I come seeking truth.

[Egbert]

I didn’t say anything about your maturity. I merely noted that you are biologically less capable at this point in your development.

Um ... what is the difference?

Keep in mind that my stage in mental development only indicates my abilities compared to what they eventually will be, not compared to what they are now for other people. Though I have not yet reached my full potential, I might have already surpassed some of those who have reached theirs. It isn't reasonable to assume that you are better equipped to judge a religion's validity just because you are older.

Of course not, but that doesn’t make your implied point. To illustrate, say you come to me and tell me that you’ve decided to attend college, but secretly your reason for this is that you want to hang out and socialize, meet girls and enjoy that scene. You’ll go to class and do well enough to remain, but your intent isn’t to receive an education. You’ve made a wise choice for the wrong reasons. My approval wouldn’t have anything to do with your judgment.

So you are saying that you would approve of my decision to become a Christian, while disapproving of my decision to seek to make a decision in the first place?

I didn’t say you should, but given your conclusion, your mistake in method, your all too brief consideration and the consequences I’d rather you take a bit more time.

Is this really a matter of time? Consider the following:
86% of Christians convert before age 15. The older you are, the less likely you are to become a Christian.
The highest rates of theism are found, not surprisingly, in 65+ age group. But the lowest rates are found in the 30-49 age group (with the 18-29 group practically tied). The peak of mental performance is somewhere between 20 and 30 years of age, and combined with experience and time to study, shouldn't this cause the 30-49 age group to have one of the higher rates?
Finally, the higher your IQ, and the more education you have, the less likely you are to believe in God.

These facts indicate to me that waiting would only make me less likely to be a Christian.

That’s a powerful declaration. It would, however, be a tad more convincing if coupled with a powerful examination. It’s doomed because you can’t love in reserve, can’t issue an invitation with the doors bolted and will never have a meaningful relationship based on suspicion…I realize that most emotional entanglements at your age are little more than that but as an approach to God it is woefully insufficient.

I would prefer to have meaningful relationships with those I can see, hear, touch, or otherwise have mutual communications with. I don't get anything out having a "relationship" with something or someone whose very existence is highly questionable.

Then those people, your peers and that general company, whom you have decided to side with, are under the same obligation to answer the challenge I make to you.

I don't quite follow this. What is the challenge?

It isn’t necessary to read every tome by every Christian with an exegesis…but you should be familiar with the central understandings of any faith you’re considering. It isn’t your fault that I’ve had more years of serious study than you’ve lived, but that doesn’t mean a day is the same as a week is the same as a month, year, decade, and so on. Perhaps by the time you reach my age you will have greatly surpassed my understanding and accomplishment. I hope that is the case and would be happy to learn of it, but at present you know little and from that want make decisions of real importance and I’m counseling you not to hurry.

I prefer quality over quantity in my research. Since I'm already familiar with the "central understandings" (and not all that impressed by them), I don't see a point in studying very much about smaller doctrinal disagreements between congregations and such. If don't have reason to believe that a man named Noah ever built an ark, then I'm not interested in debating over what kind of wood he used.

Your confidence isn’t at issue. Your judgment, exposure and the limited development of your reasoning at this juncture are more to the point. Nothing to hang your head over, but it is something to be aware of and to take into account when making anything like a judgment of this magnitude.

I wonder what more there is. I've read and listened to some of the most highly regarded theologians, debaters and apologists, and I don't find what they have to offer convincing. Is there something else that I should be looking at? If that is all, then I don't see for what I should be reserving my judgement.

I agree. And there is as much for Him as there ever will be against Him or for any other proposition.

Then please present it. (I remember a certain thread about this that didn't produce much of value.)

Now then, what constitutes evidence? What is sufficient as a threshold?

It's hard to define what is evidence, since there are so many different kinds. But here are a few things that are not evidence:

"Evidence" for the need for a creator
All evidence of this kind that I have encountered has been either scientifically wrong or philosophically wrong (according to the Anthropic Principle). But more importantly, even if you prove that there must be an intelligent designer, you haven't proven anything about that designer's nature besides its abilities of design. It proves nothing about the Judeo-Christian God.

Prophecies from the Bible that were fulfilled according to the Bible
Unless there is evidence from outside the Bible to verify the claim, it doesn't count. It's easy to write an account to fit what you think were prophecies from earlier parts othe Bible, but hard to make that fit with an objective historical record.

Standard near-death experiences
The standard vision of a light at the end of a tunnel, accompanied by euphoria and visions of loved ones has been explained by neuroscience. It's an expected side effect of the brain's "dying gasp" as its blood supply dwindles. Unless you can find a documented case of a person having an out-of-body experience that provides otherwise impossible information, you have proven nothing about the soul, and even if you prove there is a soul, you have yet to prove that it relates to the Judeo-Christian God.

Do you understand that any position you take in relation to what is can be viewed as a statement of faith? And have you fully considered the matter with the requisite information at hand to make an informed and meaningful choice?

