Monday 13 August 2012

Does God Heal?

I didn't realize, until well after my de-conversion, how often Christians use the word "miracle"...it seems to be especially prevalent in relation to physical healing.  Miracle is just another one of those words that you grow accustomed to hearing, when you're part of the Christian subculture, so it doesn't really draw mental red flags in the way that it probably should.

Under the category of "million dollar questions", here's a biggie; do physical healing miracles happen today?

I certainly can't *prove* that they don't, but let me just say instead that I am no longer convinced miracles exist as a real entity in any supernatural (god directed) sense at all; or that they ever have.

It seems to me a sizable chunk of evangelicals are already skeptical of the so called faith healers, such as Benny Hinn or Todd Bentley, and well they should be (even though both of these guys have large followings; Hinn in particular).  Given their already controversial nature, even within Christian circles, I'm not going to waste much time commenting on that movement (despite the Hinn photo above).

Instead, I'd like to discuss briefly the very broadly accepted Christian belief that god regularly heals people as a result of the prayers of their friends and family.  If you are a Christian, chances are high you believe this to your very core.  You probably know someone, or even several people, who have received a "miracle" by way of god's physical healing.

There are two such cases, that have come to my attention quite organically, which will serve to illustrate my recent observations in this respect.  In both of these cases it was the word "miracle" (or "miraculous"), which initially grabbed my attention and got me to thinking.  Before I jump into it, let me be quick to admit that anecdotes never *prove* anything, one way or the other (and we could trade them back and forth all day).  So my intention here is simply to use these two cases as a springboard for further thought & analysis, specifically on the issue of god's supposed involvement in physical healing.

I should also mention that these cases represent people I know personally.

Case #1

A few months back, I went to the website of a Christian leader (an individual who is incidentally sort of a mini-celebrity, in certain limited circles).  I don't want to get into the specifics, so as not to reveal her exact identity, but there was a line in her biography that really leapt off the screen. It said that she was "miraculously healed of a terminal illness".  Wow.  That sounds really cool, and it certainly helps to give her story some serious street cred.  (*Note to those who weren't raised in a Christian home...in Christian culture, the more stuff that you've been "saved from", the cooler you are considered to be.  It's an odd dynamic.)

As it happened, she actually also mentioned the name of the illness, but only in passing, so I decided to look it up on wikipedia.  You may have trouble believing this, but I always try to keep an open mind about these sorts of stories.  I realize, on one level, that I could be wrong about atheism.  I sincerely don't think I am wrong, but I am not so arrogant as to rule out the very possibility.  Maybe I was right before, and Christianity is true?  If that's the case, I want to be the first to find out.  This is, in part, why I retain a certain curiosity about statements like the one contained in her bio.

Anyway, to my genuine surprise, the wikipedia article included the following line, "remission can be achieved in up to 60-80% of cases".

Huh?

How could she not have mentioned this??

If "remission can be achieved in up to 60-80% of cases", than why did she refer to the healing as "miraculous"?  This is extremely confusing to someone like me.

The ironic thing is it actually would have been more "miraculous", if you want to put it in that way, if she had not gone into remission after treatment.  If remission is achieved "in up to 60-80% of cases", the odds were actually in her favor!!

See my problem there?  

Case #2

Although it bugged me a little, at the time, I quickly forgot about case number 1 and moved on with my life.  That is, until a few weeks later, when I had a prolonged conversation with another Christian who also threw out the word "miracle"; and once again in reference to a personal illness. While my other friends, who were also a part of the conversation, were busy saying how awesome they thought that was (and relating their own stories of god's healing of their own friends/family members), I took it upon myself to ask her what the name of her sickness had been.  I also expressed to her my sincere congratulations, on the fact that she was o.k. now, and I did my best to divert away from the god talk.  I simply wanted to connect with her on a human level, but she was pretty intent on bringing god into the dialogue at every opportunity.

Later that day, I decided once again to look up the given sickness on wikipedia.  In this case, it was actually something, quite rare, that I had not even heard of before.  Could it be that this woman had experienced a genuine "miracle", I wondered to myself, as she had claimed?

As you've probably guessed by now, much as it had before, wikipedia told a very, very different story.  Included, in the article regarding her illness, was the following line, "the cure rate...is around 90-95%".  Yes, you read that right, "the cure rate...is around 90-95%"!!!  I have to tell you, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that line.  This woman seemed to me to be a perfectly *normal* Christian, if you know what I mean, and my (intelligent!) friends seemed also to believe that she had experienced a legitimate "miracle".

But why?

