Ante Up!

[inocente]

Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist wouldn’t cry in such a situation?

Didn’t mean that at all old son, I used to be an atheist.

But why do we cry, what’s its survival value, why did we evolve to do it at all? Well no doubt we could both look it up, but that wasn’t really the point. In the same way as with crying I’m asking what survival value our capacity for differing beliefs holds. Not the beliefs themselves, don’t go lurching for your keyboard yet. Not whether some folk are dumb or deluded, or who is right or wrong. But why at all, just on the basis of evolutionary and behavioral science.

Why do we all sometimes get fixated on one way of seeing things to the point where membership of a club becomes so important that it blots out everything else? Why support one football team and get mad at those who support another? That was really the long and short of it, just about seeing our species as it is rather that as we’d like.

 

[davidv]

Because this bag of chemicals is programmed to feel “sadness” when another bag of chemicals (which this bag of chemicals designates “a relative or a friend”) seems to be experiencing pain.

Emotions, by definition, are irrational. The fact that atheists feel emotions has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we think we’re rationally justified to believe in gods.

If emotions are just chemical reactions how can they be classified as irrational?

 

[Windfish]

If a man says stuff, atheists are wrong? What about if an Islamic ‘miracle’ occurs - does that make Christians wrong?

In any event, this is great news - we can finally prove the validity of a theistic claim. What happened when they repeated the experiment under controlled conditions? In which journal is the paper published?

Several things:

1. It depends on the kind of miracle. I have searched and searched for Islamic miracles but have found none since, unlike the Catholic Church, there is no official body which investigates them. But a miracle per se doesn’t necessarily prove any particular religion correct - miracles are more than enough, however, to refute the atheist. Us Catholics understand that other traditions have aspects of the truth and, accordingly, receive as much grace as they can through the truth that they have. We are all children of God, and there is no reason to think why God would only privilege Catholics with miracles (though, it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has seen an uninterrupted history of miracles since it was instituted in 33 A.D.). There is also the very possibility of demonic influences at work in other religions, and even in our own. In this case, though, when a central teaching like the Real Presence of the Eucharist is verified by a miracle, it does prove a particular religion to be correct - that religion being Christianity.
2. What do you mean by repeated the experiment? Do you mean that they repeated the miracle? This strikes me as idiotic - how can they repeat the miracle? Or do you mean that they verified their findings?

In any case, the historical and philosophical proofs that have been presented by theists are more than enough, and I have never seen them honestly or seriously addressed by atheists, mostly because they do not even understand the arguments in the first place.

 

[Windfish]

If a man says stuff, atheists are wrong? What about if an Islamic ‘miracle’ occurs - does that make Christians wrong?

In any event, this is great news - we can finally prove the validity of a theistic claim. What happened when they repeated the experiment under controlled conditions? In which journal is the paper published?

everal things:

1. It depends on the kind of miracle. I have searched and searched for Islamic miracles but have found none since, unlike the Catholic Church, there is no official body which investigates them. But a miracle per se doesn’t necessarily prove any particular religion correct - miracles are more than enough, however, to refute the atheist. Us Catholics understand that other traditions have aspects of the truth and, accordingly, receive as much grace as they can through the truth that they have. We are all children of God, and there is no reason to think why God would only privilege Catholics with miracles (though, it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has seen an uninterrupted history of miracles since it was instituted in 33 A.D.). There is also the very possibility of demonic influences at work in other religions, and even in our own. In this case, though, when a central teaching like the Real Presence of the Eucharist is verified by a miracle, it does prove a particular religion to be correct - that religion being Christianity.
2. What do you mean by repeated the experiment? Do you mean that they repeated the miracle? This strikes me as idiotic - how can they repeat the miracle? Or do you mean that they verified their findings?

In any case, the historical and philosophical proofs that have been presented by theists are more than enough, and I have never seen them honestly or seriously addressed by atheists, mostly because they do not even understand the arguments in the first place.

 

[Windfish]

If a man says stuff, atheists are wrong? What about if an Islamic ‘miracle’ occurs - does that make Christians wrong?

