"At midnight www.letterstodavenavarro.com will launch with all the SEO force I can muster." I searched for "dave navarro", and could not find the site in the first 100 results. There's a famous "dave navarro" that takes most of the results. So I am not sure Dave's reputation did get that much trouble.
the problem isn't Anthony, or at least he isn't the biggest problem here. The main problem is that there are people who would listen to and act (for example by doing or not doing business with the victim) upon the Internet gossip. It doesn't really matter whether Dave and the author had or didn't have the affair - even if they had it would be their private life that is of no concern to anybody else.
I would say that a man who's repeatedly threatening to murder you is definitely a big fucking problem. I'd rather have my reputation ruined than be murdered by a guy who hears voices telling him divorce is bad.
IANAL, but I believe the process is 1) restraining order, 2) contempt, 3) civil suit, 4) injunction
This should allow you to cross the state jurisdiction bounds. Also with the civil suit you could start talking about taking away his property. That has a tendency to get people's attention.
Perhaps an attorney can weigh in. As I understand it, there is legal recourse available. But it'll take several months, and I don't offer that as a solution. She asked what to do instead of wait it out, and taking legal action of her own is the first thing I would do, even if I had to file the papers myself.
I stand behind my comment from the original post here. Her account was fictionalised to the point of not being recognisable. The other side of the story could have be its own fiction for all I care, but this isn't about a strong successful woman. It's about some fundie religious guy stalking his brother to prevent a divorce caused by allegedly falling into the "internet marketing lifestyle" that MeanSite2 rallies against.
Internet drama is a great way to relax at night.
Edit: And after upon further reflection this Dave Navarro fellow didn't like his life and found a new family unit online, which includes our heroine. Not agreeing with the fundie's methods (which do seem psychotic) but it does seem this guy ditched his family for the fast and furious world of internet marketing.
Not to be the guy who takes it there, but religion isn't always just a harmless quirk (if you consider a willful disregard for facts a harmless quirk).
I'm atheist, but I always find this claim silly and self-serving to judgmental atheists/anti-religion folks. The religious mumbo jumbo is a rationalization. This man is sick and broken. People aren't made perfect and occasionally some of us don't work right.
Moreover, I think it's been established that the reasons people give for decisions are generally rationalizations, and the decision itself was made beforehand through incompletely understood mechanisms.
Believing a "Scientist" isn't always harmless either. History is full of people who used this or that pseudoscience to justify their actions. People do stupid, harmful, hateful things to other people. What they use to justify it has little bearing on their likelihood of doing it. Religion is an often used scapegoat but just about anything can be a scapegoat for anyone so religion isn't special in that regard.
(full disclosure: I'm a devout christian myself and what she describes is just about as anti-christian as you can get.)
(Edit: spelling and grammar)
(Edit2: In case the above was misunderstood the anti-christrian behaviour was on the part of Anthony the brother and those who joined him. Not on the part of Dave or the Articles author)
I agree that a lot of bad and crazy people try to justify their actions based on religion. However, that doesn't mean that religion isn't harmful in itself.
Tens of millions of people have died due to purely religious beliefs. I won't go into history (way too much to cover there), but even today people are driven into death because of religion. Thousands of people are suffering and eventually dying in Africa because the Catolic church has led them to believe that use of condoms are immoral. People are killed because they have the wrong religion. Even in America, a lot of people are shunned and/or driven to suicide due to either being gay or atheist.
BTW, I'm getting sick of the "he's not a Christian because he's not good"-trend. Being a Christian has nothing to do with what you do, it has to do with what you believe. You're a Christian if you professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The brother doing the harrasing was very anti-christian. Attacking and defaming another human being violates the foundation of the Christian Faith which states that all people are deserving of respect, love, and unconditional forgiveness. Mounting a compaign of hate against another is the polar opposite of "What Jesus Would Do" to borrow from a popularized religious phrase.
If you thought I was referring to articles author I apologize as that's not what I was meaning to say.
This is a little bit of a No True Scotsman fallacy, no? The problem I see with religion (Christianity in particular, but thats mostly due to where I live rather than the religion itself) is that everyone has their version of what a "real Christian" does.
The problem is that the Bible is not very internally consistent. At some points it tells us to love everyone regardless. At others it tells us certain people deserve to die. As far as I can tell, there is no objective definition of what being a "true Christian" entails.
Every consistent guide to life via some religion is just going to be cherry-picked from the grander whole of the religion's beliefs and texts.
While I'm inclined to agree that unconditional forgiveness and following WWJD is probably the better Christian (well, one I'd like to share this Earth with), keep in mind the crazies also believe they're standing on solid scriptural ground.
This generalizes to just about every religion, for what it's worth...
Crazies often believe they're standing on solid scientific ground. Yet it's not "No True Scotsman" [0] to point out that their "science" explicitly contradicts solidly tested science, violates scientific principles, and is total garbage.
The same can be said regarding various religions. While there is room to disagree over the scope of certain commands, or whether certain statements are figurative, or how exactly to reconcile difficult statements [1], there are certain well-attested fundamental principles within most religions which are agreed upon by diverse sects. It is not a fallacy to point out that someone claiming religion X violates its core tenets and therefore is not legitimately practicing that religion.
[0] what makes NTS a fallacy is that irrelevant criteria are being used to exclude an entity from a group they actually belong to. It is not NTS to point out that James Doohan was a Canadian of English/Irish descent, and not actually a Scotsman.
[1] in texts I've read from many religions, oft-criticized statements would be better described as "difficult to reconcile" than actually inconsistent or contradictory. The example you give is not even particularly difficult to make sense of; in the Bible, everyone deserves death, yet Yahweh shows love and offers forgiveness to all, so asking His followers to do the same is not at all surprising.
Whether we should or should not kill, much less harass, other humans is not one of the fundamentals that is agreed upon by many diverse sects of Christianity.
Everyone does not deserve death. That is just as absurd as the thing it is trying to rationalise.
