Theism vs. Atheism - Experience or Interpretation?

[Diogenes' Dog]

Do theists and atheists have different experiences, or do they just interpret common experiences in different ways?

If after prayer someone is cured of cancer - a theist sees a miracle, an atheist sees a chance outcome. Saul's conversion - an atheist sees an epileptic seizure, a theist (including Paul) sees the work of God. Is unequivocal religious experience possible?

Is faith primarily an interpretation invoking God, or does having faith itself lead to a new set of experiences or realisations? I know what I believe, but what do you think and why?

 

[(Q)]

I would be interested to know how it is exactly theists know a god was at work?

If one never saw a duck before and one waddled across their path, how are they to know it's a duck?

If after prayer someone dies, how does one know it was a god that took his life, refused to cure him, or it was simply natural causes?

What gives anyone reason to think a god did it when sometimes it works in their favor and sometimes it doesn't? How can anyone think its not probability?

btw - I don't ever recall anyone being cured of cancer after prayer?

 

[imaplanck.]

InteRESTing matter of note is that pilgrims to lourdes have the same rate of recovery as people who stay at home and watch lez vids. The concentration of terminally ill people visiting weighed up against the few but highly publicized as miracle cases just goes over the head of people who want to believe.
Yet theorists when ever asked always protest to be intelligent enquiring individuals.

 

[S.A.M.]

Experience or Interpretation?

Both.

--- Ron.

Yes.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

InteRESTing matter of note is that pilgrims to lourdes have the same rate of recovery as people who stay at home and watch lez vids. The concentration of terminally ill people visiting weighed up against the few but highly publicized as miracle cases just goes over the head of people who want to believe.
Yet theorists when ever asked always protest to be intelligent enquiring individuals.

Scientific evaluations of healing brought about by intercessory prayer seem very mixed. See Wiki on Prayer. I suspect that the bias of the experimenters was not always sufficiently excluded - perhaps they cannot be. I would be interested in your references regarding Lourdes imaplanck?

I don't ever recall anyone being cured of cancer after prayer?

There are a number of cases of 'spontaneous remissions', sometimes associated with prayer or miracle healings. You might be interested in this fairly balanced essay on miraculous cancer cures.

If after prayer someone dies, how does one know it was a god that took his life, refused to cure him, or it was simply natural causes?

What gives anyone reason to think a god did it when sometimes it works in their favor and sometimes it doesn't? How can anyone think its not probability?

The traditional answer is that all prayer is answered, but not always with a "yes". Part of the belief is that prayer always helps, though maybe in unexpected ways. In cases where someone dies, the "help" is presumably psychological. However, I am not sure I find this answer totally satisfactory because I'm not convinced the outcome when someone dies is better. Perhaps perplexity or samcdkey can answer this? I think I've been exposed to sciforums too long!

 

[SycknesS]

Whoops accidentally voted for #2, meant to vote for #1. I think it's mostly just different interpretations, aside from the whole going to church...etc...

 

[Raithere]

Scientific evaluations of healing brought about by intercessory prayer seem very mixed.

You're being too kind. There's nothing mixed about it. There is no effect.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47143&page=4&pp=20

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

Diogenes' dog

Well I can only answer that in Islam life or death is from God, so we generally do not pray to extend life, we pray to ease suffering; we do not, I'm afraid, hope for miracles. If a person recovers, it means his/her life is not yet completed, if he dies we say,

Innalillahi wa inna ilaihi raji'un
To Allah we belong and truly to Him we shall return

We also use this dua if we cannot find something we have lost.

 

[nubianconcubine]

We also use this dua if we cannot find something we have lost.

i should try that. i lose things often.


i voted "other view" because i don't really see a difference between the two. an experience to me is nothing more than an interpretation of whatever happened. that whole stimulus being the way you process it. what you see is what your brain tells you you see after you filter in the lightwaves. what you hear is what your brain tells you you heard after you filter in the sound waves, etc.
as far as the power of prayer goes, either it works or i'm one lucky motherfu-shut yo' mouth! i'm just talking about...and all that.

 

[(Q)]

There are a number of cases of 'spontaneous remissions', sometimes associated with prayer or miracle healings. You might be interested in this fairly balanced essay on miraculous cancer cures.

From the link:

"These are just two examples out of many; what we need for a "genuine" miracle is recovery from some accident or illness in which no spontaneous cure has ever been shown to occur. But cancer doesn't fit the bill.

I therefore think that, although there are well-attested instances of spontaneous recovery from cancer within a religious or paranormal context, this is not convincing evidence for divine intervention. The fact that a patient recovers after having been prayed for does not prove that the prayer was responsible for the recovery."

