your God (god, gods, or not.) I don't see that holding one of those thoughts requires that we reject the other.

 

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[evmori 11]

Twocubdad,

Just trying to make a point. You can't see air but you know it's there. You can't see God, but you know He's there. It's a little thing called faith.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle 753]

Red Feather, I'm reading through the recent messages and I'm wondering, heh, heh, you ever get the feeling than no one is listening?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"The world is too vast to deny the possibility of other beliefs. "

 

People believe that the world is flat and that if you catch a Leprechaun, he'll give you his Lucky Charms.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Packsaddle: I'm listening. I thought your post was excellent. I agreed with RedFeather's also. (Of course I am sure this does not come as a big shock.)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Red Feather says:

 

Each of us keeps our own peace.

 

I think that is a really good concept. It would be a better world if people could respect the right of others to keep their own peace.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"People believe that the world is flat and that if you catch a Leprechaun, he'll give you his Lucky Charms."

 

And people believe that the world is only a few thousand years old and that if you pray to an invisible superbeing, you'll be cured of disease.