I am aware of disagreement between Christian sects on matters of killing as a part of warfare and killing in self defense. Every sect I am aware of agrees that you should not kill someone simply because they anger, disappoint, or "dishonor" you. Likewise, I am aware of disagreement between sects on how far one should go to avoid giving offense, but I am not aware of any sect that considers the sort of threats given in the parent article to be acceptable behavior.
US law often cites the "reasonable person" standard (for example, if a reasonable person would feel threatened). The same standard can be applied here -- a "reasonable person" can disagree as to what the Bible teaches about killing as a part of warfare, but I do not see any way a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the Bible as a whole could conclude that this guy's behavior is acceptable.
Note that one need not be a Christian to assess this. One need only be a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the source material.
How do Christians in Uganda or Christians of old stack up in all this? Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?
Also, do you consider WBC to be unreasonable? What about parents who disown children who are gay or convert to a different faith? Are they unreasonable and do that not because of their own faith?
You are right that very recent, popular, western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?
> "Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?"
It's only in the past hundred years or so (with the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in the 1920s) that "faith" has been used to mean "the opposite of reason" or "believing something without evidence". In ancient religious writings (particularly Christian and Jewish) and in most of religious history, "faith" means acting upon something you know from experience to be true, particularly in the face of adversity. Far from being unreasonable, it can be thought of as the triumph of reason and experience over temporary emotion. This also matches with the ordinary meaning of "faith" when used to describe something other than religion.
> "western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?"
I would say the opposite -- most of the "hostile" versions of Christianity were/are such because of influences outside of scripture (for example, it became militant after being adopted as a state religion), and most of the shift away from hostility came about as a result of return to scripture (note the significant pacifist movements of the early 1500s, as the printing press was putting Bibles into peoples' hands.)
> "do you consider WBC to be unreasonable?"
Everybody considers WBC to be unreasonable.
More to the point, as I said in the parent, crazies think they're standing on solid ground, whether scientific or religious. The question is not "do they do this because of their faith", but "do they do this because of a reasonable understanding of Christian scripture?" Neither WBC, nor the Ugandan LRA, nor parents who disown children, have reasonable basis in scripture.
WBC doesn't have a reasonable understanding of the scripture? By merit of what? For every part of the book they are ignoring aren't there parts that everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy rationalizations for?
So faith in its current form is unreasonable? Faith instead should be scrutable? Thou shall test the Lord?
You know, bible.org has a wonderful online theology course. I often recommend it to people as a primer on how theologians function in an academic context. It's not hostile, it's not an argument or apologetic. Just televised classroom discussions. I think it's interesting and thought-provoking, especially if you think "academic theologian" is a contradiction in terms.
The lectures are a couple hours long, and they're best approached as a course. But they've cut them up into ~15 minute answers to topics. There's a list here:
You might be particularly interested in numbers 33, 34, and 35 (How do various Christian traditions view truth?).
Number 199, "What does it mean to have faith?" also answers one of your direct questions. The bit from 6:50 is where he starts getting into the actual answer to that.
> "aren't there parts that everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy rationalizations for?"
One of the things "crazies" and cults do is take single verses or single sentences, decide that they are universal principles written in a literal and strict legal fashion, draw a series of conclusions, and ignore or rationalize away anything that contradicts those conclusions. Often, a single charismatic leader chooses which verses the group follows and which they ignore; this is the case with WBC.
On the other hand, a "reasonable person" will look at how different teachings relate to each other, consider the scope and context of each teaching, and try to build a coherent understanding of the whole. It's an iterated process; a study of passage A might change your understanding of passage B, while exposure to new historical or geographic information might change your understanding of passage C. Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement (often of the form "I think you overstate the importance of X" or "I think you misunderstand the symbolism in Y") are characteristic of this approach.
To an outside observer who is not familiar with the whole of scripture, it's easy to slip into the misconception that both groups are making "flimsy rationalizations" or ignoring inconvenient passages. The only way to really clearly see the difference is to become familiar with the source material yourself.
Consider the prior analogy: crazies often believe they are standing on solid scientific ground, as they rationalize and ignore science that contradicts their ideas. To someone with inadequate understanding, it may appear that scientists also rationalize and ignore the crazies' data. With a strong enough scientific background, it becomes clear that the crazies' reasoning is flimsy while the scientists have solid, sensible, principled reasons for rejecting the crazies' conclusions.
> "faith in its current form is unreasonable?"
Faith, in the sense that a certain (rather vocal) Christian minority means it, is anti-reason. Despite your incredulous tone, faith, in its current and traditional form for most of the rest of Christianity, is reasonable -- as I said before, what it means to most of us is "acting upon what past experience has shown us to be true, even though present emotions make it difficult".
Your reference to "testing the Lord" provides a great example of what faith means. In Exodus 14, Moses leads the people to the Red Sea, where God lets them cross and drowns Pharoah's army; then to Marah, with undrinkable water that God shows Moses how to purify; then to the desert, where God gives them bread from heaven. Each step of the way, they whine about impending death. By now, experience has shown them that God is providing for them, so (per my definition above) they should have faith as a result of experience. Yet the next time they come to a place with no water, they again complain about impending death. It is at this point (Exodus 17:2) that Moses says "why do you test the Lord?"
They're not being criticized for unbelief in the unseen, but for unbelief when they should know better. They're not being criticized for wanting to see a sign from God; they're being criticized for challenging God for yet another sign. The expression "do not test the Lord" is always used in this sense -- when someone already has the experience to know better. (When people who do not have such experience ask God for a sign, He often gives it.)
Well it's so good to hear someone say that faith should involve the weighing of evidence and all that. The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian who doesn't like that I point out that their experience, like all the others, can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified, I will just say that they don't know what faith really means and they are not a true Christian. That they are being unreasonable. That the way they use the word "faith" is different from the other majority 10% of Christians.
> Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement
So I presume that using this method Christianity as a whole can begin to understand the true nature of the scripture and eventually coalesce into a single coherent religion? Instead of say, many many many different churches all believing things totally opposite of what the next does?
