Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

Over at the “Why so friggin confident?” thread there became apparent a superficial but nevertheless significant split in the hardcore Christian position.There were those that considered their theistic beliefs to be ultimately founded in objective, physical, empirical evidence (Bertot, Buzsaw?)And there were those who considered internal, subjective “God has revealed himself to me personally” type “evidence” to be at the root of their faith (John 10.10, ICANT).Each side claimed that there was no conflict between the two positions and that any differentiation was irrelevant because the objective evidence supported their internal “knowledge” (or vice versa).But this split in claimed starting position and emphasis between the two camps was undeniably present.The aim of this thread is to provide an opportunity for that discussion to continue but with slightly more focus on this (perceived?) split in the theistic perspective.So I ask of our hardcore theistic contingent: (ICANT, Bertot, Bailey, Iano, Buz, John 10:10, Jaywill? Etc. etc. etc.)QUESTIONS
1) Which came first for you personally (honestly) - Belief in God/Jesus/Bible or knowledge of the empirical evidence that you consider to support this position?2) Are your beliefs the result of rational and objective conclusions based on physical evidence which have been confirmed by your relationship with God OR are your beliefs based on your relationship with God which you deem to have been confirmed by the objective physical evidence available? Which way round is it?3) Could you maintain your faith in the absence of any objective empirical evidence that supports this position? (I.e. how faithful are you?)4) If the objective empirical evidence which you deem to support your beliefs were present but the relationship with God side of your faith was absent would you still believe as you do? (I.e. is the empirical evidence alone enough to maintain your position?)5) Is empirical evidence or subjective knowledge of God's presence the root basis of your beliefs?
END QUESTIONSSUMMARY
Ultimately I am trying to determine whether those advocating the more extreme Christian position think that it is possible for anyone who does not, and never will have, a personal and subjective relationship with God to draw the same conclusions that they have from the empirical evidence alone? Or is a degree of irrational belief essential?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So any "hardcore" theists willing to take part?Are your beliefs empirically confirmed? Or is the empirical evidence confirmed by your relationship with God?

It is quite possible to entertain the idea that God exists but to not have a subjective personal relationship with him. Surely this would be the position of anyone who considers themself to be an agnostic?Do you think that the empirical evidence available alone is enough to convince an agnostic?
Or can only one who first has a subjective relationship with God be convinced that the empirical evidence also points in this same theistic direction?That is the question.
We are not talking about those who would deny God under all circumstances. We are considering those who do not have a personal relationship with God but who find empirical evidence convincing. Wherever that empirical evidence may lead. Let's assume that we are talking about those who are uninterested in having a personal relationship with God but who nevertheless are open to the idea of his existence if the objective facts point in this direction.Do you think that the objective evidence available is sufficient to convince these people that God does indeed exist?
Or must the empirical evidence be viewed through the eyes of one who already knows that God exists in order to make sense in this context?Which is it?So far we have ICANT and Iano essentially advocating that the subjective personal relationship with God is the starting point and focus of their faith.2 - 0 to the "internals" so far then.
Any out there who consider objective empirical evidence as the starting point and/or basis for their theistic beliefs? Bertot? Buz?

Are you saying that God's presence can be deduced from empirical evidence alone?Or are you saying that belief in God is first required in order to deduce that the empirical evidence confirms God's existence?Which way round is it?Maybe if you answered the questions in the OP your position would be clearer.As things stand it justs seems that you are evading the question at hand.

Yourself and Iano are at least consistent in that neither of you are particularly concerned as to whether empirical evidence confirms your beliefs or even exists at all.There are undeniably weaknesses regarding conclusions derived exclusively from subjective experience. The massively increased possibility and potential for delusion in the case of all subjective non-verifiable conclusions as compared to their objective empirical equivalent being the obvious point to make.But both yourself and Iano both have a much more considered approach to faith than say Buz or Bertot who will claim empirical evidence as the basis of their beliefs in one breath whilst stating that you can only see the "truth" that this evidence points to if you already believe in God in their next breath.Bertot's claim in the "Friggin Confident" thread that theistic conclusions and scientific conclusions are both based on exactly the same forms of evidence would seem to have been largely refuted by most of the comments by theists in this thread so far.