In any event, this is great news - we can finally prove the validity of a theistic claim. What happened when they repeated the experiment under controlled conditions? In which journal is the paper published?

everal things:

1. It depends on the kind of miracle. I have searched and searched for Islamic miracles but have found none since, unlike the Catholic Church, there is no official body which investigates them. But a miracle per se doesn’t necessarily prove any particular religion correct - miracles are more than enough, however, to refute the atheist. Us Catholics understand that other traditions have aspects of the truth and, accordingly, receive as much grace as they can through the truth that they have. We are all children of God, and there is no reason to think why God would only privilege Catholics with miracles (though, it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has seen an uninterrupted history of miracles since it was instituted in 33 A.D.). There is also the very possibility of demonic influences at work in other religions, and even in our own. In this case, though, when a central teaching like the Real Presence of the Eucharist is verified by a miracle, it does prove a particular religion to be correct - that religion being Christianity.
2. What do you mean by repeated the experiment? Do you mean that they repeated the miracle? This strikes me as idiotic - how can they repeat the miracle? Or do you mean that they verified their findings?

In any case, the historical and philosophical proofs that have been presented by theists are more than enough, and I have never seen them honestly or seriously addressed by atheists, mostly because they do not even understand the arguments in the first place.

 

[AntiTheist]

But why do we cry, what’s its survival value, why did we evolve to do it at all? Well no doubt we could both look it up, but that wasn’t really the point.

As your own words indicate, you know that there is a good answer to this question. Basically, crying is a non-verbal distress signal that’s most useful in early childhood and that still triggers whenever we experience distress.

In the same way as with crying I’m asking what survival value our capacity for differing beliefs holds. Not the beliefs themselves, don’t go lurching for your keyboard yet. Not whether some folk are dumb or deluded, or who is right or wrong. But why at all, just on the basis of evolutionary and behavioral science.

Why do we all sometimes get fixated on one way of seeing things to the point where membership of a club becomes so important that it blots out everything else? Why support one football team and get mad at those who support another? That was really the long and short of it, just about seeing our species as it is rather that as we’d like.

If you’re seriously dumbfounded as to why it would be a survival advantage to have creatures with the tendency to get passionate about a cause – and group together with others who share that cause – then you may want to sit down and think really hard about that one.

But more to the point, let’s pretend that we have no good natural explanation for this phenomenon. That lack of explanation doesn’t make any alternative explanation any more likely to be true.

david v:

If emotions are just chemical reactions how can they be classified as irrational?

“Rational” means “of, or pertaining to the reason.” Emotions, arising as they do not from the reason, are – as I said, by definition – not rational.

For example, let’s say that we watch a heartwarming commercial and we start to get misty-eyed and sad. We’re not rationally saying to ourselves, “Is there sufficient reason to be sad?”

People don’t rationally evaluate their emotions – emotions just happen to people, and as a result, they are not rational.

 

[AntiTheist]

But why do we cry, what’s its survival value, why did we evolve to do it at all? Well no doubt we could both look it up, but that wasn’t really the point.

As your own words indicate, you know that there is a good answer to this question. Basically, crying is a non-verbal distress signal that’s most useful in early childhood and that still triggers whenever we experience distress.

In the same way as with crying I’m asking what survival value our capacity for differing beliefs holds. Not the beliefs themselves, don’t go lurching for your keyboard yet. Not whether some folk are dumb or deluded, or who is right or wrong. But why at all, just on the basis of evolutionary and behavioral science.

Why do we all sometimes get fixated on one way of seeing things to the point where membership of a club becomes so important that it blots out everything else? Why support one football team and get mad at those who support another? That was really the long and short of it, just about seeing our species as it is rather that as we’d like.

If you’re seriously dumbfounded as to why it would be a survival advantage to have creatures with the tendency to get passionate about a cause – and group together with others who share that cause – then you may want to sit down and think really hard about that one.

But more to the point, let’s pretend that we have no good natural explanation for this phenomenon. That lack of explanation doesn’t make any alternative explanation any more likely to be true.

david v:

If emotions are just chemical reactions how can they be classified as irrational?

“Rational” means “of, or pertaining to the reason.” Emotions, arising as they do not from the reason, are – as I said, by definition – not rational.

For example, let’s say that we watch a heartwarming commercial and we start to get misty-eyed and sad. We’re not rationally saying to ourselves, “Is there sufficient reason to be sad?”

People don’t rationally evaluate their emotions – emotions just happen to people, and as a result, emotions are not rational.