I received a clue, a few days later, in a seemingly unrelated conversation with one of these same friends.  As she expressed it to me, her personal belief is that it is preferable to always "give god the credit" for something good in your life, even if he might not be responsible for it.  Far better to thank god, and be wrong, than to not thank him at all she would say.  My suspicion is this sort of (in my opinion) warped thinking stems from the Bible itself.  And I think it may explain, at least in part, why it is so extremely difficult to divest everyday Christians of the "miracle" type language they use ever so casually (and irresponsibly).  When my friend said this, Proverbs 3:6 came immediately to my mind, "in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight". Could it be, that Christians are desperate to "acknowledge" god, in "all things", because they believe they are commanded to do so?  I think this may well be the case.  The problem, of course, is that it tends to lead to a highly credulous approach, as illustrated above, to "all things" that their god *might* have been responsible for.  This, to me, is a major flaw in my friend's logic.

Christians will sometimes falsely say that there is no amount of evidence that will convince a skeptic to believe in god (or, in my case, to believe in god again).  We skeptics are simply determined, they will say, to persist in our unbelief.  I was just accused of this myself (under the comments section of this post).  But it's an entirely false charge.  There are in fact many, many things that would convince me Christianity is true.  I would be happy to provide specific examples, if you're interested in hearing them.

But it occurs to me there is a flip side to that coin...perhaps there is no amount of de-bunking that will convince some believers they are mistaken.  In other words, no matter how many "miracles" are explained, and shown to be (plausibly) quite natural events, these brand of believers will always cling to the hope that at least *some* genuine miracles still take place.  It may not be this particular story or that particular story, which qualify as a miracle, but until skeptics are able to explain away literally every potential miracle, the *possibility* remains that supernatural miracles are real.  But how could skeptics ever accept this massive challenge? We can't, of course, and it is irrational of such believers to even expect us to do so.  Doubt and skepticism are not signs of weakness, despite what you may have been told.  They represent the mature approach, as Michael Shermer demonstrates in his excellent book, "The Believing Brain" (see, for example, the Shermer quote at the end of this post).

So here's my bottom line...when Christians say something was a "miracle", what they often really mean is that it was unexplained.  Do people sometimes recover, from physical illnesses, where the odds are much lower than "60-80%", or "90-95%", in their favor?  Even when the odds are stacked strongly against them?  Of course they do...sometimes...but often they don't.  You can't count only the healing hits, chalk the misses up to god's sovereignty (or ignore them completely), and then call it "evidence" for god's involvement.  It just doesn't work that way.  Unexplained recoveries happen every day.  We should expect them, because the odds are never 100% in either direction.

You can believe that god is responsible, for your mother's/aunt's/sister's/best friend's physical healing, if you want to insist on doing so, but I sincerely hope the above will help you to understand, if even just a little, why former believers like me no longer find this stuff very convincing.

I would leave the believer with one final question, to ponder.  It is a question that haunted me, during my de-conversion, and it eventually helped to engineer a major shift in my thinking.  The question is simply this, "why won't god heal amputees"?

Do you have an answer?

Please think about it.

27 comments:

  1. "But it occurs to me there is a flip side to that coin...perhaps there is no amount of de-bunking that will convince some believers they are mistaken.  In other words, no matter how many "miracles" are explained, and shown to be (plausibly) quite natural events, these brand of believers will always cling to the hope that at least *some* genuine miracles still take place."

    As someone who was raised in a borderline fundamentalist/evangelical environment, I can say that part of a Christian's resistance to reason comes from the belief that Satan is working overtime to deceive the faithful (1 Peter 5:8 for example). In a true beliver's mind, Satan is capable of very elaborate illusions designed to bring the believer down, thus rendering appeals to reason useless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point. Your background sounds very similar to mine. My family was also borderline fundamentalist/evangelical. Although, as a (Christian) adult, I came to identify as simply an evangelical (growing up, I had always bristled a little at the term fundamentalist).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "So here's my bottom line...when Christians say something was a 'miracle', what they often really mean is that it was unexplained."

    You're describing a classic god of the gaps argument. Any gaps in our knowledge are filled with "god." When one gap is filled, believers just move on to another gap. It's impossible to disprove god from that perspective, because there will always be gaps.

    Also, in regards to whether prayer improves health outcomes, the verdict appears to be in, and the answer is a resounding "no."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi there.

    As for the "Why doesn't God heal amputees" thing, my answer has always been, "why does the skeptic assume God hasn't?" Okay, sure... you've never seen it, and like any other miracle science can't replicate it, but I've encountered people who testify to it. The Bible also testifies to it (man with the shriveled hand). So who are we to just say God *DOESN'T* heal amputees?

    Which raises another interesting point about anecdotes: the "skeptical" community generally frowns upon them (though the legal world has a different take), but doesn't the very nature of the "miracle" entail that anecdotes and personal experience are the strongest empirical confirmations we might reasonably expect?

