Saying which course of action God is more likely to take seems like a fool’s errand to me.

Do you mean, “It seems like a fool’s errand to try to anticipate God’s next move”; or do you mean, “It seems like a fool’s errand to try to imagine how a deity might act, given that it has announced to us its greatest desire”?

In gaelic?! You filthy heretic, the one true Compendium of Leprechaunology is in OLD IRISH! May a thousand shillelaghs fall on your head in Leprechaun Hell, heathen!

I’m sure you’ll agree that this is an unfortunate and morally questionable practice, especially when they’re only trying to avoid questions that reflect at least a perfunctory study of the subject.

Indeed I would, and it looks like we’re getting to know each other a bit better. However, there’s a fine line between a Courtier’s Reply and a valid argument. In general, when arguing about religion, I see reasonable grounds to take somebody who’s read the entire Bible more seriously than somebody who has negligible to zero exposure to the Bible.

In this regard, more than one of your commenters seem quite overconfident, but that’s just my opinion and no better than any other.

Regarding the Bible, nothing I can see of its effect on the world persuades me to revise my consideration that it’s a foundational religious text like any other, and there are many. It certainly enjoys an enormous popular bias here in the US, but as was mentioned earlier, majority opinion is no reason to buy.

That said, I’ve also seen some apologists who set inflated and/or arbitrary standards of “Bible expertise” simply as a means of creating a pretext for discrediting some skeptic, as opposed to actually addressing their points. I’m sure you’ll agree that this is an unfortunate and morally questionable practice, especially when they’re only trying to avoid questions that reflect at least a perfunctory study of the subject.

I got the impression that Arthur and R.C. were being genuine, and that as usual, ThatOtherGuy was doing what he usually does when I’m around. No biggie, I just didn’t want to name any names. The people who aren’t making smart-ass comments should be well aware of the fact, hence unoffended.

And you’re absolutely correct – the same standard should prevent Christians from pronouncing the beliefs of others as untrue – and such is what I was getting at with, “Isn’t someone who’s never read a lick of evolutionary theory unable to reliably comment on its trustworthiness as scientific fact?” Of course, nobody answered that question.

To say that we can’t know leprechauns and unicorns are mythical without conducting at least a perfunctory study of leprechaunology and unicornology is rationally prudent – not silly. That people automatically assume leprechauns and unicorns are imaginary suggests they only extend their rationalism to that which they’ve pre-decided they are willing to allow as possible, and that’s a huge mistake. I say begin with as little assumptions as possible, especially when existing species of single-horned deer living today are anatomically analogous to the unicorns of lore. Now on the other hand, to insist that the unicorn is “invisible” or “pink” or “flying” seems less credible, and to say that such seems less credible is certainly no abandon of reason – unless of course we want to say puke-green elephants and lasagne trees are entirely within reason, too. Things aren’t always so black and white.

Quite simply, condemnation without investigation is a bar to all knowledge. I ordinarily address you, DD, because as someone else mentioned earlier, you do seem to have a passing knowledge of the Bible. The credibility of those who argue a subject is directly affected by their level of exposure to arguments both for and against said subject.

I assume you’re reading the Compendium of Leprechaunology in the original Gaelic. Otherwise you’re probably getting the whole eschatology wrong, and you know what they do with those shillelaghs down in leprechaun hell, don’t you?

Because of this, I do not need to be an expert in evolution, I can trust the experts themselves, as they are in agreement.

Religious works, since they disagree on almost everything, obviously do not fall in this category, so they make themselves open to comment by expert and novice alike.

Irrational, emotionally-motivated folks tend to see things unnecessarily in black and white. When creationists concede to never having studied evolution, atheists and skeptics rightly denounce their arguments, and not without good cause. Will ostensibly rational individuals really deny that an analogous phenomena exists in the converse context? In terms of knowledge and reliability, would any of you equate the believer who’s read vociferously on evolution from Darwin to Gould to your basic biology textbook with the believer who’s never read a lick of evolutionary theory?

Anyone is free to denounce whatever document they wish, and I would never say that one need to read an entire document to denounce it. On the other hand, if one wants their rejection of any document to stand the tests of reason, it would behoove them to familiarize themselves with the relevant material, no?

It is entirely within reason to take an argument more seriously from someone who’s at least read the relevant source material than an argument from someone who has not.

I am sure you are right. How about the I Ching then?