I am sorry for my incredulous tone but it's just so foreign to me that any group that says that the skeptical will be punished can also be intellectually honest. I'm glad that you and presumably many like you take faith to be something that must not be anti-reason. To me that is rare, but then again that might be biased by all of the crazies that seem to get lots of attention. And I'm not talking about the Harold Campings of the world, just the average politician who rejects science.
> "The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian ... I will just say [stuff]"
A lot of the "unreasonableness" in modern American Christianity has a specific basis; understanding that basis is important if you want to respond effectively. Christian Liberalism was an intellectual movement in the late 1800s that sought to discard the supernatural aspects of scripture by inappropriately assuming most of it was figurative; Fundamentalism arose in the early 1900s as a response that included a series of overreactions -- treating scripture hyper-literally, embracing anti-intellectualism, and treating even the smallest everyday occurrences as supernaturally significant. While few today claim the label, a lot of ordinary American Christians have been influenced to some degree by this sort of thinking.
Correcting this sort of unreasonableness is not as simple as telling them they're wrong and stupid; a less snarky and less belittling approach is usually more effective. Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help, but rather, it is helpful to explain the details of why they are mistaken and help them understand better. (The downside is that this takes more effort than the standard reddit-style "OMG UR DUMB" comment; the upside is that it's actually productive.)
> "their experience ... can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified"
It is tremendously important to treat one's experiences just like any other sort of data. One of the mistakes certain people make is treating common events as significant. One mistake a different group makes is treating all experience as insignificant. Do not be a part of either of those groups.
Recall that "falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. An experience is not falsifiable. A generalization drawn from experience should be (otherwise it is a worthless generalization.)
Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced -- historical observations, astronomical observations, fields like economics, and so on. We have systems and best practices for dealing with non-repeatable data; if it's carefully recorded, it can be analyzed and discussed rationally. It's not as good as lab experiments, but it's what you have to settle for when dealing with systems that can't be constrained to the lab.
The key to dealing with experience as data is to understand the probabilities involved. Finding one's car keys after prayer and searching is not particularly signficant (after all, one normally finds their car keys after searching); praying and hearing turn-by-turn directions in your head to a place you've never been is significant. While both scenarios could theoretically be "blind chance", one is significantly harder to justify in that manner.
> "Christianity as a whole can ... eventually coalesce ...?"
The Bible isn't written like a legal document or a mathematical proof. In attempting to understand a fairly complex and sophisticated system with many parts contributing to the whole, there are estimates and prioritizations and judgment calls involved. Thus, there is a certain expected level of disagreement that is reasonable -- and modern Christian theologians are at that point (the "rank and file" are a little behind.) Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors (I say this as a pacifist married to a defense contractor -- we are not "totally opposite", we just disagree on the relative importance of two statements.)
> Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help
So would it be accurate to say that your argument is that the brother harassing the divorced brother from this linked article and the "god hates fags" people are not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from the same body of understanding as a group of theologians. However Christians who call themselves sheep and who would deny reason to uphold their own "unreasonable" nonmatching interpretation are still true Christians because they didn't do any of the things the group considers wrong even though embracing non-reason is one of the things that group detests. I guess I just think that the differences between the denominations are a lot larger then you do. Where the former is excluded for believing crazy unreasonable things, it seems like the latter should also be excluded on that same criteria.
Anyway, if one of the things that the true Christian crowd believe is that everyone is deserving of death then I'm not sure it matters. How can that be justified? Original sin?
>"falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data.
I guess I should have said that their explanation of their experience is not falsifiable. I can't tell if that sound you heard was a ghost or white noise/pareidolia and you can't either.
>Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced
Why should we need to rely on past data? What role does God take in the world today and how can we test for it? God giving GPS directions? Oh yes, I remember. He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know right? "That would take away free will." It has to be a way that can also be explained by causes outside of God.
>Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors
Like how many snakes to wield around at the next meetup or how to best cannibalise the blood and flesh of Jesus? I would think that the person who authored the mathematical laws of the universe would be the one most qualified to write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right? It made it in over stuff like germ theory. Now if you want rank and file, the Islam religion seems to have things going. I don't know anything about them though..
> "your argument is [some are] not true Christians because they do not take their beliefs from [theologians]"
That is not an accurate characterization.
The core of Christianity can be summed up thusly: everyone sins and is controlled by a sinful nature, and therefore everyone deserves death. Christ's death frees us from slavery to sin and redeems us from the deserved penalty of death, and Christ's resurrection "births" us into a new and transformed life (which grows over time.) That transformed life is characterized by love, patience, reconciliation, forgiveness, mercy, humility, and so forth. Certain people are "not true Christians" because they do not display even the slightest hint of that new and transformed life.
Having wrong ideas, even a lot of them, does not disqualify a person from being Christian. Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person from being Christian.
> "write how to perform an exorcism or a laying on of hands in a way that is understandable. That is the important stuff right?"
The "important stuff" is the stuff that gets mentioned repeatedly and gets described in detail. For example, a large percentage of the Bible is dedicated to teaching the concepts listed above. The ideas of sin, death, repentence, resurrection, and transformation are each given significant attention on their own. Additionally, several passages discuss the ideas all together; the book of Romans is a 16 chapter long, well-formed, detailed discussion of those principles.
Exorcism and laying on of hands are very minor, being mentioned on perhaps a dozen separate occasions, none warranting more than a few sentences as small parts of an ongoing narrative; as a whole they might make up a tenth of a percent of the Bible. Even so, when they are talked about, the discussion is very clear and completely understandable. There is no complex ritual surrounding either. Jesus, or someone Jesus has given explicit authority to, simply gives a command to a demon to "come out" or places their hands on someone, and the demon obeys or the sickness is cured. On occasion there is a simple prayer along the lines of "Father, heal this person." That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize.
> "He wants to prove that he exists, but not in a way that we will actually know [because of] free will"
Several times in the Bible, God blatantly shows His presence and power, and yet someone still rejects or disobeys Him. Overwhelming evidence does not render "free will" invalid; proof does not prevent disobedience. God's decision not to offer proof is clearly not about "free will".