    IOW, isn't scientific proof of "miracle" accounts impossible in principle?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughts cl. You say, *why does the skeptic assume God hasn't (healed amputees)?* Well, I would simply say it's because there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever has. Do you believe that Zeus heals amputees btw? Why not? And who are you to say that Zeus *DOESN'T* heal amputees?

      Keep in mind that nothing can ever be proven (or dis-proven) with absolute 100 percent certainty. As Bertrand Russell said, maybe there is a teapot that orbits the sun between the Earth and Mars? How do you know there *ISN'T* such a teapot? The burden of proof always lies on the one making the claim which, in our case, would be the person who claims god grew back their missing limb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). What we're talking about here are probabilities. And not all claims were created equal (some, due to their extraordinary nature, require more evidence than others).

      I want you to think for a second about how incredibly easy something like this would be to prove. Let's suppose that someone named Joe Smith, a lifelong amputee, returns from a Benny Hinn crusade with a fully functioning arm (where once there was only a stump). Just imagine how quickly the news would spread...first, throughout the town that he lived in, and then, probably within a matter of mere days, it would hit the local news and then the internet. I mean, there would be hundreds of people in that town who knew Joe Smith personally. They watched him grow up, went to high school with him, and so on and so on. There would be photos and home videos, from his childhood, where he clearly only has one arm etc. Joe's family doctor would probably want to examine his new arm, at some point, and verify that it was in fact a real working flesh and blood arm (not a prosthetic) etc. etc.

      So, how could this have happened? Remember too that scientists have not yet even figured out how to grow back missing limbs. Either Joe secretly figured it out himself (ahead of the world's scientists) or this is indeed a miracle! I promise you that, either way you go, Joe Smith would have the world's attention in a big way.

      You say, *isn't scientific proof of miracle accounts impossible in principle?* No. Think again about Joe Smith. Every photo, video, neighbor interview, and so on, would all point in the exact same direction. Yes, it really would appear, even after all the digging that investigative reporters (and skeptics) would no doubt do, that Joe Smith used to be an amputee and now he's not.

      The next time one of your friends *testifies*, to seeing an amputee healed, why not challenge them to open that claim up to public scrutiny (like our hypothetical Joe Smith did)? If the miracle is in fact real, it will be pretty hard to explain away once the evidence is gathered and analyzed.

      In terms of your reference to the Bible story...it doesn't matter to the skeptic that the Bible testifies to something, because we don't believe that everything in the Bible is historically true. In fact, many things claimed in the Bible are now known to be false (worldwide flood, Adam & Eve etc.). Do you believe in the Bible's talking donkey as well? (I used to.)

      I think that addresses each your points, but let me know if I'm missing anything.

      Delete
  5. Thanks for the reply. I'll have to split my reply in two, because of Blogger's annoying character count rules.

    We'll do much better if you don't treat me like all the Christians you're familiar with. Your reply contains assumptions that don't apply to me. I understand why you might make those assumptions, as many Christians tend to think the same way, but you're not dealing with the average Christian here. My thinking hasn't been handed to me by any church, I think Christians are flat-out wrong about many (a)theist issues. You're probably not going to hear the same replies from me that you would hear from your church crowd. So please don't anticipate them. :)

    For example, Zeus: I have no belief or disbelief in whether or not Zeus healed an amputee, but you assumed I had disbelief when you said, "Why not?" As another example, at least extend enough charity to realize that I understand how the burden of proof works. Sure, many Christians don't, but I do. Your remarks about that are misplaced. I'm not making a positive claim that God heals amputees. In the same way, I don't think the skeptic should make the negative claim that God doesn't heal amputees. Do you know? No. Do I know? No. So let's be honest and say, "Maybe, maybe not."

    Now at this point, I would expect some people to respond with those childish, "Maybe pink unicorns, maybe not?" type of replies, and in fact you already appealed to Russell's Teapot (which is not as egregious and at least offered in good faith). Miraculous healing of amputees is not in the same category as Russell's Teapot. We have a very large number of inexplicable or "miraculous" healings for all sorts of conditions. IOW, we have a precedent for miraculous healings. We have no such precedent for pink unicorns or Russell's Teapot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I would simply say it's because there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever has.

    I guess that's where we differ. This is a subjective claim that only applies to you and people who share your skepticism. What you really mean is, you haven't been convinced by any of the evidence that exists. That's wholly different than saying, "there is no evidence whatsoever." Now, if you mean scientific evidence, well, of course I'm going to agree with you! This is due to my belief that scientific proof / evidence that God causes miracles is impossible in principle. Since miracles are supposed to be violations of the laws of nature, they are inherently untestable.