 

[tonyrey]

The only difference is that once you recognize emotions as things your brain does, it’s a lot harder to get fooled into thinking that the universe runs on them. This realization is a fundamental part of actual spiritual development, what is referred to in Eastern religions as “enlightenment.”

How can there be **spiritual **development if thoughts and emotions are things the brain does?

 

[awatkins69]

lol It’s funny when evolutionary biologists try to be philosophers.

 

[wanstronian]

Several things:

1. It depends on the kind of miracle. I have searched and searched for Islamic miracles but have found none since, unlike the Catholic Church, there is no official body which investigates them. But a miracle per se doesn’t necessarily prove any particular religion correct - miracles are more than enough, however, to refute the atheist. Us Catholics understand that other traditions have aspects of the truth and, accordingly, receive as much grace as they can through the truth that they have. We are all children of God, and there is no reason to think why God would only privilege Catholics with miracles (though, it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has seen an uninterrupted history of miracles since it was instituted in 33 A.D.). There is also the very possibility of demonic influences at work in other religions, and even in our own. In this case, though, when a central teaching like the Real Presence of the Eucharist is verified by a miracle, it does prove a particular religion to be correct - that religion being Christianity.
2. What do you mean by repeated the experiment? Do you mean that they repeated the miracle? This strikes me as idiotic - how can they repeat the miracle? Or do you mean that they verified their findings?

In any case, the historical and philosophical proofs that have been presented by theists are more than enough, and I have never seen them honestly or seriously addressed by atheists, mostly because they do not even understand the arguments in the first place.

I see you struggled with CAF’s database problems yesterday too, hence the repeated posts!

I was being sarcastic, I’m afraid. My point was that the ‘miracle’ that occurred has not, and cannot, be verified by independent means. There’s far too much opportunity for some sleight-of-hand and/or misinformation here. The Catholic Church (like any other, I suspect) is not above a spot of misdirection in order to strengthen its followers’ beliefs. The Catholic Church can declare this as a miracle, but it’s hardly an unbiased observer, is it?

But it would be a simple matter to take another cracker and drop it in the font, then water another plant with it, all under strictly controlled conditions, and see what happens. If this produces genuine heart cells (that beat without stimulus, no less - that in itself lends doubt to the whole ‘miracle’) then Christianity is set up for a huge influx.

But, for some reason, the church generally seems reluctant to expose their self-proclaimed ‘miracles’ to scientific scrutiny. I wonder why that should be.

There are many Islamic ‘miracles’ - such as trees in the shape of a person praying and so on. Objectively not as spectacular as the Sokólka ‘miracle,’ but surely no less convincing to the followers of Islam. And undoubtedly less prone to manipulation.

My point is that because this ‘miracle’ is said by the Catholic Church to have occurred, backed up by nothing but the say-so of some individuals with obvious vested interests, that isn’t good enough to be seen as objective proof that God exists. It might convince those who already believe, but they’re an easy target.

So your “if _____ then ______” scenario doesn’t really pan out in reality, I’m afraid.

 

[inocente]

I have searched and searched for Islamic miracles but have found none since, unlike the Catholic Church, there is no official body which investigates them.

Did you try to verify the miracle in your video? Took me one minute to google Dr Frederick Zugibe, mentioned as having examined the sample. He’s worked on the pathology of crucifixion and on the Turin shroud, but I didn’t spot anything about this momentous event out of his 104 papers. Of course there might by another famous expert in cardiology and pathology in NY that I didn’t find.

(btw, it happened)

Wouldn’t it have been front page news for weeks? The implications for medicine alone, not to mention having the full DNA of Christ?

Sorry but miracles don’t convince other Christians either.

 

[kumarei]

As I have no access to the scientific data that is spoken of in the miracle video, I can’t really make any claim as to its legitimacy, nor as to the legitimacy of the tests performed. I’m not alone in holding off a conclusion; as far as I know, the Catholic Church has not declared this an official miracle at this point in time.

Even if the Catholic Church does declare it a miracle, I don’t think I’d trust their investigation enough to be convinced by it. So as not to be unfair by withholding my criteria, I’ve prepared a list of things that I would need to see before I believed the miracle to be legitimate.