I think it's simpler: God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people. Consider Jesus' miracles -- He never performs them as "proof" or in order to show off; He performs them as teaching or as acts of compassion. The few times proof is offered in the Bible, it's to someone who already follows God and is looking for confirmation that a specific message or messenger is from Him, in order to move them to action.
This is consistent with the experiences my friends and I have had. when my friends got GPS-style directions in prayer, they weren't "proof", but a means to an end. When friends gave, or were given, very specific gifts (often to/from strangers) because of a command given during prayer, it wasn't about "proof" but about God meeting someone's needs. When God told me to make myself vulnerable to someone who hated me, it wasn't about "proof", but about showing His love.
God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved -- so the theory is falsifiable. Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not falsifiable; while I would expect ghosts and white noise to make the occasional mistake, they could just get really lucky.
> God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved
That would disprove if that particular person received words from God. It would not disprove if God talks to his followers.
> Amusingly, your counter-explanation of ghosts and white noise is not falsifiable
That's what it was: an example of a falsifiable theory. You told me that I couldn't say that someone's experience isn't falsifiable, I came back saying that their nutty explanation isn't falsifiable.
> God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people.
He sure has a lot of big homes and statues for someone who doesn't want to impress people. Isn't it an even bigger ego trip to make people believe based on his word alone than to provide some sort of proof?
> That all there is to it. Your assertion that they are unclear simply demonstrates that you're unfamiliar with the material you're trying to criticize.
So tell me then, who is authorized to practice it? Do you believe that Pastor Popoff, or anyone else on this planet are able to perform this feat? If you do they could get an easy million dollars from those suckers over at JREF. I say that they are unclear because there is such a great amount of disagreement over the things I listed.
> Living a life that hasn't been transformed by Christ disqualifies a person from being Christian.
I would argue that the lives of the members of the WBC have indeed been perverted by Christ although not with the attributes you have listed. While that tale of human sacrifice always makes me scratch my head, I understand that you believe this process results in the followers living better lives. I have also heard it put that the act of killing Jesus resulted in us being forgiven for our sins rather than unshackled from our innately sinful nature. Anyway following the core of Christianity, even if all Christians did believe in the same core beliefs, doesn't mean that you agree on what parts of scripture trumps other parts of scripture.
(Note--To avoid confusion about sock puppetry, I am Lotharbot's wife; we've been discussing your ongoing conversation a bit, and I wanted to say some things, too.)
> > God continues to act in this world by truthfully instructing His followers. Now, if one person who I trust is His follower says "God told me X", and then X is wrong, the theory would be disproved
> That would disprove if that particular person received words from God. It would not disprove if God talks to his followers.
Actually, it kind of would. I mean, if I judged what was the word of God by what was reliable and true, you'd be right -- that would be circular and immune to any sort of experiment. It would be saying "things that come true come true." And when I was first learning to pray, I did exactly that; I wrote things down, I tested them, I compared them with what I knew and checked them out.
But look, after years of this, I know what the voice of God sounds like. It's pretty common for experienced Christians to say the same. So if someone I knew to be experienced in such matters (or I myself) heard something that turned out to be false or worthless, I wouldn't just say, "Well, I guess that wasn't God." I would have to rewrite major chunks of my worldview.
You have to understand, this experience is so real and constant for me (and for many Christians), that books have been written about what its absence is like.
But I want to be perfectly clear that this is a bit off the beaten path. I think most Christians I have talked to have, once or twice in life, personally observed something that I think is empirically, clearly a miracle: being told specific information they couldn't know, gaining the temporary (or permanent) ability to speak or understand a language they don't know, experiencing very specific shared visions. But let me be clear: This isn't one of the "important things." Faith doesn't revolve around miracles, and isn't built on private revelation. In fact, such things are so far from the center of our faith there is a debate in theology as to whether they occur at all(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuatio...)! Life as a Christian is about faithfulness to Jesus, not divine intervention.
I mean, such experiences generally aren't even used in apologetics -- they're too unverifiable, and too sacred anyway; you want to keep them private. I do mention them when people ask if my faith has any current, rational foundation. But when one seriously wants to talk about the intellectual foundations of Christianity, we go to big, well-documented miracles, like Jesus' resurrection.
>> God is more interested in advancing His goals than impressing people.
> He sure has a lot of big homes and statues for someone who doesn't want to impress people.
A rather tame display for someone who can cause supernovas without breaking a sweat, don't you think? And anyway, I doubt he actually commissioned all of those. They seem to me pretty inconsistent with God's commands to devote our wealth to taking care of the poor.
But perhaps it would be better said that God impresses, but he isn't upset by people who aren't impressed.
Let me give you an example. When Jesus was alive, he did a lot of miracles. (I know you don't agree with that, but roll with it for a second -- I'm trying to show you, based on the story, how he feels about proving himself to people.) Anyway, Jesus did a lot of miracles. He raised people from the dead. He healed incurable disease. He restored birth defects. He walked on water in a storm. At one point, he fed 4,000 people on a few loaves of bread. Right after he finished that, some folks came up to him and said, "When will you give us a sign that you are really from God?"
And he said, "Look, if you don't think what I've done so far counts, then you aren't going to get one."
(Mt. 15:29 - 16:4)
It's like . . . if you've ever argued with a troll, you know there's no such thing as absolute proof. People can explain away anything. There were people who watched Jesus do miracles and didn't follow him.
So what do you do? Well . . . you do pretty much what I'm doing right now with you. You put the information out there. And if they want to explain it away rather than thinking about it, that's on them.
I think God takes that approach, too. There is no shortage of evidence that he is real and acts in history. The content and history of the Bible, the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection, the experience of the modern church, and the origin of the universe -- those are the big ones. But if you're determined not to believe in him, there's no such thing as proof. People say, with Ebeneezer Scrooge, "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato (or a space alien!)". They prefer to believe they are hallucinating over believing that God is speaking to them.