    You say scientists could easily prove such a miracle, mentioning hypothetical Joe Smith saying his miracle would have been all over the TV and internet. Well, Joe's case would remain anecdotal, so I believe you are mistaken to say it would constitute scientific proof.

    Further, I believe we'd have skeptics even if Joe Smith showed up on TV today. After all, that he's no longer an amputee remains, at best, an unexplained fact. Some skeptics would still say, "Okay, something weird seems to have happened, but we can't know that God did this, maybe it was a top secret science thing, or some hitherto undiscovered natural phenomena, or something from aliens, or maybe we're entering a new phase of evolution that allows for such quantum weirdness?" Other skeptics might cast doubt on the factuality of the phenomenon itself: "People lie. Photos can be faked. So can video." Etc. Simply put, there are some who will take their skepticism to the grave.

    Lastly, I sense a sort of chronological fallacy looming, as you seem to imply that since Joe hasn't appeared on TV that such constitutes evidence against the healing of amputees. I would caution against that sort of reasoning. TV and internet have only been around a few short years. What about the many years prior? What would we expect if God had healed an amputee before the technological age? All we could expect was anecdotes, and that's exactly what we find. And as I just explained above, Joe's case would remain anecdotal even if he appeared on TV today.

    Anyways, I don't want to draw you into a long discussion or argument or try to prove any point about this to you. I've treaded this path several times before with several different skeptics. I only commented because in the original post, you say that you want to retain an open mind and cautious reasoning about these things, because you still believe you might be wrong. I thought that was healthy and commendable. All I'm trying to do is caution against what I perceive to be unsteady reasoning in the matter, because the more such reasoning is accepted and embedded in your brain, the further entrenched you'll become in your position. It's the same thing that happens to Christians when they stop questioning (and I am not saying you've stopped questioning, only that I think you've accepted some unsteady logical platitudes here).

    At any rate, have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems that I have seriously pissed you off (not my intention at all). I actually welcome the dialogue. Nothing I say is ever intended in a disrespectful way. We just disagree, that's all. I'd be happy to continue on with this discussion (by responding to your most recent comments), but I take it from your tone that you just wanted to *caution* me and were not really wanting a response from my end in the first place. Is this correct? If so, that's cool, but if you do wish to interact I am willing.

      Delete
    2. In the future perhaps you could also indicate, in your initial comment, whether or not you are looking for interaction (just so I don't misread you again). And I'm still happy to engage (or not), on this issue, so please do let me know if you'd like a response (otherwise I'll assume that you don't). Cheers.

      Delete
    3. I did also want to make a quick correction, to an error I made in my initial response (that's what I get for writing when I can't sleep, at four o'clock in the morning :)). In Joe Smith's specific case the proof would actually be better termed circumstantial, not scientific. I didn't quite catch the fact that you were speaking exclusively of *scientific* proofs, in your questions to me, perhaps assuming it to be the only sort I would allow? In any case, my bar is actually set much lower than that!

      So more analogous to a court case, where something is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but without the aid of scientific evidence like fingerprints or DNA. I never, ever meant to imply, at any point, that I could only be convinced of miracles by scientific proof in the strict sense. This is not the case.

      There will always be hold outs, of course, so we agree completely on that point. However, I do believe that a very strong circumstantial case could be built in such a hypothetical case as Joe Smith's...certainly one strong enough to convince people like myself (and as it grew stronger more and more people would become convinced it had to be a legitimate miracle).

      Delete
  7. Lastly, you wrote:

    There are in fact many, many things that would convince me Christianity is true. I would be happy to provide specific examples, if you're interested in hearing them.

    I'm very interested. If you get the time, could you write a semi-thorough post laying them all out?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seriously pissed me off? Not at all. What gave you that impression? I do tend to speak firmly, and many people do tend to interpret firm speech as angry, but that's not the case. I just felt you were pigeonholing me along with your Christian crowd and I wanted to put a quick end to that because it's never productive. Now that we've got that out of the way, our chances of having a fruitful discussion are better, right? I'm not pissed in the least. I'm the same guy who came around a few weeks ago and was praising your blog. Compared to irrational atheists like PZ Myers, Carrier, JT and some of the others on your blogroll, I put you at the top of the pile.

    When I first commented, I was like, "This person seems pretty cool maybe we can have a decent conversation about this," but then given the assumptions and the Zeus thing and the Russell's Teapot thing, my thinking changed to something more like, "Okay, this person has already bought into the typical atheist retorts with regard to the epistemology of miracles and the whole amputee thing." That's why I backed off and showed waning interest in pursuing the discussion. That, and the fact that I'm more interested in providing food for thought than changing your mind. That's where the "caution" thing comes into play: you seem earnest, and I think your reasoning on shaky grounds. You'll either think about it and see some merit, or you won't. Hell, maybe I'm reasoning on shaky grounds.

