Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Dynamics of debate
An intriguing discussion has been evolving on David's website through the comment thread spawned by an atheist's question about prayer. www.gadgetvicar.typepad.com. See 5 July, under A Question of Prayer. (I know I can make a link for this, and tried yesterday, but didn't quite get it, so I'll need to try again later. Not so much a technophobe, more a technonumpty.) Picking up the baton and leading the charge on the atheists' side has been the redoubtable 'Kendo Nagasaki', 1970s wrestler turned blog warrior. Since the discussion began I've been trying to keep track of the dynamics of the debate, as much as its content. Seeking to discern the Spirit in the midst of it, seek strategies, paths and words of wisdom. Not, I hope, in a 'What would Jesus do?' simplistic kind of way - and neither at the expense of a good dose of humour and occasional silliness(!) But seeking to be aware of the 'background' of the discussion: participants' experience, underlying worldview, motivations, emotions, assumptions, prejudices... Because without staying sensitive to and responding in the light of these dynamics, the value of any discussion of points is limited.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
22 comments:
Motivation and experience are irrelevant when it comes to debating evidence or lack of it. All that is necessary is aa honest evaluation of evidence. I feel it it is the theists that bring unjustifiable assumptions to debate - one of the least helpful ones being that non christians must be doing something wrong or they would believe.
Kendo (cant publish my photo) :-(
I think they're actually highly relevant; they can affect both selection and evaluation of evidence. In this discussion an understanding of what is meant by and expected from evidence also needs to be discussed/clarified. Everyone brings assumptions etc, I don't deny it - though the one you accuse theists of here is generalised and sweeping. But hey:)
Not generalised at all. It is the first and most anoying thing that usually happens when a christian discovers that you once believed. It also stifles discussion.
Do you then (since you believe) not think I must have the wrong attitude etc?
Real evidence is not open to personal bias. If you pray for an amputee in front of me and they grow a new limb, that is undenyable evidence. Personal experience is not and never will be real evidence.
Kendo
It is not evidence but interpretation of evidence that is important.
Scientists do it all the time, they take their results and then theorise how those might point towards a particular conclusion.
Interpretation is always going to be affected by motivation and experience. It is a subjective act.
There is much evidence for and against Christianity. At some point you can choose how to interprate this evidence and make a decision.
With reference to amputees, there are testimonies of this happening. Do you believe the testimony of others, or are you saying you will only believe something if you see it with your own eyes? This might put you on dodgy ground with your scientific beliefs then, unless you have been spending a great deal of time (and money) replicating the evidence presented in scientific papers....
Incidently, I am scientifically trained and a Christian Believer. I see nothing in science as yet to disprove the existence of God or the Truth of the Gospel :) My interpretation of the evidence!
(Also as an aside, the MAO agression studies only show increased agression, not absence of free will - we still have a choice how to react to increased agressive feelings, as I am sure you are aware! Also the studies were pretty small, and while I am happy to believe their veracity, there is still a lot more to be learned there....)
Thanks Gill - and Kendo. I think I might inadvertently have drawn the Nagasaki man into my blog. Aaarrggh!!! No, seriously, you're welcome sir.
I'm away till Sat so can't reply till then, but here's a thought Kendo: Do you apply the same sophistication - breadth, depth, sensitivity and fairness - to your appraisal of the Bible, religion and faith, as you do to your science? The lack of this is I think a very fair charge that can be levelled at Mr. Richard Dawkins.
My last post won't publish, so I'lll leave as a comment. I'm away till 21st at 'Clan Gathering', conference near St Andrews, helping with the kids programme, including playing Brucey in a Price is Right gameshow each night. Nice (to see you!) If you're that way minded, please pray!
Hi boredtocertaindeath.
Therehave been a lot of studies on MAO. They show a correlation with aggressive personality not increased agression.
What do you make of people with neurodegenerative disorders - or indeed tourettes syndrome? do they have free will? surely they indulge in so-called sinfull behaviour, but have no choice. Huntingdons' disease is a good example. It is absolutely genetically controlled, to the point that we can tell exactly when the symptoms will start but looking at the number of triplet repeats the carrier has.