And that's their prerogative.
At the end of the day, I think such resistence isn't based on reason. It's based on emotion. If someone desperately doesn't want God to exist, nothing will prove it to them. And even if God went so far out of his way as to make belief really unavoidable, what would that accomplish? It's not like they'd hate him any less knowing for sure he was real.
> If someone desperately doesn't want God to exist, nothing will prove it to them.
Proof that God exists: everyone in the world wakes up with a plate of cheesecake next to them and a note saying "I'm sorry for all the stuff that's messed up. I'm trying my best. -Yahweh" Done. Just an example. I'm sure an omnipotent omniscient omni-something omni-somethingelse person could figure out something equally convincing if he/she didn't want to do that. The best part is that it would actually be appropriate now that we have video recording and a huge communications network so that future generations won't have to rely on "copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors of which we have no originals" (quote taken from this video youtu.be/DAuFJKQh83Y#t=6m , I really like the show... sometimes).
> There is no shortage of evidence that he is real and acts in history.
None of those things prove the existence God. If you pick a different book the first two could prove that Hogwarts exists. What experience of the modern church? Aren't they the ones having trouble keeping cops away from pedophiles? Lastly, what makes you think that we are going to find out that the origin of the universe (which is not yet known) has been caused by something unnatural/supernatural unlike everything else we have ever discovered?
> I think most Christians I have talked to have, once or twice in life, personally observed something
Personal experience is kind of a strange thing. I don't really know how it relates to proof or evidence. However, I do know that there are people you can go and talk to who will explain how they were abducted by aliens and had children by them. It's not hard to believe that they experienced something, but it is hard to believe their story. I sometimes wonder if the same might happen to me, then I would be one of those crazy people. Anyway, right now I am of the opinion that you need something independently verifiable for it to be considered evidence.
> I know what the voice of God sounds like.
> heard something that turned out to be false or worthless, I wouldn't just say, "Well, I guess that wasn't God."
And you are certain that it isn't from another agent like the devil? People have been communing with the Gods for a long time. I kind of wonder how you evaluate someone else as having that ability. You don't accept that the Oracle of Delphi was legitimate right? Anyway, I think you are right that your claim is closer to out of body experience claims than other unfalsifiable ones. Still though if your claim proves to be false, that doesn't mean that God doesn't talk to humans. That claim is still unfalsifiable. I also have to ask if people can communicate with God then why don't people use that to finally solve all of the differences between the different denominations? Is Jesus really against minimum wage?
Lastly, I didn't want to be a huge bother to anyone. I'm really not trained in any of this so do take my words as someone who is just that. If I say anything sophomoric or otherwise annoying, I'm sorry. If you point it out I will try to explain why I said it and/or apologize again.
> Lastly, I didn't want to be a huge bother to anyone. I'm really not trained in any of this so do take my words as someone who is just that. If I say anything sophomoric or otherwise annoying, I'm sorry. If you point it out I will try to explain why I said it and/or apologize again.
You're not a bother. I believe it's important and worthwhile to talk to people who believe differently than you -- they have different ideas, and can expose weaknesses in your own thinking that you wouldn't expect.
That's why I'm telling you what I actually think, and why I actually think it, even if it sounds dumb. A hostile reader such as yourself provides me a type of critique I can't get from friendly ones.
I've talked to atheists a lot over the years, and I've found the experience enriching. And while I still think you're wrong, I wish the church would listen to you a lot more. Because you're damn right about some of the stuff we do wrong.
> Proof that God exists: everyone in the world wakes up with a plate of cheesecake next to them and a note saying "I'm sorry for all the stuff that's messed up. I'm trying my best. -Yahweh" Done. Just an example.
You think that would work? I don't think it would. It'd be the talked-about event of the century for sure, but I don't think it would make any difference whatsoever in which people believed in God.
Think seriously about it. What would it be like if that actually happened? That and nothing else. If the church still had all the problems it does today. The Bible still had all the problems you perceive. The philosophical arguments against God's existence still apply. He still didn't save your mother/dog/goldfish back in 1998. Just . . . everyone has cheesecake and a note.
You'd credit God with having done that?
Instead of, say . . .
- Some really organized followers of his
- Someone who invented a new, let's say, matter/energy
conversion technology and wanted to play a prank on
the world
- Aliens approximately as advanced as Star Trek
- Mass delusion (everyone made their own cheesecakes
and notes -- maybe it's something in the water?)
- Some extradimensional powerful being that
nonetheless isn't Yahweh. More like Loki.
- Mass hallucination (mind control?) -- it didn't
happen but we all think it did.
- Proof positive that you are, in fact, a brain
in a vat.
- Some unexplained phenomenon that, whatever it might
be, sure as heck ain't God because of all the
problems with that
I mean, weren't you the one earlier in this thread telling lotharbot his mystical experiences could be explained by ghosts?
You know who would interpret it as evidence for God's existence? People who already believe in him. Miracles are like that. They are just another class of evidence; if the other classes aren't persuasive to you, they won't even rock your boat.
There is no such thing as proof in reality. No such thing at all. Philosophers will tell you that you can't prove your mother exists, and they're right.
Proof is too high a standard for real things. In the real world, all we have is evidence.
> You know who would interpret it as evidence for God's existence? People who already believe in him.
And actually, that's probably not even true. If what you described literally happened, I wouldn't entertain for a minute that it was God's work, it being so profoundly unlike him on so many levels.
> There is no shortage of evidence that he is real and acts in history.
I think it's clear from your response that you're not familiar with the broad apologetics topics I'm referring to. Tell you what, let me expand a bit, so you can see what some of the arguments are. These are the things I personally find persuasive.
The content and history of the Bible
- The Bible is completely unique among works of literature in its origin.
It was written over the course of 1500 years, by many different authors,
in three languages, on three continents, in times of war, peace,
famine, plenty, persecution, and exile. It was written by soldiers,
shepherds, statesmen, scholars, fishermen, kings, statesmen,
religious leaders, social outcasts, prisoners, and wealthy men. It
was compiled independently by several separate communities centuries
removed from the authors.