    I didn't quite catch the fact that you were speaking exclusively of *scientific* proofs...

    I'm not sure how you couldn't have caught that, as you cited that very fact, but, I've missed the direct many a time as well so no big deal there.

    I agree there will always be hold-outs, and I agree that the Joe Smith case might convince a skeptic like you. So, where do we go from here? You say we just disagree. Where exactly do you think we disagree?

    One question I have would be, why an amputee? Why isn't any of the existing evidence good enough? I anticipate an answer along the lines of, "A regrown limb is unequivocal evidence for a miraculous healing." And that is the very "unsteady reasoning" I'm challenging.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll break this up into two parts...

      Well, I'm glad to hear that you're not pissed off :). I sensed that you were extremely annoyed, at best, when I made certain assumptions about what you believe. Given that I don't know you though, it only stands to reason that I would (unwittingly) lump you in with the majority of Christians on any given issue. Please don't hold that against me. As I become more familiar with your various positions, it will of course be easier to avoid this dynamic. I'll try not to make too many assumptions, in the future, if you try to cut me some slack on the occasions that I accidentally do. Deal?

      I can assure you that I am a pretty independent thinker but, from time to time, I suppose I may give you the same arguments you've heard a thousand times before. I don't believe in groupthink, so if/when I do it will be because they seem relevant to me in the moment. Perhaps there are weaknesses in these arguments that I'm simply unaware of? Feel free to point them out to me anytime.

      I suspect you may have misunderstood the point I was making in my original post. That's partly why I was thrown off by your question on scientific proof. I wasn't ever saying that I would only believe a healing miracle if it were scientifically proven. In fact, such a thing has never even crossed my mind. I generally agree with you that this would be next to impossible anyway (how could a miracle be replicated, for example)? What I was saying instead is that believers hold skeptics to an unreasonable standard, such that the skeptic would literally have to debunk every miracle claim on the face of the earth (before the believer would admit that supernatural healings probably aren't real). I hope that's more clear.

      I do have a number of questions for you, if you don't mind. I'd like to get a better handle on your position(s). I know you don't care for the whole Zeus argument, and I don't plan to bring it up again, but just bear with me for a minute longer on this one. When you say that you don't know whether or not Zeus existed (& healed amputees) this is downright baffling to me. I'm trying to get inside your head, to understand where you are coming from, but I just can't seem to wrap my mind around your logic here. Are you saying that you believe in remaining agnostic about everything we can't absolutely prove (to 100% certainty)? If so, than wouldn't one have to remain agnostic about literally everything? I don't get it. Clearly that's not your position (since you are a Christian) but that seems to be what you're saying. How certain would you have to be, about something, before moving away from agnostic and toward *knowing*. Would 75% do it? How about 90% Or 99.9%? I'm sure I must be mischaracterizing your true position (forgive me) but, at the present moment, it just doesn't follow for me at all. Please clarify.

      Delete
    2. I also don't understand what you mean when you say that I am reasoning on "shaky grounds". I've been thinking about it, but I just can't see it. You assume that I believe something like, "a regrown limb is unequivocal evidence for a miraculous healing". Well, no, not exactly, because (as previously discussed) there would be other possibilities to consider as well. It could be that Joe Smith is secretly a genius scientist, and he figured out how to grow his own arm back, for example. I would only take it as evidence for a miracle if I came to believe, over time, that "god did it" was the most plausible explanation (after examining & weighing all the options). Is this what you mean by "shaky" and "unsteady" reasoning? How so? You're going to need to connect the dots for me a little closer on this one too. And please don't try to anticipate my answer, ahead of time, either (as you asked of me).

      You ask, "why an amputee? Why isn't any of the existing evidence good enough?" Great question. It's certainly possible that some really awesome evidence exists, out there somewhere, and I'm just not personally aware of it. I'm willing to grant that possibility. (Any ideas where I might find it?) Speaking from personal experience/investigation though, all I can tell you is that I've looked pretty closely at quite a number of healing stories and, in my opinion, the evidence for each of them has been pretty weak. So, why an amputee? Well, my personal belief is that some of what counts as healing today is psychosomatic in nature (in other words, it's all in the person's head). Someone goes up on stage with a backache, for example, and after a zap from Benny Hinn it's miraculously gone! A re-grown missing limb, of course, would sidestep this accusation completely. You can't just imagine a limb into reality, it's either there or it's not. Also, because it's visible on the outside of the body there is less room for ambiguity or trickery. Would you not agree, at minimum, with the idea that a re-grown limb is potentially better evidence than a cured backache? Or is this what you call "shaky" reasoning too?