The traditional answer is that all prayer is answered, but not always with a "yes". Part of the belief is that prayer always helps, though maybe in unexpected ways. In cases where someone dies, the "help" is presumably psychological. However, I am not sure I find this answer totally satisfactory because I'm not convinced the outcome when someone dies is better. Perhaps perplexity or samcdkey can answer this? I think I've been exposed to sciforums too long!

Then, as you submit, prayer is pointless since the outcome is still a probability, as is with no prayer.

And if you contend that it doesn't hurt to pray and that it's worthwhile to ask regardless of the outcome, then I would ask why not just stand on one leg with a bag over your head clucking like a chicken? The results will be the same under probability, but at least the person who may be dying could have a good laugh before they go.

 

[nubianconcubine]

You sorting yourself out then?

A friend of mine used to fix a printed sign to the front of his guitar that he played on stage:

"You live the live you choose"

It is good advice.

--- Ron.

i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "sorting" myself out? that could have any number of interpretations. hey there's that word again! if you mean with the doc, then yes. if you mean as far as taking all the credit for a good life, then yes and no. sorry, dude. still can't take all the credit for it.
but the advice is sound and i'll use it.

 

[baumgarten]

Then, as you submit, prayer is pointless since the outcome is still a probability, as is with no prayer.

Not necessarily. Here is an overly simplistic counterexample.

"Then, as you submit, asking me a favor is pointless since the outcome is still a probability, as is with not asking me a favor."

If one assumes God exists and is omniscient, then it is only pointless to pray if it is also pointless to ask anyone who already knows of your plight for help. Of course, this includes a number of additional assumptions about the nature of God and proper prayer that some would argue aren't safe to make. For example, one might posit that the point of prayer is not to get what you want but to make yourself open to understanding the decisions of God; by asking God for guidance, you suggest to yourself that his will is right no matter what, and therefore he will help you not necessarily to attain what you desire but to attain what is good. If God is the source of morality, then this is a reasonable position. It also reconciles nicely with many an atheistic world view in that both a theist with this second viewpoint and one who sees himself as part of a chaotic system of interactions will agree that most events are out of their control. It seems to me that these are two different interpretations of a single self-evident truth, which is why I chose the first poll option. I am hesitant to deny that the experiences are different because I don't think it has been firmly established what constitutes an experience in this context and how they can differ.

 

[lightgigantic]

If you acept that a theist has applied a branch of knowledge than obviouly there is a difference - just like here is adifference in observations between a doctor and a green grocer

 

[(Q)]

Not necessarily. Here is an overly simplistic counterexample.

"Then, as you submit, asking me a favor is pointless since the outcome is still a probability, as is with not asking me a favor."

If one assumes God exists and is omniscient, then it is only pointless to pray if it is also pointless to ask anyone who already knows of your plight for help. Of course, this includes a number of additional assumptions about the nature of God and proper prayer that some would argue aren't safe to make. For example, one might posit that the point of prayer is not to get what you want but to make yourself open to understanding the decisions of God; by asking God for guidance, you suggest to yourself that his will is right no matter what, and therefore he will help you not necessarily to attain what you desire but to attain what is good. If God is the source of morality, then this is a reasonable position. It also reconciles nicely with many an atheistic world view in that both a theist with this second viewpoint and one who sees himself as part of a chaotic system of interactions will agree that most events are out of their control. It seems to me that these are two different interpretations of a single self-evident truth, which is why I chose the first poll option. I am hesitant to deny that the experiences are different because I don't think it has been firmly established what constitutes an experience in this context and how they can differ.

If someone asks to be pulled from a burning building in order to save their life, it is not pointless to ask that favor, since most likley the request will be fulfilled. However, those who ask god to pull them from the same burning building will most likely die, showing that god doesn't exist.

How many of the tens of thousands who died in a tsunami prayed for god to save them? Was god the source of morality here?

How many of the thousands of children who die each day from starvation prayed for food? Was living a good thing they hoped to attain?

 

[baumgarten]

If someone asks to be pulled from a burning building in order to save their life, it is not pointless to ask that favor, since most likley the request will be fulfilled. However, those who ask god to pull them from the same burning building will most likely die, showing that god doesn't exist.

That's a rather wide gap to jump. The initial assumption in this case, for sake of argument, is that God does exist, which means that you want to show that there is no possible way that he could. However, your example here only illustrates God's failure to answer the prayers of people trapped in a burning building. This does not necessarily mean that he does not exist.

Perhaps your point is that since God is supposed to be the source of morality, his failure to save people from a burning building is immoral and shows that no God who is the source of morality can exist. However, this implies the assumption that God's sense of morality is the same as yours. But not everyone has the same sense of morality; why should God only agree with you?