- It nonetheless tells a consistent, coherent story, and its message
develops consistently throughout. It is a serial, not an
anthology. That strikes me as pretty darn amazing. You try
to construct a serial out of famous works across multiple millenia,
continents, cultures, and walks of life.
- No one author or organization has ever even remotely controlled it.
The only one who could have written it is God.
- It is unique among works of scripture in being able to make
these claims. Other scriptures are the work of one author,
one culture, one time.
- In short, the Bible has credentials appropriate for supernatural
origin. If God *did* write a book, the Bible is a reasonable
candidate.
- The Bible is an ancient book, the most modern parts being about as
old as Aristotle. If you go back and read stuff from the era,
it sounds pretty foolish. I mean, you can see some interesting
early ideas, but we've learned a lot since then. What they say
seems silly and outdated. *But we're still talking about the
Bible.* Whoever wrote it had such an insight into humanity that
still find it relevant and insightful after two millenia.
Even with all the changes in culture and knowledge in between.
That seems like a feat worthy of God.
- The Bible contains well-known prophecies that can be validated
by history. Specific old testament prophecy about Jesus
preceded his appearance by several hundred years. (Even
if you assume the dead sea scrolls are the originals, they
still precede him by centuries). The book of Daniel
contains prophecies about later political events in Greece
that are so accurate that some scholars resort to
assuming they are backfilled from the time of Greece (but
this is inconsistent with any other dating for Daniel).
The formation of modern Israel as a state (in 1948) fulfills
old testament prophecy. The destruction of the temple in
70 AD fulfills Jesus' prophecy.
- The message of the new testament, the Gospel, is remarkable
in its effectiveness and adaptability to human circumstance.
Literally the same message that is effective for a
herdsman in Africa is satisfying to a scholar at Oxford.
Criminals, saints, retarded people, healthy people, smart
people, illiterate people, any people anywhere. Writing
such an egalitarian yet relevant plan of salvation is
an amazing feat. It is accessible to everyone, yet
no one is overqualified. It is comprehensible to
everyone, yet no one finds it trite or obvious.
- The Bible is remarkable in its historical accuracy, in
terms of the described geography, the times and founding
of nations, the names of kings, etc. In fact, the
historical elements are so accurate that they have been
used as a guide to locate dig sites in archeology. Yet
it goes from secular history to miraculous accounts
in one breath, the two being integrated in the stories
and hard to separate. It is hard to account for such
a mixture of highly accurate history with fantasy.
The historical fact of Jesus' resurrection
- The resurrection of Jesus is claimed to have taken place
well within the lifetimes of the gospel writers, yet
even hostile witnesses of the era write accounts
consistent with its occurance. This would have been an
immensely difficult message to propogate at the time,
akin to claiming now that John F. Kennedy had risen from
the dead. Moreover, the claimed support for the fact
does not take an authoriarian form, but references
local witnesses. (e.g., not "Paul says so", but
"Ask around, lots of people saw him." )
- The founding of Christianity took place in the midst of
powerful forces wishing to discredit it. As the
resurrection of Jesus was the central fact on which it
rested, it must not have been possible to disprove,
either by the Jewish (religious) authority or by the
Roman (state) authority. The heavily persecuted
church was in no position to perpetrate a fraud.
- The psychological activity of the early church is
consistent with people who believed Jesus had risen from
the dead, and is completely at odds with their own
recorded behavior after his death. They literally
went from scattered and demoralized to boldly inviting
death.
- The choice of Sunday as a day of worship is completely
unexpected for people of a Jewish background, and is
evidence of a major theological event occuring on
a Sunday.
- Eleven of the twelve apostles (founders of Christianity)
were killed for their faith. The twelfth served life
in prison. All of them went to their graves still
claiming the resurrection was a reality.
The experience of the modern church
- Christianity as a religion was explosive at its founding
and is today practiced worldwide. Only two other religions
can make such a claim, both of which are closely related
to Christianity. Something happened thousands of years
ago, and everyone is *still* talking about it and reacting
to it. If God ever did act in history, that scale of
result is appropriate.
- The modern church is filled with people who will say
an encounter with Jesus changed their lives. Not just
spiritually; practically: reformed criminals, selfish
people who have become generous, crazy people who
have become sane, etc. Whatever else you can say
about the gospel, it clearly *works*. This sort of
impact is appropriate for God's central message.
- The modern chuch still experiences miracles and divine
intervention. (Controversial -- I reference my own
experience here.)
- Many famous heroes of history reference Christianity as
the source of their ideas. For example, church organizations
were central in the abolition of slavery.
- Many famous Christian apologists began as atheists who
became convinced of the truth of Christianity through
(initially hostile) study. G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis,
Lee Strobel, to begin with. In fact, I would say this
is more the rule than the exception. This flow of
immigration is appropriate for an intellectually sound
message.
The Origin of the Universe
- The more distantly one goes back in cosmic history,
the more remarkable are the coincidences that that make
human life possible. If this universe wasn't designed
for us, then there must be a HELL of a lot of other,
barren universes out there.
- "First Law" -- As natural laws are simply descriptions
of regularities in nature, they cannot indefinitely
explain themselves. The moon orbits because of gravity,
gravity is caused by something else, etc., but it cannot
be turtles all the way down.
- The laws of the universe are awfully beautiful, certainly
beyond anything we could write. If the universe was
designed, it certainly is the work of a superintelligence
of God's calibur.
That's just off the top of my head; apologetics is a big field.
Of course, all of these and more warrant a lot of study and consideration, and if you go somewhere like infidels.org, you will find answers for all of them (of varying quality). As I say, there is no such thing as proof. But there can be compelling evidence.