      You say, "where do we go from here?". Well, the thing you need to understand about me is that I'm not into arguing. If you get defensive I'll likely just dis-engage completely. I do enjoy dialogue though, and especially with people that see things differently, so I hope you'll stick around. I want believers reading this blog, so they can hold my feet to the fire and challenge me sometimes.

      Love to get your thoughts.

      Delete
  9. In reply to 27 August, 2012 3:24 AM:

    Deal. If you want to get to know more about what I believe, I'd suggest reading my blog if you haven't.

    What I was saying instead is that believers hold skeptics to an unreasonable standard, such that the skeptic would literally have to debunk every miracle claim on the face of the earth (before the believer would admit that supernatural healings probably aren't real). I hope that's more clear.

    Yes, that's clear, but I have a few problems with it:

    1) I think it's the other way around: most skeptics hold believers to an unreasonable standard by demanding scientific proof of miracles (if you don't fall into that category that's fine, many, I'll wager most, skeptics do).

    2) In my opinion, it wouldn't be unreasonable at all for believers to demand that skeptics debunk every miracle claim presented. After all, in a court of a law, once the prosecution makes their claim, the burden of production falls to the defense. I once had a long back-and-forth with a guy who I'd describe as a baseline, average skeptic. "Show me something that violates the laws of nature and I'll believe," he quipped at every turn. But then when I gave him a personal account of something I saw with two witnesses, he just explained it away. We were lying. Drunk. Etc. Anything but correct, because if were correct, his worldview comes down like a house of cards. And so it's been with almost every skeptic I've ever discussed these issues with (I can think of one exception, a commenter who moved from atheist to agnostic after reading my accounts).

    Are you saying that you believe in remaining agnostic about everything we can't absolutely prove (to 100% certainty)?

    Not at all. For example, we can't prove to 100% certainty that Abraham Lincoln existed, but I believe he did. There is a weight of evidence suggesting he did. The principle to be drawn is that I generally remain agnostic when there is no weight of evidence one way or the other. Sometimes I remain agnostic despite a weight of evidence simply because I disagree with the standard interpretation of said evidence. Sometimes I tend towards belief without a weight of evidence if a claim lines up with pre-existing logic or evidence. If there is no weight of evidence and a claim flatly contradicts a strong track record of pre-existing observations, I might tend towards skepticism. Each claim gets evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the criterion must adapt to fit the nature of the claim. My epistemological criteria are not "one-size-fits-all."

    As for the Zeus thing, I now realize I didn't accurately convey my position. I lean towards the position that Zeus existed (or exists) as some sort of demi-god at some time, one of the ones bound in Tartarus ala 2 Peter 2:4. However, since there is no weight of evidence in favor of Zeus healing amputees, I remain agnostic, possible even a little on the skeptical side. Now, Zeus may have healed an amputee in some show of power, I don't know. Further, if there was the same weight of evidence for healings in Zeus' name as there is for healings in Jesus' name, I would leave the null position. But I don't know of any account of Zeus healing anything, let alone an amputee. This is simply not the case with Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As for 27 August, 2012 3:26 AM, let's clear up a few short things and then I'll tackle the comment in more detail:

    Well, the thing you need to understand about me is that I'm not into arguing. If you get defensive I'll likely just dis-engage completely.

    Believe me, after 6 years of maintaining a Christian blog visited mostly by atheists, I'm over arguing, too. As an aside, your reply to my first comment struck me as defensive. That's why I expressed a desire to cut the exchange short (but that has since changed). Everybody would do well to realize that internet conversation is tough because we lack physical cues like inflection, countenance, postures, etc. So, if you assume I'm calm and collected, I'll assume you're calm and collected, and we'll probably be fine.

    It's certainly possible that some really awesome evidence exists, out there somewhere, and I'm just not personally aware of it.

    How do you define "really awesome evidence?" Cement some firm goalposts and let's go from there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, have you written up your deconversion story yet? I'm interested in hearing both why you believed in the first place, and why you stopped. That would let me know a lot more about why you do what you do, intellectually speaking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part One

      Sure, will do. I've read several posts on your blog already, but I plan to read more as I have time.

      Regarding your comments on the argument made in my post...

      1) I think you and I are in agreement on this point. No, I do not demand scientific proof of miracles. Perhaps this is the usual position of skeptics, I'm not sure.