1. Show the material to someone who specializes in plant specimens, and knows how to tell the difference between fungal cells and human cells. I’m not saying that Zugibe doesn’t know his job, but he may have analyzed the sample incorrectly because his job primed him to think he was being given human tissue (what other kind of tissue would you give a cardiologist?), so he may have been fitting the data into his expertise.
2. Take a DNA sample of the material. This shouldn’t be a problem if there is complete living tissue as is claimed. Obviously we would be looking for a human or human-like code, or a totally unknown one. If it turned out to be, say, pig DNA, I think we could rule out Jesus.
3. Check with experts who are skeptical and see what kind of tests they’d recommend to falsify.
4. Allow the results of tests to be circulated within the scientific community, so that peer review could occur. This is one of the ways we safeguard from mistakes.

@Windfish

You said that the “historical and philosophical proofs that have been presented by theists are more than enough”. So far, the only real philosophical or historical proof I’ve gotten from this thread was “A Treatise on God as First Principle” (which I’m still working through). That was the stuff I actually came here to find. What are the other philosophical and historical proofs that you think are convincing?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As your own words indicate, you know that there is a good answer to this question. Basically, crying is a non-verbal distress signal that’s most useful in early childhood and that still triggers whenever we experience distress.

If you’re seriously dumbfounded as to why it would be a survival advantage to have creatures with the tendency to get passionate about a cause – and group together with others who share that cause – then you may want to sit down and think really hard about that one.

But more to the point, let’s pretend that we have no good natural explanation for this phenomenon. That lack of explanation doesn’t make any alternative explanation any more likely to be true.

david v: “Rational” means “of, or pertaining to the reason.” Emotions, arising as they do not from the reason, are – as I said, by definition – not rational.

For example, let’s say that we watch a heartwarming commercial and we start to get misty-eyed and sad. We’re not rationally saying to ourselves, “Is there sufficient reason to be sad?”

People don’t rationally evaluate their emotions – emotions just happen to people, and as a result, emotions are not rational.

Well if thoughts are just chemical reactions in the brain, then thoughts just happen to people and are not rational.

But its not surprising that you take this position, being an atheist. Being hurt when people call you names implies objective meaning, the meaning being that your value as a person is being undermined, and that’s bad for you. This fact makes us aware of concepts such as the dignity of a person or the moral ought. Of course in a purely materialistic reality such things don’t make rational sense. If you are just matter, concepts such as dignity make no sense. What rational sense does it make to speak of the dignity of atoms? What sense does it make for matter to be unhappy, if there is nothing objective to be unhappy about? What sense does it make for matter to be emotionally fulfilled or unfulfilled? It makes no sense in a strictly materialistic world. Unless we view these emotional in terms of the transcendent objective standard they imply, which takes us beyond the mere quantitative meaning of matter, we will fail to understand them. We must first perceive a “person” as having a qualitative value in its nature that transcends its quantitative value. The form must be greater than its parts.

It makes sense to me that if your life has objective intrinsic value and there is a state of living that actualises the fullness of that value, then it is not surprising or irrational to me that if somebody comes along and in some way undermines the actuality of that state the appropriate emotional responses will be un-fulfilment, unhappiness, anger, and frustration. These all make sense in an objectively meaningful world in which we ought to be respected, and we ought to be valued, and we ought to be loved. Even though I cannot make a logical syllogism expressing the truth of this, in experiencing those emotions I am aware of the appropriateness of those emotions in respect of objective moral values and the fulfilment of human dignity. There are many facets of reality that are internally reasonable in themselves relative to a specific understanding of reality, but are not that which can be reasoned to, but must instead must be experienced and understood in through the “meaning” they impart to us. To be happy, is objectively meaningful, to be sad is objectively meaningful; we did not make them up or invent them, and neither did physical reality. In other-words, “non-rational” doesn’t amount to “irrational”.

Yes, of course none of that makes sense to you if you perceive the world merely in terms of physical values. But such experiences make perfect sense in an objectively Christian reality. Given my experience as a person, the meaning intrinsic to those experiences is exactly what I would expect of a world governed by objective moral values.

Why ignore what emotions, in general, imply, about objective reality?

 

[wanstronian]

So far, the only real philosophical or historical proof I’ve gotten from this thread was “A Treatise on God as First Principle” (which I’m still working through).