I’ve never read the I Ching, but I suspect it would qualify for your list of documents of divine knowledge. Wikipedia seems to agree with my understanding that it’s more about eastern mysticism than philosophy.

I am sure you are right. How about the I Ching then?

Probably not fair to have the Tao Te Ching on that list, I don’t recall it making any claims to divine knowledge. It’s credited to Lao Tsu which translates to something like “a wise man.” Of the self-described Taoists I know personally, only one embraces mysticism, the rest are agnostics and atheists.

Koran
Talumud
Bhagavad Gita
Tao-te-ching
Upanishads
Veda

so I guess I am unable to comment on their trustworthiness as documents of divine knowledge.

I didn’t say it was a fool’s errand to try to understand God’s will… I said saying which course of action God is more likely to take seems like a fool’s errand to me.

Do you mean, “It seems like a fool’s errand to try to anticipate God’s next move”; or do you mean, “It seems like a fool’s errand to try to imagine how a deity might act, given that it has announced to us its greatest desire”?

…I don’t buy majority opinion.

I don’t normally put much stock in it either, but on this topic what else is there? The Bible? The world is full of people who claim to understand the Bible.

…when was the last time you studied the Bible and how much of it have you read?

cl… it’s me, Arthur. I’ve never read the Bible at all, any of it. Do you consider it to be beyond the reach of unwashed human opinion? I get the impression that Deacon has a passing familiarity with it but, by your own lights, that just means it’s no protection against the allure of fool’s errands.

I have no position. I have only a quote from the Bible, that very specifically claims something would happen, and places a boundary on the time frame in which it would happen.

It did not happen.

There are many possibilities for this. Those who chose one need to defend it.

Does that help?

I think more knowledge is better, but I would never suggest that someone who has not read Russell’s Principles of Mathematics in not qualified to assert 2 + 2 != 5.

Your third paragraph amounts to two wrongs making a right, and I don’t buy majority opinion. Remember, the Bible says the majority are in error.

Just out of honest curiosity and not the desire to snark, when was the last time you studied the Bible and how much of it have you read? How familiar are you with it? Have you ever read it cover-to-cover? I was actually taken aback when R.C. told me he hadn’t read Revelation, and I mean no offense to R.C. Sometimes it dawns on me that people often attempt to refute the Bible without having even studied it in its entirety in their native language, let alone the originals.

There’s an obvious implication as well: that no actual, reliable information on God’s will is available. If there were, then we could for-really look for it. It’s not a fool’s errand to look for something that exists.

But majority opinion, for what it’s worth, seems to pretty strongly endorse speculation about God’s will (for what that’s worth), so it must be okay for Deacon to do it. I mean, just about everybody’s doing it.

And I don’t know about Deacon but, personally, I got the idea that the Christian God has limitless capabilities from Christians telling me so. I hear the Bible tells them so, but I can’t confirm or deny that.

Still, I accept your challenge. Stay tuned, R.C.’s in line first. In the meantime, from where do you get the idea that God’s capabilities are limitless? And would you be willing to address a list of past questions of mine? Such would greatly help me formulate my formal response and better understand your position.

It’s like you’re saying over and over again, “God is false because God doesn’t do what I say God logically should do when I say God should logically do it,” yet the God you contest is at least more intelligent than you, if not wholly omniscient. Don’t you see a fundamental problem in human God?

I’m not trying to be a stalwart or anything, just telling you how this looks to a reasonable believer with a working brain.

Isn’t [the Gospel Hypothesis] ostensibly derived from the Bible, or are you simply attacking a piecemeal God?

Neither, of course. I am proposing a hypothesis with predictable consequences, so that we can evaluate the relative justifications for concluding whether the hypothesis is true or false in the context of the real world evidence. Do you have objections to this approach?

I don’t think this is a separate category of thought process from what I call fantasy, intuition, superstition and hearsay, but is rather a lower-level discussion of the architecture of perception and cognition. We know that Lincoln’s leg is buried in Springfield because we apply previously-acquired patterns such as composition (Lincoln’s leg is part of Lincoln’s body) and integrity (we expect that Lincoln’s body is as intact as any 150-ish-year-old corpse would be). That’s how we reach our conclusion, but it tells us little about the nature or quality of the conclusion itself.

I hear people saying “intuition,” which is fairly close because intuition is largely a non-analytical pattern recognition process. But heuristic reasoning can also lead to conclusions that are purely imaginative and/or superstitious—extensions of the pattern and/or combinations with other patterns that produce results that are no longer consistent with the patterns we find in the real world. So I think what you’re talking about is more orthagonal to the kind of categories I’m looking for.