      2) Well, given that believers claim miracles daily, the world over, this would amount to hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of such claims annually. How could skeptics debunk them all? There are only so many of us, and we also have jobs, families etc. Either I'm misunderstanding your point, in some way or another, or I just disagree with it. And in keeping with our court analogy, when the the "burden of production" falls to the defense they are still only required to poke a sufficient number of holes in the prosecution's theory (so as to provide "reasonable doubt"). Also, don't both sides have to leave breathing room for things we can't fully explain? Let's say an aggressive cancer inexplicably goes into remission, surprising even the doctors...would this qualify as a "miracle", as you see it, or can we agree on not knowing precisely what happened and leave it at that?

      I'm hesitant to comment, in any detail, on the discussion involving your friend (the "average skeptic"). But I will say that I heard dozens (possibly even hundreds) of stories, about supposedly supernatural encounters, during my more than 25 years as an evangelical Christian. On those occasions when I looked deeper, into the given claim, I always found it to be underwhelming (especially as compared to how impressive it sounded in the telling, wow!). As such, I was pretty skeptical of such personal anecdotes/miracle stories, even while I was a committed Christian. Also, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, as are our "memories" of events, so from where I sit your friend did nothing wrong by not swallowing your story whole.

      As an aside, regarding your commenter who switched from atheist to agnostic...according to my understanding of the terms, atheist/agnostic are not mutually exclusive (so such a switch is unnecessary). You can read my take on that here, http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/atheist-or-agnostic.html.

      Thanks for clarifying your position on Zeus. No, I never would have gotten that from what you said before. Your view on this is certainly interesting (and unusual)...how did you come to hold this position, initially? Is there anything you would recommend I read, to learn more about it?

      Sure, I very much like the "calm and collected" approach. Agreed.

      Delete
    2. Part Two

      Hmmm, good question. Well, for starters, if I saw an amputee's limb grow back I would consider that to be "really awesome evidence". Ditto if I were to see a burn victims deep scars disappear, right before my eyes. Heck, I'd even accept it on videotape, assuming the tape hadn't been altered. Any sort of healing, external on the body, is obviously more difficult to fake. I think Hume had the right idea, when he said, "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish". Personally, I'd even be willing to lower that bar somewhat, to consider those cases in which a miracle is (or at least seems to be) the most plausible explanation of the given facts.

      I wrote primarily de-conversion themed posts, for the first 6 months of this blog. Start with the one called "How It All Started" (July 8th, 2011) and read through until "The Five Stages Of Grief" (December 26th, 2011). I believe that accounts for 32 posts (but some are pretty short). There was much that I skipped, of course, but I tried to hit on some of the main points. After that, I just grew tired of trying to remember the details, of how everything happened (and when), plus I was eager to share more of my current thoughts (as I do now).

      I'll close with a couple of quick questions for you:

      a) How did you convert to Christianity? Have you written about it on your blog? If so, please point me to the relevant posts.
      b) Have you ever changed your position, on literally any issue, after conversing with a skeptic? If so, what? You seem VERY confident, unmovable even, and I'm tying to figure out if that's just my perception (or also the reality).

      Anyway, bed time for me, thanks for the discussion.

      Oh, and fair warning, I do speak positively of Loftus' "Why I Became An Atheist" at one point (it's among those 32 de-conversion themed posts). Did you wind up doing that chapter by chapter review of WIBA, as you said you would? I agreed with some of your comments/objections, on his blog (before you were unceremoniously banned), so I'm curious to hear how you would interact with some of the arguments presented in the book. You're clearly not in the John Loftus fan club, I know, but that one is worth reading regardless (even if you skip the anthologies that followed later).

      Delete
    3. Hey there, sorry for the delay, I didn't subscribe to comments so it's on my own memory to stay up with our talk. Also, thanks for pointing me to your previous deconversion pieces. I'll check them out as time and interest dictate.

      Well, given that believers claim miracles daily, the world over, this would amount to hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of such claims annually. How could skeptics debunk them all?

      I qualified with the word, "presented." Basically, for every miracle claim presented, skeptics need to provide evidence and/or reasoning as to why the skeptical position is more likely than the alternative. Would you agree to that?

      Let's say an aggressive cancer inexplicably goes into remission, surprising even the doctors...would this qualify as a "miracle", as you see it, or can we agree on not knowing precisely what happened and leave it at that?

      It qualifies as an unexplained event in my book. No more, no less.

      As such, I was pretty skeptical of such personal anecdotes/miracle stories, even while I was a committed Christian.

      I'm the same way. I don't use the word "miracle" loosely. In fact, I rarely use the word at all.

      As an aside, regarding your commenter who switched from atheist to agnostic...according to my understanding of the terms, atheist/agnostic are not mutually exclusive (so such a switch is unnecessary).

      IIRC, this person went from a strong atheist to an agnostic. Those positions mutually exclude.