Thus we have an unequivocal declaration from an adamant theist that the existence of God cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone.

The whole differentiation between objective empirical evidence and purely subjective evidence is the ability to independently verify one form but not the other.If you are claiming to have "seen" meteors which nobody else saw and for which there is no other objective empirical evidence in favour of then I would class this as subjective "evidence".Your meteor and your God are thus equally unevidenced in any objective terms.

Yes. The size of meteor that you are talking about would both have been very obviously trackable and would aso have left some objective evidence behind if it had indeed landed.So either a massive meteor popped into existence to be witnessed by you and you alone before popping back out of existence again OR you did not actually see what you think you saw.Maybe you saw something that night. Maybe you imagined it completely. I don't know. But it seems deeply unlikely that whatever it was that you think you saw was in fact a huge meteor. Well it is arguably more likely that a single individual is deluded than a group of 70,000 people. But experiences are inherently not objective no matter how many people we are talking about. Throw in some group psychology, mass hysteria, confirmation bias etc. etc. etc. and you end up with something that has very definitely not been independently verified.The Sun is a fairly significant object in our solar system and has a rather profound effect on our planet. If something happens to it we tend to notice. If something happens to the Sun itself it will be noticed by more than 70,000 people in Portugal!!Maybe they saw "something". Maybe they did not. Given the large number of people it seems relatively likely that "something" occurred but it also seems sensible to conclude that this was relatively localised rather than "something" that actually happened to the Sun itself. But no matter how many people we are talking about in the absence of objective empirical evidence to back up this claim there is little reason to assume that a religious miracle has occurred.Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. No. Well actually in museums I have seen some fairly large fragments. I have seen a couple of very large craters though. Craters, fragments, photos and the fact that all of this evidence is potentially available for all to examine and study independently. I have read books that discuss meteors. But a book that told me about meteors but which also said that the only source of evidence for meteors which anyone could now have was the book itself would be very unconvincing evidence for the existence of meteors in objective terms.Most books about meteors discuss at great length the independently verifiable empirical evidence available for specific meteors. I haven't strictly met you and I don't think that what you saw was a massive meteor anyway. But the answer to your question is no. Numbers have less to do with it than the nature of the evidence itself. The nature of reality is not derived from a democratic vote!! The key to objective evidence is that it is independently and objectively verifiable.Consider the colour red. I have no idea how you perceive the colour red. This is internal and subjective to you. Likewise you can never know what I perecive when I see the colour red.But regardless of subjective perception "red" is an external property that we can objectively define and independently verify.Imagine an experiment. You are locked alone in a windowless room and asked to identify all of the objects on a table that are red. Your answers are recorded. Now you leave the room, I enter and I repeat this exercise. The exercise is again repeated by Percy. But Percy is blindfolded. Percy is our control. The three sets of results are compared. It turns out that we both independently labelled the same objects as red whilst blindfolded Percy labelled a few objects as we did but many others differently. Thus we can conclude that we are both consistently and objectively using the term 'red' to describe light of a certain wavelength.No matter that our indvidual perception of the colour red is subjective we can confidently declare that 'red' is an objective and independently verifiable property that can be consistently identified by the two of us.The evidence for meteors, like the definition of the colour red, can be objectively and independently verified.The "evidence" for your meteor experience, the Portuguese miracle or God himself cannot. Such things are akin to the individual and unknowable subjective perception of the colour red without the ability to independently verify what is actually meant in terms of an external reality.God is a subjective conclusion.
Meteors (those other than your "personal" meteor anyway) are an objective conclusion.That is the difference. I may or may not be on the lunatic fringe but the nature of reality will not be determined by a majority vote in either case.