I believe that I have made an informed choice, based on (the lack of) requisite information. I lack reason to believe that any of the denominations of Christianity or any other religions are true. By default, I am an atheist (or non-theist, to differentiate from strong atheism). That is not a statement of faith; it is a lack thereof.

Rather, if you could do so you would at best make an argument that Galileo was right and that the Bible is a book of faith, not science; but, first you’d have to actually do that, wouldn’t you?

The Bible's problems are more than scientific inaccuracies. The core concepts of God's supposed grace and Jesus's sacrifice are deeply flawed.

If you mean the credibility of Christianity rests on the Bible, I’d say that’s true in part, though how you mean that is important.

That is what I mean.

This is a great blog by someone who used to be an atheist and was quite vocal about it on her blog. Her conversion story can be found in the links just under her profile on the upper left of her blog. She's a terrific writer, and reading her blog is both fun and profitable. Give it a try.

Conversion Diary - The Diary of a Former Atheist

Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read, though ultimately unconvincing due to a number of flawed lines of reasoning.

 

[annabenedetti]

Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read, though ultimately unconvincing due to a number of flawed lines of reasoning.

As an aside, atheism confounds me. Nevertheless, IMO some come to God through faith, and some come to God through reason; but ultimately faith will confirm reason, and reason will inform faith.

One more link for you (Don't worry, I don't have a whole trunkful of links which address atheism). I hope you'll read it thoughtfully.

FIDES ET RATIO

ENCYCLICAL LETTER FIDES ET RATIO OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON
My Venerable Brother Bishops, Health and the Apostolic Blessing!

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

The rest follows at the link above.

 

[Town Heretic]

In the interest of preventing eye strain, Part I.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic
I didn’t say anything about your maturity. I merely noted that you are biologically less capable at this point in your development.

Um ... what is the difference?

The intent to offer insult…I meant that being biologically impaired doesn’t make one immature except in that sense. Typically we use words like that to denote an emotional instability and it is as often as not an intentional slight, which wasn’t the case here.

It isn't reasonable to assume that you are better equipped to judge a religion's validity just because you are older.

Of course not and you have every right to wonder at my qualifications. :think: But I’m not comfortable with public crowing on that part. I did it once before, in irritation, and it has bothered me since…If you’re interested I would be happy to tell you about my educational background and other relevant facts relating to my judgment by PM. That said, even were you a peer in terms of native ability, you still would be in a deficit for the other reasons I’ve mentioned (course of study, the perspective provided by time and your biological schedule of development).

So you are saying that you would approve of my decision to become a Christian, while disapproving of my decision to seek to make a decision in the first place?

No, I was responding to your suggestion/inference that my celebration of your making what I consider a wise choice would be, somehow, hypocritical given my concerns regarding your judgment/limitations at present. My example was meant to demonstrate that I would celebrate the right choice, even while understanding your reasons (in the example, motivation) were not those I would prefer.

I didn’t say you should, but given your conclusion, your mistake in method, your all too brief consideration and the consequences I’d rather you take a bit more time.

Is this really a matter of time? Consider the following:
86% of Christians convert before age 15. The older you are, the less likely you are to become a Christian.

Interesting. Where did you find this statistic? I came to the faith just short of my thirtieth year and was an Atheist before that, but I’m familiar with the general fact that many (perhaps most) Christians come up in and accept the faith of their tradition. I’m sure the same is true for most religions.

The highest rates of theism are found, not surprisingly, in 65+ age group.

Why doesn’t that surprise you?

But the lowest rates are found in the 30-49 age group (with the 18-29 group practically tied). The peak of mental performance is somewhere between 20 and 30 years of age, and combined with experience and time to study, shouldn't this cause the 30-49 age group to have one of the higher rates?

You’re mistaken with regard to mental performance, unless you’re speaking of process speed and given that up to half of that 20-30 range is taken up with that frontal lobe difficulty, it’s a fairly meaningless statistic. Certain types of creativity typically peak in certain ranges, but it varies. I’d say, even accepting your premise for argument’s sake, that the 30-49 range would be where serious reflection and consideration would begin to coalesce.

I’d also speculate that your observation might have something to do with the fact that those currently within that range were mostly reared by anti establishment children of the 60’s. That is, I’d bet the correlation, assuming it is correct, could differ markedly in the 40’s or 50’s, though I ‘d suppose the roaring 20's probably skewed the 30’s and early 40’s in much the same way.

Finally, the higher your IQ, and the more education you have, the less likely you are to believe in God.

Historically just the opposite is true. Once again, your lack of perspective blinkers you. You are only looking at the data that supports your bias. It should have been an easy matter for you to have caught another inference from that 65+ group differing so markedly with its next kin, so to speak.

These facts indicate to me that waiting would only make me less likely to be a Christian.

Again, this sort of narrow analysis underscores my contention that you lack the perspective and rounded judgment to find the greater context that opens your analysis to other conclusions and alternate considerations.

tbc...