I'm curious as to why you think science and the bible are compatible. Could you give examples, I've got plenty why it isnt compatible: creation, flat earth, holes in the firmament, the sun made after the earth, archaeologcal/historical problems, paleopathology etc.
One big advantage science has in terms of interpreting evidence it the designing of tests to understand the true meaning of "evidence". In fact the evidence itself if often the result of such a test.
Faith does not allow this. It seems anytime a challenge comes to faith, the believers split in two. Some deny it (eg evolution) and others are forced to re-interpret the bible around it (eg evolution). Why is evolution not mentioned in the bible? Science always re-writes biblical interpretation, never the other way round (eg geocentrism vs heliocentrism).
I also see absolutely no part for god in evolution. How do you reconcile the two then? Mutations are random, as are meteor strikes -where is the need for god?
Concerning amputees. No, I don't believe it. I would also expect such a thing to be really well known. I'll bet You have never seen an amputee grow a new limb either - or anyone you know. In that respect I am like Thomas who did not believe the eye witness accounts of the resurrection - we are told the he got his required proof (john 20:24-28).
Also, if I happen to doubt a scientific finding, I can repeat the experiment myself (I have had to do this several times in the past). I can then determine the validity for myself if need be. Fith does not allow this. For example, you claim amputees have grown new limbs. We both pray to find out if it is real. Nothing happens and we have a couple of amputees angry at being given false hope. I conclude prayer does nothing. You conclude god must have his reason - this is not science, especially as you are making a special pleading here.
Bruce
Do you apply the same sophistication - breadth, depth, sensitivity and fairness - to your appraisal of the Bible, religion and faith, as you do to your science?
Maybe you should ask a few nobel laureates that I have put through the mill, or even my students who generaly dread me challenging them with questions like "how do we know this is true...."
Have a good break
The Kendo person
Hello boredtocertaindeath – Using my rational powers of deductive reasoning, I hope you don’t mind me calling you Gill from now on (it’s easier to write )
Not surprisingly, I agree with what Kendo says. We would not just accept the witness testimonies of Mormons or Muslims, and I see no reason to make Christians an exception. To quote Carl Sagan “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and I certainly thing limb regeneration falls into that category. What is more reasonable? That a limb should re-grow or a person should lie? You may be familiar with the story of the original spammer who was found murdered – ironically chocked with a tin of spam. It is an urban myth created by Brian Flemming, and like so many urban myths is not true, but believed by many.
With respect of science not disproving the gospel, I’m not sure what you mean here, perhaps you could explain – people don’t come back from the dead after all, and Jesus (and Peter and Paul talk of a literal flood etc).
You may be different, but I generally find that it is the Christians who generally have the presuppositions when it comes to looking at evidence – they have not even established that the supernatural exists, so their argument fails at the first hurdle. All Christian arguments are then just as valid (or not) as arguments for Islam or fairies, so what makes you choose Jesus and not Mohammed Zoroaster or Peter Pan?
Free will I think is something that comes in degrees – I can chose to make a cup of tea in the next 5 minutes or not (if I was dying of thirst, there would be no real choice not to). There is no way I could choose to be attracted to another guy though, and are a whole spectrum of things in between. There are genes that predispose us to certain behaviours in the presence of certain stimuli. Alcoholism has a hereditary component, and there are physiological processed that maintain addiction, so I would argue that genes and environment both affect behaviour. It appears that as well as a genetic component, factors in the womb can affect sexual orientation, so it is not a choice to be homosexual – and many homosexuals will tell you this (the fact that some can be “cured” does not mean all can)
Bruce My students quiver when I ask them to justify their conclusions, and I have never accepted a potential publication that I have reviewed without demanding further work be done – in fact, I reject most. Hope that answers about my scientific standards.
Have fun in St Andrews (an oxymoron) There is a lovely fundie lady there called Mrs Ross who used to go round the doors and tell everyone they are sinners. I told her that the chance would be a fine thing.
Billy
PS
Despite all that stuff about prayer not meant to change yout god's mind, GV is now praying for good weather - what gives?
:-)
Billy
Does a baby need a degree in female anatomy before it can be born?
Do I need to know all about God before his Spirit can bring back to life within me my spiritual connection with him?