A popular theistic viewpoint is that God is the Father and knows best; therefore, an "Act of God" (like a burning building or a tsunami) is ultimately right, even if you don't agree. The implication is that one should accept it and move on. This goes back to the point about prayer not necessarily being about getting what you want, but more about recognizing that a single person doesn't have control over the kinds of events you mentioned.

Of course, the special implication in the theistic interpretation is that not only are these events out of your control, but they are also inherently good. Atheistic interpretations do not generally address the morality of situations beyond the control of man, as they feel morality should not be applied to the natural world. Therein lies the primary difference among these interpretations as they apply to the fact of lack of ultimate control.

 

[(Q)]

That's a rather wide gap to jump. The initial assumption in this case, for sake of argument, is that God does exist, which means that you want to show that there is no possible way that he could. However, your example here only illustrates God's failure to answer the prayers of people trapped in a burning building. This does not necessarily mean that he does not exist.

Fair enough, but it would appear he never has saved people from natural disasters, so if he did exist, perhaps nature is beyond his power to control.

Perhaps your point is that since God is supposed to be the source of morality, his failure to save people from a burning building is immoral and shows that no God who is the source of morality can exist. However, this implies the assumption that God's sense of morality is the same as yours. But not everyone has the same sense of morality; why should God only agree with you?

Isn't it the other way round? Shouldn't my morality agree with him? It obviously does not since I would do everything in my 'power' to save them, hence my morality is far superior to his.

For example, in the case of Abraham and his son, I would not stoop to asking someone to test their faith in me by killing their own son. Or in the case of Noah, I wouldn't wipe out the entire planets population just to make a clean slate. In fact, I've often called for the irradication of religion, but certainly not the people who practice it.

A popular theistic viewpoint is that God is the Father and knows best; therefore, an "Act of God" (like a burning building or a tsunami) is ultimately right, even if you don't agree. The implication is that one should accept it and move on.

Sorry, but that is impossible to accept from a "Father" figure who apparently thinks allowing tens of thousands of people to be wiped out in a flash is "ultimately right." Or did that god take the time to make sure all the evil people were in the right place at the right time?

This goes back to the point about prayer not necessarily being about getting what you want, but more about recognizing that a single person doesn't have control over the kinds of events you mentioned.

True, but that wouldn't hold for a god.

Of course, the special implication in the theistic interpretation is that not only are these events out of your control, but they are also inherently good.

How can they be inherently good, that really makes no sense.

Atheistic interpretations do not generally address the morality of situations beyond the control of man, as they feel morality should not be applied to the natural world. Therein lies the primary difference among these interpretations as they apply to the fact of lack of ultimate control.

True, that is why man is compassionate and caring while gods are not.

 

[nubianconcubine]

Isn't it the other way round? Shouldn't my morality agree with him?

no. your morality is one aspect of your will. you have free will to do as you please, good or bad. that is why in theististic circles those who do good are rewarded.

Or in the case of Noah, I wouldn't wipe out the entire planets population just to make a clean slate.

you will most likely see this is as all the more reason to eradicate religion but...
God would eradicate the population if it was all bad. you'll notice that He saved noah and his family because they were the only good ones left. the rest He destroyed because they'd all succumbed to wickedness which brings me to...

Sorry, but that is impossible to accept from a "Father" figure who apparently thinks allowing tens of thousands of people to be wiped out in a flash is "ultimately right." Or did that god take the time to make sure all the evil people were in the right place at the right time?

...abraham, is it?...the guy who lived in soddam or gamhorah(?). God sent him and his family away before raining fire down on the place.

 

[baumgarten]

Isn't it the other way round? Shouldn't my morality agree with him? It obviously does not since I would do everything in my 'power' to save them, hence my morality is far superior to his.

Whose morality isn't most superior in his own eyes?

 

[(Q)]

no. your morality is one aspect of your will. you have free will to do as you please, good or bad. that is why in theististic circles those who do good are rewarded.

Well, they imagine they're rewarded.

you will most likely see this is as all the more reason to eradicate religion but...
God would eradicate the population if it was all bad. you'll notice that He saved noah and his family because they were the only good ones left. the rest He destroyed because they'd all succumbed to wickedness which brings me to...

Small children, babies, the infirm all succumbed to wickedness? Every single person on earth except noah and his family? Yeah, right.

...abraham, is it?...the guy who lived in soddam or gamhorah(?). God sent him and his family away before raining fire down on the place.

No, but thanks for reminding of yet another "moral" act by god.

 

[(Q)]

Whose morality isn't most superior in his own eyes?

Theists, that's part of the problem.