Plus let’s face it, I like having a handy and memorable mnemonic like “FISH,” so I’m probably biased. But on the other hand, whenever I think of a possible fifth category, it usually seems to turn out to be a subset of one or more of the previous four, so I haven’t had a strong reason to move away from the FISH for now.

I promised R.C. a full post that would address his question, so I don’t see the reason for your comment.

DD,

You appear to believe that my Gospel Hypothesis is dependent in some way upon the Bible.

Isn’t it ostensibly derived from the Bible, or are you simply attacking a piecemeal God? If the former, we must attack what the Bible says God does or will do, not what we think God should do. If the latter, I’m uninterested entirely, and I submit again that you should change the name from Gospel Hypothesis to something else.

DM/FR was originally offered in response to your so-called Undeniable Fact in our miracle discussion. It is neither undeniable nor fact to say God has never shown up in some disparate manifestation (DM) to some person or subset of people. However, it does seem both undeniable and fact to say God has not shown up in the final revelation (FR) to everyone as described in the Bible. When you say God should show up to drink beer with his buddies, such implies DM. When you say God should show up on the evening news “so we all can know,” such implies FR.

And I submit that you should quit using the FISH acronym. It’s superstition entirely – presuming of course that the God question has not already been conclusively answered, and that the events in question are unexplainable.

R.C.,

Although I see where you’re going, it’s by no means failsafe. That Lincoln’s left leg is with Lincoln’s body is not necessarily true, and I can’t consider that “good enough” knowledge. It rests on too many assumptions. Is human pregnancy proof that a male penetrated a female?

Looking at the wikipedia entry, I may be using the term “heuristic” in a highly unfamiliar way, so unfamiliar I may be way off base! I am pulling it from my AI background, and have specific references I need to look up. The wikipedia entry hints at the definition I am using in the sections on computer science and engineering.

So let me get back to you.

I can give the following classic example, from AI:

If I ask you where is Lincoln buried, you will reply Springfield, Illinois. If I ask you where Lincoln’s left leg is, you will reply Springfield, Illinois.

Why? A computer (which means logic) could never reach such a conclusion, unless the fact “Lincoln’s left leg is buried with him” has been previously established through earlier rules. But a human, without being told, or through empirical data or experimentation, just “knows” this.

Much of human knowledge is this kind of knowledge — conclusions we reach without that any formal analysis. It is “good enough” knowledge — it may be wrong sometimes, but it is right enough times to be highly valuable.

For many, this kind of knowledge seems obvious, like common sense, but in actuality the process is extremely complex. This may be close to what DD calls intuition, but it is not — I can code up “educated guessing” as an algorithm (expert systems do it all the time), but I cannot code up heuristic knowledge.

My “clone” in my thought experiment, because it possesses a human brain, will “know” an enormous amount of information, even without one iota of external informational input from other humans, through heuristic knowledge. He will in fact infer a “creator” of the laboratory around him.

Why? That is my question. I see nothing in FISH that answers that.

I’m not sure I’m entirely clear on what you mean by heuristic knowledge.

RC wrote: “heuristic knowledge (things we know are true without being told or shown evidence)”.

It sounds as though the term is used to refer to analytic propositions; heuristic normally has a different meaning.

What are DM and FR?

I’m not sure I’m entirely clear on what you mean by heuristic knowledge. Your example of the clone on Mars seems to involve a fairly clear instance of attributing observable phenomena to some arbitrary, non-observable agency (thus falling under the category of superstition). Heuristics, as I understand it, has to do with learning by experience and/or by trial and error, so I’m not quite sure how to parse the concept of “heuristic knowledge,” unless it would involve God showing up to be experienced (or unless one arbitrarily attributed one’s experiences to God, thus thinking superstitiously).

You appear to believe that my Gospel Hypothesis is dependent in some way upon the Bible. What can I do to convince you that this is not the case, and that my Gospel Hypothesis is intended to stand on its own, as a hypothesis whose consequences can be determined reliably and analytically, and compared to real-world conditions?

Well admiration is always appreciated, but I did have a few caveats, if you remember:

1) Your belief is not self-contradictory
2) You are open to new information correcting/extending your belief.

I have never seen the conditions satisfied for any specific God-claim, but I am not strict on those who wish to ignore them, as long as they do not expect me to.