This is something an atheist cannot understand because a spiritual connection with God is spiritually discerned,and is on a higher plain than mush brains.
Hi Jimmy,
I don't see what babies have to do with it, it is a bit of a non sequitur. Many need to feel a "spiritual connection" I dont. I find non belief very affirming and it makes so much more sense. This "need" does not make something true either, and that is the whole point, there is no evidence of a spiritual realm.
I would contend that a spiritual relationship with yahweh is no more real than the muslims spiritual relationship with Allah, or the Hindus' relationships with his God(s). I presume you think these other Gods are false, but they serve the same need in many of their whorshipers
Cheers
Billy
Hi Billy
it's late and I'm tired so I'll be brief.
It's not that there is no evidence of God there is a universe of evidence.
God is crystal clear
but you are evidently dense.
Hi Jimmy, Perhaps you could explain your evidence. Existence is no more proof for yahweh as it is for the flying spaghetti monster. Calling someone dense is hardly a rational arguement now is it? I'll wager I know a lot more about the history and culture of the bible than you do - that's one reason why I dont believe. But I would be interested to hear this universal evidence of yours - maybe I've missed something in my epic struggle with faith
Billy
"but you are evidently dense"
Jimmy, that is inappropriate, untrue, and counterproductive to the purpose of the exercise (unless the purpose is to spoil for a fight).
Interestingly, my uncle, who is a great fan of wrestling, informed me that when masked wrestler Kendo Nagasaki was to be finally unmasked in a pseudo-religious chinese ceremony (in the ring?) there were 12 million people tuned in to watch it.
Hi Beat Attitude
I'll certainly give your comment some thought.
But I doubt if it will change my mind from what I consider to be a reasonable deduction - that if someone arrogantly and mockingly denies the existence of God the truth of the Bible and the validity of Christian faith and life then that person would be dense to the deity of God and also to the human capacity for communion with God.
Jimmy, Do you actually have any evidence or do you just believe what you are told to believe. Nothing in your statement makes me think that you are a thinking theist. I would of course like to be wrong here, but the fact you refer to rejection odf god as arrogant shows that you are prone to knee jerk judgement about people that are based on no evidence - not very "christian" of you really!
Please only answer if you have something positive to contribute. Mane calling and narrow mindedness does not answer any questions
Billy
billy, did the mysterious Kendo receive my email of a couple of weeks back? Just checking because a lot of emails have been going missing when I send them (either that or people are e-blanking me all over the place...)
oh the joys of polite and enlightening debate.
Did you hear about the guy who won the scarecrow award? He was out-standing in his field.
(every one a treasure)
Hi Billy
There is a slight problem regarding your perception of name calling in that you appear to be oblivious to the impertinent language of your own comments.
God is light and one of the meanings of the word 'dense' is -
'Permitting little light to pass through'
So to me it would be reasonable to come to the conclusion that you are permitting little light to pass from God to you.
I don't think I'll be commenting further on this subject, but I will pray for you and also for Greg.
Hi Billy
I have prayed for you
and I have this message to you from the Lord
it is Mark 8:12
Hi Jimmy
You still provide no evidence. You have a very unusual use of he word dense. I'll accept you dont mean it in an offensive way, but I suggest you chose your words more carefully in future.
Perhaps you can point out my "impertinent" language. I dont think I have used any. Or do you think I am not allowed to express my opinion that there is no God. Please point out insults, ad hominens and lack of respect in my posts - I think you will struggle - even in this post
I appreciate you think you are doing something good for me, but I have acually prayed for myself in the past. It didn't work.
I think Mark 8:12 is sufficiently refuted by the miracles that Jesus is supposed to have performed. Was the supposed resurrection not a miraculous sign? This is an other inconsistency in the bible. I think it a clever trick by the author to make people believe despite lack of evidence. I could also ask you to read Rev 3:20 and john 6:37-40 patently not true in my experience.
Billy
PS at least we agree, there will be no miraculous signs
Only just noticed more comments on this strand since I've been away. Still to read the longer ones. But I like your reference to 'mane calling' Billy. Lionine.
Beat attitude,
I'm afraid that I have not recieved anything from you. My bad joke filter has probably blocked them :-)
Kendo
Post a Comment