      Your view on [Zeus] is certainly interesting (and unusual)...how did you come to hold this position, initially? Is there anything you would recommend I read, to learn more about it?

      Just by thinking. I've noticed that in almost every facet of (a)theist dialog, we're met with false dichotomies: evolution or creationism? Dualism or materialism? Many gods or one god? Etc. Most Christians I know make the mistake of thinking that since YHWH is the one true God, that no other gods exist at all. I don't think that's true. Many gods exist, but there is only One worthy of the capital "G" God. The Christians I allude to welcome a trap: they categorically deny gods and god-claims of other religions, while accepting similar claims when they are Christian. I don't think that's a good way to chase truth.

      Delete
    4. Heck, I'd even accept it on videotape, assuming the tape hadn't been altered.

      That's just the thing: how could you ever know? You can't. You need faith either way, to accept it, or to deny it.

      How did you convert to Christianity? Have you written about it on your blog? If so, please point me to the relevant posts.

      I've written about this a little bit, you can check the "about" page if you haven't already. That's probably the closest thing I have to an actual "testimony" on my blog.

      Have you ever changed your position, on literally any issue, after conversing with a skeptic?

      Sure. I've changed after talking to skeptics, and I've changed after talking to believers. It cuts both ways. I listen to whoever has the better argument. Save for one small period of doubt, I've remained a Christian for over 20 years. Examples:

      1) Until very recently, I used to agree with skeptics that "who made God?" was a legitimate reply to First Cause arguments;

      2) In my early years, I used to agree with Creationists that "what about entropy?" was a legitimate reply to evolution.

      I could go on, but hopefully these demonstrate my willingness to follow the evidence where it leads. I am confident, to an extent, but that's only after decades of failed atheist arguments. Though, I need to be careful. Confidence can be dangerous, even when warranted.

      Did you wind up doing that chapter by chapter review of WIBA, as you said you would?

      No, I didn't. That's a downfall of mine. Too much talk. I'm sorry, I didn't stick to my word. I lost interest in Loftus, but I shouldn't have, because he does influence people.

      ...I'm curious to hear how you would interact with some of the arguments presented in the book.

      For some reason, every time I try a "book review" series I never end up finishing it. I'm not sure if following through on my word is the best use of my time right now, but I'll tell you what: if you would like to see my response to a particular argument in WIBAA, let me know which one, and I promise to give it full address.

      Delete
    5. *Basically, for every miracle claim presented, skeptics need to provide evidence and/or reasoning as to why the skeptical position is more likely than the alternative. Would you agree to that?*

      Yes, in theory, I would. But I have never personally encountered a miracle claim where the evidence and/or reasoning (in favor of the miracle) was this overwhelming. It's one of the reasons I don't believe in miracles. The alternatives are nearly always more likely...ie. faulty memory, exaggeration, etc. etc. There are literally hundreds of ways to be mistaken. By way of illustration, watch this recent TED talk, on a few of the problems with eyewitness testimony (http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/09/scott-fraser-on-why-eyewitnesses-get-it.html).

      *Most Christians I know make the mistake of thinking that since YHWH is the one true God, that no other gods exist at all. I don't think that's true.*

      I have to admit, your position on this is pretty fascinating. But you haven't really presented any (positive) reasons for it. Do you have any? What are they? In the absence of such reasons, it still seem wildly implausible to me.

      *You need faith either way, to accept it, or to deny it.*

      I'm not sure I agree with this. We can sometimes be 99.9999% certain of things (think gravity), so it's not really fair to say that we need "faith" to accept them (simply because a tiny sliver of doubt always remains). This is a play on words. My contention here is simply that we could, in all likelihood, establish whether or not the videotape had been altered, to a reasonably high degree of certainty, by submitting it to generous amounts of expert analysis.

      *I lost interest in Loftus, but I shouldn't have, because he does influence people.*

      You're right about that. My take on Loftus is that his personality often leaves a lot to be desired (I don't intend that to sound mean, I'm just trying to keep it real). Many of his arguments are good though, and his opponents seem to (repeatedly) underestimate the force of those arguments. The worst mistake you can make, with Loftus, is to write him off (because you don't care for his ego-driven approach). He's well read, and has a solid grasp on many of the relevant issues.

      Cheers for now,

      Delete
    6. Sorry, I meant to say it still "seems" wildly implausible

      Delete
  12. Hey I just wanted to point you to this blog I recently discovered:

    http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/search?q=amputees

    It's good in general (from a Christian perspective) but they also have posts on the amputee thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the recommendation. I read their amputees post, and I (naturally) have thoughts on it, but I'll save those for another time. I may even turn my next post into a response, of sorts, but I'm undecided. Either way, I'll leave it alone for the time being (my bed is calling).

      Delete