I did not know the discussion was restricted to Revelations, and I apologize for not being familiar with that work. I thought we were discussing specific pronouncements by divinities, in this case Jesus of Nazareth.

Although it’s not a synoptic gospel, Revelation does contain Jesus’ words. However, the discussion isn’t limited to Revelation, and neither should we limit it to the Gospels if we’re evaluating the God of the Bible (which is still unclear to me). I have to ask – is it fair to imply that the Gospel Hypothesis is false if we don’t take the rest of the Bible’s claims into account, when they’re all purportedly related and interdependent?

As it seems a bit out-of-place here, I’ll devote an entire post to your claim on my own blog, if you don’t mind waiting. In fact, I’d already started when I saw your claim the first time.

Lastly, it seems we’re on the same page re heuristics. You’re the first non-believer I’ve ever heard who conceded that belief in God can be completely justified, and I admire that more than I can express.

Sorry. I was just trying to find an example to address your earlier statement:

The Bible claims this will happen at the appointed time, not that it has happened. If the Bible claimed the latter, you’d have a case, but since it claims the former, your case appears undermined.

by showing that the Gospels do contain a very specific claim that never came true.

I did not know the discussion was restricted to Revelations, and I apologize for not being familiar with that work. I thought we were discussing specific pronouncements by divinities, in this case Jesus of Nazareth. It is my understanding (have not read it, as admitted), that the book of Revelations is not a Gospel, or the words of Jesus.

I would still like to see this specific claim refuted, since I have posted it twice, Revelations not withstanding.

No, I have not read it. Would I expect it to be if I had?

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

– Matthew 24:1-34,Mark 13:1-30,Luke 21:5-32

A very specific prediction, it gives who, what, when and where, things that could not possibly be missed.

Claimed in the Bible, never happened.

No, I think I make the same argument. I can’t remember anyone refuting it, so nothing new.

Maybe I missed the refutation?

I thought the Bible claimed is was already supposed to have happened and it didn’t. (sic)

I’ve read arguments from you along these lines before, and found them unconvincing. Have you added anything new yet?

Very close, but the root term (intuition) has more to do with a guess about an outcome, so the honest misunderstanding using DD’s definition would be more like wishful thinking using the wrong facts.

Heuristic knowledge is real knowledge, albeit incomplete. A belief in a God is completely justified using heuristics if:

1) Your belief is not self-condictractory
2) You are open to new information correcting/extending your belief.

This does not imply the God exists, only that the belief is justified.

Buddhism, per the current Dali Lama, seems to meet this criteria.

We could not function as humans if we discarded our trust in heuristic knowledge. We would be reduced to the functionality of the better AI computer programs.

I thought the Bible claimed is was already supposed to have happened and it didn’t.

As we saw yesterday, if the Gospel Hypothesis were true, we ought to expect divine intervention to consist of God showing up to participate in the tangible, personal, two-way interaction that is the very definition of what He wants for us and for Himself for all eternity.

The Bible claims this will happen at the appointed time, not that it has happened. If the Bible claimed the latter, you’d have a case, but since it claims the former, your case appears undermined.

..perhaps more importantly, God’s absence is going to mean that there is no real-world resource available to contradict anyone who claims to have had some kind of special interaction with God.

I agree, however – presuming God existed and the GH was true – what real world resource would you suggest to contradict anyone who claims to have had some kind of special interaction with God? Such appears to have turned the corner onto Unfalsifiability Avenue. Didn’t we beat ourselves into a brick wall trying to discuss just this for the past two months? Commenter jim posted quite the salient piece along these lines.

The obvious answer is that it would prevent divine intervention from occurring at all, which is true as far as it goes.

I’ve heard this argument here before, too. Is it reasonable to say you equate “divine intervention” with what I described as FR while discussing your so-called Undeniable Fact? If you’re talking FR, you’re correct and such is of no consequence to the GH. If you’re talking DM, there’s no way you could know that and such would also be of no consequence to the GH.

Regarding FISH – yes, if there is no God, then all miracle claims fall under one or more FISH categories. Yet the existence of God is what we’re seeking to evaluate, so if you use one or more FISH categories to rebut a miracle claim, you also argue from superstition. If the event in question is unexplained and God’s existence undetermined, is not your descent into FISH as equally superstitious as the believer’s descent into claims of the supernatural? If nobody knows, the event is unexplained – and nothing more.

R.C.,

Pertinent points.

Savage Dragon,

Are you saying that intuition entails honest misunderstanding? Or that intuition can entail honest misunderstanding?