When you’ve finished, can you explain the damn thing to me!? I don’t think I’ve ever tried to read a more obfuscated and unnecessarily verbose document!

 

[AntiTheist]

Well if thoughts are just chemical reactions in the brain, then thoughts just happen to people and are not rational. It depends. Rational means “of or pertaining to the reason.” Some of the thoughts that arise in my brain are the result of processes in my brain – all of which are totally natural – in which one thought is derived from others; such processes we deem “rational.” Other thoughts that arise in my brain do not emerge from rational processes – they could be an upsurge of unconscious material (“inspiration” or “intuition”) or an associative memory or other kinds of non-rational material.

Being hurt when people call you names implies objective meaning, the meaning being that your value as a person is being undermined, and that’s bad for you.

 

[Windfish]

Sorry but miracles don’t convince other Christians either.

But you have a vested interest in remaining unconvinced since it would profoundly affect your Baptist views. Your argument from silence, I really don’t have to tell you, is not really worthy of response. If I were in your position, I would do everything in my power to research the scientific investigation and get in contact with the lead investigator, Dr. Gomez. But that’s just me - I happened to think it is that important. (And I have done exactly that.)

wanstronian:

I was being sarcastic, I’m afraid. My point was that the ‘miracle’ that occurred has not, and cannot, be verified by independent means. There’s far too much opportunity for some sleight-of-hand and/or misinformation here. The Catholic Church (like any other, I suspect) is not above a spot of misdirection in order to strengthen its followers’ beliefs. The Catholic Church can declare this as a miracle, but it’s hardly an unbiased observer, is it?

The Catholic Church is one of the most skeptical bodies when it comes to miraculous claims, and scientists, many of them atheists, come away amazed and impressed just how skeptical the Church is when they collaborate with her. I mean, many saints and miracles that would otherwise be canonized/declared worthy of belief go unacknowledged because of how skeptical the Church is. And many of these aforementioned scientists have gone on to write books on their experiences collaborating with the Church, and I think if you read them, you will think differently. When the Church proclaims something worthy of belief, we can trust that, well, it’s worthy of belief.

Like inocente, though, you will always privilege the more skeptical point of view, no matter how unlikely, because you have a vested interest in remaining unconvinced. You could have the full findings of the investigation before you, but you could always posit a “sleight-of-hand” or some other theory. We’ve “debunked” the moon landing, after all, so it doesn’t surprise me that you or anyone else can “debunk” this. I happen to think this is something rather profound, and I would not proceed with a biased attitude, but with a humble attitude that sincerely seeks the truth of the matter since the consequences are ginormous.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that Dr. Gomez is in no way affiliated with the Church. His investigation was independent, and he himself was an atheist until he was confronted with these miracles. Speaking for myself, I cannot understand why anyone would approach this in a cavalier way as, again, the consequences are ginormous.

But it would be a simple matter to take another cracker and drop it in the font, then water another plant with it, all under strictly controlled conditions, and see what happens…

But what you misunderstand is that this is not the kind of event that can be reproduced with a formula or with a given set of conditions. And within a Christian point of view, that kind of method is a sure way to get no “response” from God. I mean, it was Christ himself who refused to perform a miracle before King Herod when he asked for it. You’re committing a simple category error.

But, for some reason, the church generally seems reluctant to expose their self-proclaimed ‘miracles’ to scientific scrutiny. I wonder why that should be.

I actually have no idea what you’re talking about, since, like in this case, miraculous claims are usually heavily scrutinized. In other cases, though, respect for the holy object/relic precedes curiosity.

There are many Islamic ‘miracles’ - such as trees in the shape of a person praying and so on… And undoubtedly less prone to manipulation.

Not really. I mean, I’m not one with a default skeptical attitude, I have a neutral attitude, but if we’re talking about manipulation with those kinds of “miracles,” I think it would be rather easy to pull it off. In any case, those kinds of “miracles” are not really miracles at all, imo, though I’m open to persuasion on that if any Muslim reading this wants to defend them.

My point is that because this ‘miracle’ is said by the Catholic Church to have occurred, backed up by nothing but the say-so of some individuals with obvious vested interests, that isn’t good enough to be seen as objective proof that God exists. It might convince those who already believe, but they’re an easy target.