Hey Buz Cheers. I should've know that there would be a "but". The idea of empirical evidence as opposed to internal "evidence" is absolutely key to the direction that this discussion is likely to take. I don't think so.I am completely unaware of any established scientific theories that are not grounded in empirical evidence. Evidence that is empirical and objective in the sense that it physically exists in a reality common to all.The fringes of modern physics contain some unverified hypotheses but these will not be accepted by the scientific community as having been evidenced until they have been verified by the observation of predicted empirical results. I am not really one for basing arguments on dictionary definitions. Scientific evidence is indisputably empirical in nature by any common definition of the term. Scientific evidence is also objective and independently verifiable as descibed here: Empirical scientific evidence, like the definition of the colour red, can be objectively and independently verified. It is linked to an external property of an objective reality common to all.Subjective "evidence" such as feeling God's presence cannot be objectively and independently verified. It is purely internal and thus subjective. Such things are akin to our individual and unknowable subjective perception of the colour red BUT without the ability to independently verify what is actually meant in terms of an external reality.That is the fundamental difference in the nature of empirical evidence and non-empirical "evidence" as far as I am concerned. I enjoyed your description of you finding faith. It is well written, honest and obviously heartfelt.I would summarise your position in terms of the OP questions as the followng:Physical evidence (biblical predictions coming true in your eyes) first drew you towards God.
Then you formed a relationship with God.
Having formed a relationship with God you were then able to view further empirical evidence in light of this thus confirming your existing belief further.
You now consider your inner "knowledge" of God and the empirical evidence that you consider to support this belief all but inseperable.Is that fair?In order to determine whether empirical or non-empirical evidence is now more important in your eyes I would ask a further question:IF it could be conclusively demonstrated by empirical means that the flood never happened, the Noah's ark never existed, that the BB took place, that abiogenesis is a common natural occurrance in the universe, that evolution of new species is happening continually and that none of the remaining biblical prophecies were likely to come true would you still believe in God as you do now?Or does your inner "knowledge" of God not even allow you to contemplate such a scenario?

Well some beliefs are more grounded and less prone to being the product of delusion than others. Empirical scientific evidence can be objectively and independently verified. It is linked to an external property of an objective reality common to all. E.g. we can both agree that an object is red in colour, we can both independently measure the wavelength of light that relates to that which we label red.Despite this I have no idea how you are actually perceiving the colour red internally and subjectively. All we can claim is that we are both consistently labelling an external property of an objective shared reality.Subjective "evidence" such as feeling God's presence cannot be objectively and independently verified. It is purely internal and thus subjective. Such things are akin to our individual and unknowable subjective perception of the colour red BUT without the ability to independently verify what is actually meant in terms of an external reality.That is the fundamental difference in the nature of empirical evidence and non-empirical "evidence" as far as I am concerned. This is an irrational subjective belief only. It is highly open to delusion as there is no empirical test that can be done or aspect of objective common relaity that can be agreed upon. I like apple pie. I don't like carrot cake. Subjectively speaking I know that apple pie is better than carrot cake. Subjectively speaking this is a truth that you cannot deny.My subjective "knowledge" tells us nothing about the relative merits of apple pie and carrot cake in any objective sense. My preference is purely subjective and essentially irrational. I just prefer one to the other. End of story.I assume that you subjectively know that God exists.But your subjective knowledge tells us no more about the existence of God in any objective common shared reality than does my preference for apple pie. A subjective knowledge of God is thus irrational in the sense that it exists no-where but inside your own head and just is with no further basis or rationale available. Science is about testing conclusions. By testing conclusions we can hone in on the most reliable conclusion possible. You use this form of thinking every single day without even noticing. Science just takes it to the extreme end of scepticism and verification.For example if your car won't start what might you think? Flat battery? Try the headlights. They still work perfectly. So not a flat battery then. What else? Ignition? How can we test the ignition.......? Etc. etc. etc.Hypothesis and testing to reach reliable tested verified conclusions. But only empirical conclusions and results can be rendered reliable in this way because non-empirical conclusions cannot be objectively tested.Faith based "methodology" is more akin to deciding it must be the battery because you somehow irrationally know this to be the case, purchasing and replacing the battery and then not actually starting the car as you know it will now work anyway.Tested conclusions. That is the key. Nobody in their right mind is randomly drawing conclusions by guessing probabilities as you seem to be asserting!! Form your hypothesis (educated guess if you will). Devise the most objective and difficult test of your hypothesis that you can conceive of. Test your hypothesis. If it fails the test reject it and start over.No faith involved.I guess from your misconceived notion that scientific theories are simply plucked fully formed out of people's arses that you have never actually undertaken any scientific investigation yourself? I am sure that you subjectively believe this to be an excellent and argument clinching point. Unfortunately I have no idea what you are talking about. Well there is absolutely no rational, empirical, objective evidence based reason to think that it will.But if you want to discuss this specifically you should start a new thread as it is not particularly on topic here. An ability to provide unevidenced irrational answers and to claim certainty where only ignorance can seriously exist is neither particularly noble nor impressive.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes we know.But which came first?Did the empirical evidence cause you to subjectively seek God?Or did your subjective "knowledge" of God allow you to see the empirical evidence for what it "really" is.Which way round is it?Can one who does not want a relationship with God but who is quite prepared to consider his existence in objective terms be convinced by the empirical evidence alone?That is the question that we are trying to answer here.