I think the most forceful thing to me is really the comprehensive case. Almost across the board, I think the Christian worldview is significantly more intellectually satisfying than the atheist one. Literally, better explanations. The universe looks like God created it, and happily that's what I believe. The atheist explanation has a lot of unverifiable stuff about parallel universes and a lot of "I don't know, I don't have to explain everything." The Bible looks like God wrote it, and happily that's what I believe. I haven't read an atheist explanation for it yet that sounds like the author has actually read the basic history. The Church looks like God runs it, and happily that's what I believe. The atheist explanation makes it pretty clear they have no idea what church even is. My mystical experience looks like communication with God, and happily that's what I believe. The atheist explanation involves waffling and ghosts. Or sometimes aliens.
If it was just one thing, I might say it was a fluke. If those cases that I say look like God's work were vacuous explanations (in the sense that God can do anything), it would be dumb. But look, if you get into the evidence, the Christian worldview is just . . . better. Intellectually, it's way better.
The only advantage to atheism is that you get to look like you're superior to everyone else. If you're a Christian, a lot of people think you're crazy, dumb, or both. I honestly think atheism is sold on pride. And maybe hatred for God, the church, and Christians, at least to judge from the rhetoric. It sure as heck ain't the evidence. If you follow reason wherever it leads, and don't care who ridicules you, you wind up as a Christian. Lots of folks have done just that.
> And you are certain that it isn't from another agent like the devil?
Yeah, pretty sure. Experience. When your mother talks to you, are you sure it's her?
> I kind of wonder how you evaluate someone else as having that ability
They describe a similar experience. It's not all that different from determing that you and someone else know the same person.
> You don't accept that the Oracle of Delphi was legitimate right?
No, of course not. Just because I think there were legitmate prophets, and are people God chooses to speak to today, that doesn't mean I think all such claims are legitimate. In fact, most are bogus. A lot of the Christian ones, even, are bogus.
The existence of pseudoscience in no way leads me to doubt real science, and the existence of pseudoreligion has nothing to do with the reliability of real religion.
> Anyway, I think you are right that your claim is closer to out of body experience claims than other unfalsifiable ones.
Indeed. That's why I don't usually bring it up in apologetics. Sometimes I do, as it gives you an interesting dilemma -- I'm lying, confused, or . . . maybe telepathic space aliens? It's actually a tougher dilemma than it looks like. But I agree, it isn't really accessible evidence to other people. That's not what it's for, anyway.
> Still though if your claim proves to be false, that doesn't mean that God doesn't talk to humans. That claim is still unfalsifiable.
Well, it would mean that God doesn't talk to humans in the way I thought he did. It doesn't falsify the idea that he could sometime, somewhere, I suppose, but it does reduce it to zero evidence. I would have to change my answer from "of course" to "I don't know" plus a reasonable level of skepticism. Practically, I think that's about as good.
> I also have to ask if people can communicate with God then why don't people use that to finally solve all of the differences between the different denominations?
It doesn't work like that. God chooses when, where, and how to speak to us, and what he's going to say. We don't control him; he's the soverign one in the relationship.
Remember what I said earlier, about how faith doesn't revolve around miracles and personal revelation? It doesn't. We are intended to work things out, to work with evidence and history and reason. This is an age of scripture and faith, not prophets and temples. What God does supernaturally in people's lives . . . believe or not, that's at the fringe of modern Christian experience. It's not the core. And that's by his choice.
> Is Jesus really against minimum wage?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I never claimed to know. You mean, would I ask him for you? No. It doesn't work that way.
The current subthread was touched off by your statement about "unreasonable" Christians relying on "experience" that you consider inadequate. So I ask, how would a reasonable person in my position weigh this evidence:
I, and many of my friends, have stated that during prayer they were given specific commands or information, which they followed. The details were often surprising, often things we had no way of knowing, and always accurate or impressive in some way. Two friends were given GPS-style directions to places they'd never been before or even heard of. Several friends were told to give certain items to certain people; those people consistently reported dire need for those exact items. Several friends have been the recipients of such gifts -- for example, a guy none of us knew showed up at our church with hand-painted blue figurines from a particular Warhammer faction saying God told him to give them to a church; this was the exact set of figurines a friend had asked for as a Christmas gift, in the right color, which his family could not even remotely afford.
Certainly, in order to convince you or some other outsider I'd need independently verifiable evidence. Otherwise you can argue we're lying or hallucinating. But the question I asked is about someone in my position -- how should I weigh the evidence? I know I personally am not lying. I trust every one of my friends whose stories I've referenced. Most are college educated, including several with graduate degrees in technical fields, and none are prone to jump to conclusions. I have no indication (aside from these stories) that any of us suffer from hallucinations, paranoia, or other psychological issues; it's not like the guy on the back of the bus talking about alien abductions and lasers burning his legs and not knowing what city he's in.
You might be inclined to say that the data isn't statistically significant, that it's cherry picked. But I'm a mathematician; I know some things about data. Many of the experiences I'm talking about are very low probability. When people cherry pick low probability events from a broad data set, a particular pattern emerges: for every perfect hit, there are an order of magnitude more borderline hits, and another order of magnitude more near misses. For every Warhammer figurines story, there would be a dozen "God told me to give this tractor to your church" "we don't need a tractor but I guess we'll take it and let it sit for years until we eventually sell it" stories -- but I've asked around, and nobody has stories like that. There are no borderline hits or near misses; every experience my friends have been able to call to mind has been a perfect hit.
You might be inclined to argue that it's not actually God, but some other source -- white noise, ghosts, telepathic space aliens, the devil, or some combination. Whatever the source, it has the attributes of always being right, knowing or being able to influence the future, viewing love, compassion, and truth as tremendously important, and representing itself as Yahweh to me and my friends. While I cannot prove it actually is Yahweh (after all, it could be very lucky white noise), wouldn't it be reasonable for a person in my position to call it Yahweh until given good reason not to?
My earlier contention was that if someone I trust as God's follower were to report Him telling them X, and then X turned out wrong, that it would disprove my theory. Consider the above discussion to be a more detailed version of my theory -- I would certainly have to reject the theory as currently understood (thus, it is falsifiable), and instead make significant modifications to some part of it. It would be a really, really big deal if even one of those experiences turned out badly.