Several things, here:

1. The Church hasn’t ruled either way, yet. They take a long, long time.
2. I think you misunderstand the situation. Dr. Gomez was an atheist, and he has shown himself to be a critical thinker by debunking miraculous claims in the past. He’s out for the truth. The snippet of the video I posted didn’t go into the whole investigation, but you should know this is not the say-so of some individuals, but the backing of a whole study.
3. See, this your problem, you approach it as a “target,” as just another bullet point in a debate. Speaking for myself, I can’t understand this attitude given the ginormous implications.

So your “if _____ then ______” scenario doesn’t really pan out in reality, I’m afraid.

I don’t think so. If the miracle happened, you’re screwed. Happily screwed, I think, but still screwed. At the very least, it would be dishonest for you to continue to say that belief in the truth of Catholicism has no support, especially since this miracle is just one out of several dozen that I have documented on my bookmark list. And if I were you (again, this is just me), I would be more concerned. Jesus himself said that those who witnessed his miracles and still did not repent would have hell to pay because they remain without excuse. Personally, I take this seriously.

 

[Windfish]

As I have no access to the scientific data that is spoken of in the miracle video, I can’t really make any claim as to its legitimacy, nor as to the legitimacy of the tests performed. I’m not alone in holding off a conclusion; as far as I know, the Catholic Church has not declared this an official miracle at this point in time.

Even if the Catholic Church does declare it a miracle, I don’t think I’d trust their investigation enough to be convinced by it. So as not to be unfair by withholding my criteria, I’ve prepared a list of things that I would need to see before I believed the miracle to be legitimate.

1. Show the material to someone who specializes in plant specimens, and knows how to tell the difference between fungal cells and human cells. I’m not saying that Zugibe doesn’t know his job, but he may have analyzed the sample incorrectly because his job primed him to think he was being given human tissue (what other kind of tissue would you give a cardiologist?), so he may have been fitting the data into his expertise.
2. Take a DNA sample of the material. This shouldn’t be a problem if there is complete living tissue as is claimed. Obviously we would be looking for a human or human-like code, or a totally unknown one. If it turned out to be, say, pig DNA, I think we could rule out Jesus.
3. Check with experts who are skeptical and see what kind of tests they’d recommend to falsify.
4. Allow the results of tests to be circulated within the scientific community, so that peer review could occur. This is one of the ways we safeguard from mistakes.

I think a lot of these tests were performed in the study. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the study itself is privileged (remember, the investigation is still under way). For now, the most we can do is obtain first-hand information from the scientists involved and second-hand information from documents that reported on the miracle and on some of the findings. I am in the process of a more in-depth research of these and other cases, but I thought the video was a good enough snippet for the purposes of this thread. There really is no rational basis to not take Dr. Gomez at his word, but, then again, I have a neutral attitude by default, not a skeptical one.

As for other arguments, I think the historical arguments regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ to be very strong. Each new book I read verifies the remarkable historicity and integrity of the NT and of the history of the early Catholic Church. This is one area that I’m studying heavily right now.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Some of the thoughts that arise in my brain are the result of processes in my brain – all of which are totally natural – in which one thought is derived from others; such processes we deem “rational.”

Other thoughts that arise in my brain do not emerge from rational processes – they could be an upsurge of unconscious material (“inspiration” or “intuition”) or an associative memory or other kinds of non-rational material.

Who is “we” and what is “it” which deems something rational? If the brain is merely a chemical construct, a collection of atoms, I fail to see any meaningful space for a “self thinking”. If thoughts are merely secretions of biological processes, then the brain isn’t trying to be “rational” or even trying to think; there is no specific way that it ought to think about something. The brain is just processing information. Just like there are processes in a computer, but a computer is not “thinking” or intending to be rational. There is no such thing as a working or broken brain, or how a thing ought to work, if your world view is true. There is just matter. As usual you are letting your assumption of materialism cloud human experience.

Your materialistic world view is not consistent with what you are saying. The brain doesn’t intentionally make distinctions between rational and irrational. It processes information, and what ever you think is just the inevitable outcome of that process. It is not rational.

My experience of thinking and making rational distinctions, including my observation that there is such a thing as rational and irrational, tells me something that is qualitatively different to what your subjective world view implies about reality.