How did I know you were going to say that? So according to you the empirical evidence inevitably and obviously leads to the conclusion that God exists.BUTWe can only see that this evidence leads to the conclusion that God exists if we view the evidence through the lense of complete faith in God's existence.Is that what you are saying? I want to know if God actually exists.
Even if he does exist I am not interested in having a personal relationship with him.
I simply want to establish whether God exists or not.Why does that vex you so much? Why do you consider that stance so unreasonable?

Well we could argue over dictionary definitions all day long.The key to productive debate is communication and understanding. For this reason I gave a fairly detailed example of the conceptual distinctions I am talking about in my colour red example. I have conceptually described what I mean by empirical, objective and independently verifiable evidence that exists in a reality common to all. It is the concepts not the words that are important.As far as I am aware all scientific theories are based on such evidence. Whatever words we use to describe that form of evidence the concepts remain the same. Some forms of evidence are just inherently more reliable whatever label is used.Whether we agree on the words used surely we are capable of grasping the concepts and thus differentiating between "evidence" of the "God has revealed himself to me personally" type and evidence of the "there is a meteor crater in the ground" type.No? It is not a question of "who is the most empirical" according to one dictionary or another. It is a question of reliable evidence and reliable conclusions. It is a question of concepts.The example I gave relating to the colour red shows why some forms of knowledge can be rendered reliable in ways that others cannot. If you disagree conceptually then feel free to make that case. But don't avoid the concepts by hiding behind definitions.Use whatever words you will. The concepts remain the same.So when you consider creationist evidence I would ask that instead of asking yourself "Does this meet the dictionary definition of the term Empirical" instead ask yourself "Is this evidence reliable in terms of it's ability to be independently verified and judged objectively".If the answer to the first question is 'Yes' but the second is 'No' then you can call it "empirical" evidence if you like. I don't care. Whatever label you use it will still be inferior to the evidence upon which all truly scientific theories are based.Concepts Buz. Concepts not definitions are what is important.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

From your silence on this issue it would seem that Percy had it spot on.You do indeed advocate two completely contradictory points of view. You "reconcile" this contradiction by simply refusing to consider or acknowledge it even exists.Bizzarre.

Typically for one who has no answer to the flaws in their own argument you instead seek to attack a strawman version of your opponent's position.If you can defend your inherently contradictory position on it's own merits then do so.If all you can do is attack strawman versions of the scientific position then I suggest that you concede that your own position is indeed inherently contradictory and take any weaknesses you perceive in alternative positions to the appropriate thread. Defending science is not the topic here. Don't try and wriggle out of your self inflicted hole by attempting to make it so.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.