I also want to reiterate: this isn't the core of Christian experience. The core is a transformed life. This is stuff that just happens from time to time and is kind of cool, but God doesn't seem terribly interested in trying to use it as "proof". That's the context in which I originally brought it up -- demonstrating that the modern actions I've seen God take, like the ancient actions in the Biblical record, are more about Him accomplishing some specific goal than about impressing anybody.
> "I'm sorry for all the stuff that's messed up ... -Yahweh"
I previously noted that some people who have been faced with overwhelming evidence of the existence of God still choose not to follow Him. My wife, similarly, made the point that "it's not like [some people would] hate him any less knowing for sure he is real." Thus, God trying to "prove" Himself to those who don't want to follow Him is pointless, and He shows no interest in doing so.
Your above quote demonstrates this perfectly. Even if God proved His existence, you consider Him to have messed up or to have done a poor job. I've heard others call God bigoted, intolerant, cruel, petty, and a number of other perjoratives. If the God you say such things about proved Himself to be real, it wouldn't change the fact that you think He kind of sucks. So what would be the point of God proving Himself to you?
-------------
With the big stuff out of the way, a couple of minor points:
> "copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors of which we have no originals"
Any decent modern Bible translation goes directly from the original languages. It's not copies of copies of translations of copies; it's just translations of copies. More accurately, it's usually translations of scholarly reconstructions -- since we have copies from such a wide geographic area, we can actually do a really good job tracking down even very minor changes and making reasonable, evidence-based determinations as to the most likely original. (The process of making such determinations is called "textual criticism"; look it up if you're interested.) This is generally considered a solved problem.
> "the lives of the members of the WBC have indeed been perverted by Christ"
At best, their lives have been influenced by an extremely distorted misunderstanding of Christ. They certainly haven't been transformed by an actual, direct interaction with Christ; they certainly haven't experienced the supernatural change of character that I referenced as core to Christianity. They certainly don't display attitudes that are remotely similar to Christ.
> "who is authorized to practice it?"
I don't know if anybody presently has the authority to practice either healing or exorcism. I don't see any indication from the recorded instances of it in scripture that God would allow it to happen as part of an ego-driven "proof" to a group like JREF. I also don't see any reason to think that someone who could perform those things would be interested in JREF's money.
> "even if all Christians did believe in the same core beliefs, doesn't mean that you agree on what parts of scripture trumps other parts of scripture"
Right. That's what I've been saying all thread long. That's why I'm a pacifist and my wife was a defense contractor -- a tiny disagreement on which of two statements has the higher priority.
I think it's actually a good thing. I think God is interested in developing mature followers who weigh and consider and make tradeoffs. He wants us to grow, not to stagnate.
You can find a draft of my point by point here http://pastebin.com/ae8Wvazc but I warn you that it will be a boring and not well put together read. I was planning on rewriting it or cutting it up and then appending it as a reply to each of the responses I got but I don't want to spam out this board and I don't want to go over everything again. Also sorry for responding so much later. I both love and hate getting into internet arguments. It always makes me anxious and stuff.. Anyway..
So your main concern is that I said that an unreasonable person would be someone who takes personal experience as evidence. My answer to that is two fold. First I have already said that the types of claims you and your wife are referring to do merit the same status as out of body experiences. That those claims are not testable and that I don't really know how it relates to evidence. So there you go. I do know that the brain is very malliable and that the way the brain experiences things are not exactly clear cut to us at this point. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/09/wiring_the_brain So while I wouldn't take things that you might have experienced to be evidence for God I don't think that you or people like you are unreasonable. Your type of experience however is not what I was talking about when I first broght this up. I'm talking about the people who hear the house settling and they think it is Ghosts. (I wasn't talking about you when I said this or later when I was giving an example of a falsifiable theory.) Or the presidental canidate who thinks the hurricane is a message to politicians. I was talking about how absurd it is to think that there is a majority group of Christians out there who want to rationally talk about their beliefs and in any way have them challenged. That point and your other point that groups that do terrible things are not Christians are the two main things that I disagree with you. Christians that do terrible things are still Christians just like atheists who do terrible things are still atheists too. In fact, alien worshippers could also be considered atheist. I use the term atheist to mean skeptical freethinker. I think you use the term Christian to mean true Christian. That there is actually additional criteria that you are applying to the term that wasn't there before. Otherwise, what, we would have to rewrite every single history book about every single unenlightened group? Christians are generally a wonderful group of people, especially those that actually know a thing or two about the Bible. I'm not and would never say the opposite. I just think that the crazies also fall under the same banner.
@Dove
"I don't know" is a perfectly good and, best of all, honest answer to some of the questions we have today. I'm almost certian you are of the belief that we can't understand God fully right? So I don't see why not knowing something is such a terrible thing. I am of the opinion that the evidence will lead you away from sources that claim to know about the unknowable especially when those sources need to rely on threats of eternal punishment. I imagine that terrible business might influence some thinkers like Pascal but if you stick to the evidence, the story will be different. As far as atheistic belief relying on vain things and Christians beliefing things despite riticule: the last I heard is that the statistic is like 93% of people believe in God. Is it also the case that atheists are still the most hated group in America? Either way, peer pressure doesn't work that way. If you want pride you will find it on any side of any argument, just as you will find smarmy repugnent a-holes, and complete idiots. I'm sorry that you seem to have had many bad encounters. All I can say is that it seems like it is easy to become embittered on the internet by all of the rampent inflamatory crap on here. Sorry.
> No, I can’t sue anybody because nothing that has been done publicly is in violation of any enforceable law
I'm not specifically familiar with Canadian law, but isn't its legal system descended from and greatly influences by English common law (well, except for Quebec)? There should be a few common law tort causes of action that would work here.
If I were Dave, I would post on a website "Please forgive my brother Anthony. He is mentally ill and unfortunately given the current laws, there is nothing I can do to help him."