It is evident to me that I am not just an unintentional biological process. There something more going on that cannot be in principle reduced to physical causes or processes, and I refuse to ignore that.

You’ve got this entirely backwards. The fact that someone’s words upset the precious little picture you’ve made of yourself tells us nothing about the universe outside of you – it tells us everything about your precious little picture you’ve made of yourself and your own sensitivity.

Sensitivity? What does it mean for atoms to be emotionally sensitive? In regards to what? Self esteem? Why would a grouping of atoms have self esteem issues? Happiness only makes sense if there is something to be happy about, and there are, in general, things to be happy about; and those things happen in reality. There are evidently things or factors that full-fill our dignity as persons. We have a general and natural desire to be happy; but atoms do not.

According to you it is not rational to think of myself as having any more value than donkey poo, and for me to think otherwise is irrational. But this is purely an assumption on your part, and my emotional reaction to that idea suggest to me that this is not a true representation of what I am, and is in fact an attempt to undermine what I truly am. That’s why normal rational people who don’t have some kind of mental health issue do not go around thinking of themselves as having the same value as donkey poo, and this is because our emotional and qualitative experience as person suggest that we are more than that. Your attempt to suggest that we cannot gain true knowledge of our selves through general knowledge of emotional experience as a whole is unfounded. You simply choose to ignore the reality of emotions and what they imply existentially. People take emotional offence, usually because they recognise that their dignity as persons has been offended, and our experience of that dignity allows us to understand why that person has taken offence. When we are treated like objects, we take offence, because we are not objects to be used and abused. If we thought we had no more value than donkey poo we would not do anything that would imply that we were otherwise, and it would not make sense that we would take offence. We would not seek moral approval or care about the dignity of other people. Our behaviour toward each-other would be governed by power-structures alone and not because of any real sense of moral right or good character. The word dignity wouldn’t even exist. It exists because we our persons, and it is a natural expression of being a person to seek emotional moral and existential fulfilment, none of which make sense in purely mechanistic terms.

Your behaviour in your refusal to be thought of as irrational or be irrational is evidence that you perceive yourself as having a certain dignity that ought to be preserved at all costs. This in itself implies the existence of a transcendent objective standard which exists beyond the mere physical processes of the brain.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Because there are plenty of things to be subjectively unhappy about…

So, you are basically saying there is no real reason why somebody should be unhappy or happy, its all just made up. But surely you are making assumptions again? People are unhappy in reference to reality. Happiness only has meaning in the sense that they lack something that is required; and they are only happy when they believe that they have found something which will fulfil their personal dignity. Sometimes we can be mistaken about what will fulfil us, but that we have a nature which desires fulfilment in objective reality is evident. This only makes sense if there are things which full-fill it, and there are indeed things in objective reality which fulfil it, such as community, love, relationships and a moral peace of mind.

I’m not – I’m ignoring the false conclusions that you’ve ineptly reasoned out from your experiences.

If you are human, then you to have emotions like me. If I called you evil you would take offence, and you would in general think that you had rational reason for taking offence. And this is because you would recognise that it undermines your value as a person. Your natural reaction would be to defend yourself; or if you knew that you was wrong you would feel guilty; unless of course you are a psychopath. If there is no rationality in morally justifying ones self, or feeling guilty, then why justify yourself or feel guilty? A healthy person doesn’t feel guilty when they have done a perfectly good thing. Why? Because they believe that they have done good. Of course they would have to be aware of “good”, as in experience it, in-order to meaningfully apply it to their actions. Are they irrational?

So again; why care for the dignity of others if they are just are bag of chemicals? You would not treat a rock the same as you would treat a person? You would not give your only life for donkey poo. And neither would you give your life for selfish reasons. You would not give your life for a stranger because you thought they would be of “use” to you; you would not consider that rational. You would not do it for self glory since you cannot enjoy that glory if you are dead; that would not be rational. That means that the only rational reason you would give your life is because you think that it would be truly good to do so. That’s why rational people do it. Self sacrifice through the belief in a real “good” is the foundation of human civilisation.

But according to your world-view empathy is irrational; moral truth is irrational and loving ones neighbour is irrational outside of a desire to survive. Surviving itself is irrational since it presumes that life has a value; that its worth living. This is irrational. Subjective values are irrational.

If you are so rational and you value rationality so much, then why do you live for irrational reasons?

 

[wanstronian]

But you have a vested interest in remaining unconvinced since it would profoundly affect your Baptist views. Your argument from silence, I really don’t have to tell you, is not really worthy of response. If I were in your position, I would do everything in my power to research the scientific investigation and get in contact with the lead investigator, Dr. Gomez. But that’s just me - I happened to think it is that important. (And I have done exactly that.)

The Catholic Church is one of the most skeptical bodies when it comes to miraculous claims, and scientists, many of them atheists, come away amazed and impressed just how skeptical the Church is when they collaborate with her. I mean, many saints and miracles that would otherwise be canonized/declared worthy of belief go unacknowledged because of how skeptical the Church is. And many of these aforementioned scientists have gone on to write books on their experiences collaborating with the Church, and I think if you read them, you will think differently. When the Church proclaims something worthy of belief, we can trust that, well, it’s worthy of belief.

Like inocente, though, you will always privilege the more skeptical point of view, no matter how unlikely, because you have a vested interest in remaining unconvinced. You could have the full findings of the investigation before you, but you could always posit a “sleight-of-hand” or some other theory. We’ve “debunked” the moon landing, after all, so it doesn’t surprise me that you or anyone else can “debunk” this. I happen to think this is something rather profound, and I would not proceed with a biased attitude, but with a humble attitude that sincerely seeks the truth of the matter since the consequences are ginormous.

Finally, it’s worth pointing out that Dr. Gomez is in no way affiliated with the Church. His investigation was independent, and he himself was an atheist until he was confronted with these miracles. Speaking for myself, I cannot understand why anyone would approach this in a cavalier way as, again, the consequences are ginormous.

But what you misunderstand is that this is not the kind of event that can be reproduced with a formula or with a given set of conditions. And within a Christian point of view, that kind of method is a sure way to get no “response” from God. I mean, it was Christ himself who refused to perform a miracle before King Herod when he asked for it. You’re committing a simple category error.

I actually have no idea what you’re talking about, since, like in this case, miraculous claims are usually heavily scrutinized. In other cases, though, respect for the holy object/relic precedes curiosity.

Not really. I mean, I’m not one with a default skeptical attitude, I have a neutral attitude, but if we’re talking about manipulation with those kinds of “miracles,” I think it would be rather easy to pull it off. In any case, those kinds of “miracles” are not really miracles at all, imo, though I’m open to persuasion on that if any Muslim reading this wants to defend them.

Several things, here:

1. The Church hasn’t ruled either way, yet. They take a long, long time.
2. I think you misunderstand the situation. Dr. Gomez was an atheist, and he has shown himself to be a critical thinker by debunking miraculous claims in the past. He’s out for the truth. The snippet of the video I posted didn’t go into the whole investigation, but you should know this is not the say-so of some individuals, but the backing of a whole study.
3. See, this your problem, you approach it as a “target,” as just another bullet point in a debate. Speaking for myself, I can’t understand this attitude given the ginormous implications.

I don’t think so. If the miracle happened, you’re screwed. Happily screwed, I think, but still screwed. At the very least, it would be dishonest for you to continue to say that belief in the truth of Catholicism has no support, especially since this miracle is just one out of several dozen that I have documented on my bookmark list. And if I were you (again, this is just me), I would be more concerned. Jesus himself said that those who witnessed his miracles and still did not repent would have hell to pay because they remain without excuse. Personally, I take this seriously.

I confess I don’t much understand the RCC’s approach to miracles. They beatify someone because some deacon recovered from a back operation in the expected recovery timeframe - a truly unremarkable occurrence - yet sit on something like this which is potential dynamite. It seems somewhat inconsistent, and it is indeed puzzling that the Sokólka ‘miracle’ was not emblazoned across the world’s press when it occurred.

Don’t forget that you have at least as much of a vested interest as Inocente and myself. Don’t mistake skepticism for narrow-mindedness or a desire for God to not exist. You have no particular moral high ground when it comes to interpreting the alleged evidence.

You’re absolutely right though, the implications are huge. Which is precisely why we should take a skeptical, scientific approach to ensure that we don’t jump to the wrong conclusion.

p.s. You’ve been in contact with Gomez? What happened?

p.ps. You’ve debunked the moon landings? You’re kidding, right?