 

[Town Heretic]

In the interest of preventing eye strain, Part II.

I would prefer to have meaningful relationships with those I can see, hear, touch, or otherwise have mutual communications with.

The former qualifications have little to do with the latter, but to discover this takes a commitment you have yet to muster, taking your account as you set it out.

I don't get anything out having a "relationship" with something or someone whose very existence is highly questionable.

But it isn’t highly questionable. It either is or it isn’t. He either exists or He doesn’t. And there’s no objective methodology to settle the matter. Highly is just a word you throw in that illustrates your prejudice, not the truth or lack of it.

I don't quite follow this. What is the challenge?

To understand what it is you reject fully and to be equally certain of what it is you embrace.

I prefer quality over quantity in my research.

They aren’t mutually exclusive, you know…and one could argue that the absence of sufficient quantity goes directly to the quality of any examination. In fact, I think I just did.

Since I'm already familiar with the "central understandings" (and not all that impressed by them),

Then I think you are either not as widely or well read as you imagine or your standards are a little high.

…I don't see for what I should be reserving my judgment.

I just set out a few things that should give you pause, even had you read every writing of significance regarding the existence of God and the relation and obligations of man. It doesn’t matter how many exquisite numbers you have to be added if the machine you rely on for the sum is errant. An equation is worth nothing absent an operation. You are impaired, both biologically and in terms of life perspective. Only time will cure that deficiency. And time is what I’m arguing for...

And there is as much for Him as there ever will be against Him or for any other proposition.

Then please present it. (I remember a certain thread about this that didn't produce much of value.)

The world around you is as much an argument for God as it is an argument from chance. The distinction between the two is nothing more or less than preference and intent, absent personal, subjective experience. That is, no perspective on being and existence is objectively demonstrably true (this being good news to any number of publishing houses). Now the experience of God is an altering thing, but even without it a declaration of hope toward purpose is as rational as any other posit and, I’d argue, more so than the embrace of relativism and futility.

Now then, what constitutes evidence? What is sufficient as a threshold?

It's hard to define what is evidence, since there are so many different kinds. But here are a few things that are not evidence:

"Evidence" for the need for a creator

The uncaused cause is a defensible position, but you’re right in asserting that this is, at best, an argument for deism and no particular friend of Christianity.

Prophecies from the Bible that were fulfilled according to the Bible

Actually, since the books of the Bible were written independently, you’re penalizing the combination of them for no apparent reason. Also, it’s interesting that you seem to think inconsistencies are worth noting but consistent claims are invalid…

Standard near-death experiences

Actually, we don’t really know that (your explanation) to be true and many people fail to experience anything like the often reported near death experience. I’d agree it doesn’t conclusively tell us anything though.

I believe that I have made an informed choice, based on (the lack of) requisite information. I lack reason to believe that any of the denominations of Christianity or any other religions are true. By default, I am an atheist (or non-theist, to differentiate from strong atheism). That is not a statement of faith; it is a lack thereof.

There is no neutral position. Even the declaration of being, I am, is a statement of faith, as you cannot demonstrate it save through the use of reason, which cannot prove itself except by itself (a logical fallacy) and so is, as all things are at their core, an article of faith.

The Bible's problems are more than scientific inaccuracies.

Well, I haven’t conceded those any more than you’ve illustrated them, but…

The core concepts of God's supposed grace and Jesus's sacrifice are deeply flawed.

Again, so you say. And declaration is an easy thing. Proof is quite another thing.

If you mean the credibility of Christianity rests on the Bible, I’d say that’s true in part, though how you mean that is important.

That is what I mean.

No, that’s someone else’s thought followed by your declaration regarding it. I am, however, interested in your actual reasoning through the matter. :e4e:

 

[Egbert]

Wow, that grew fast. I would prefer not to carry on a conversation in which the posts exponentially increase in size to no end, so I'll try to pare this down again.


The conversion statistic was found here.
Statistics for the relationship between theism and age are found here. (That page also contains statistics for theism and education level, but not for IQ. Statistics for IQ are here.)

I find the statistics for the 65+ age group unsurprising because they were brought up in a time of greater religiosity, and few people ever end up changing their minds about the religious beliefs they hold by the time they are in their teens.

When I speak of mental performance, I do mean processing speed. Development of risk assessment is usually completed at about 25, peaking later than raw mental power used for things like math problems. An important point is that teenagers are more prone to faulty reasoning than adults when in stressful situations, while their reasoning skills are approximately equal when calm. I don't think my incomplete development is a significant hindrance when it comes to assessing evidence and logical inconsistencies.
By the way, processing speed starts to slow down at about age 40.


The books of the Bible were written independently? Not really. The origins of the Old Testament books aren't all clear, but we know that the books in the New Testament were written with the Old Testament in mind. It doesn't work to claim that the books verify each other. The sources were by no means unbiased.
Regarding the problems with the Bible: you probably have already heard most of what I would say, and obviously you have not found the arguments convincing. I don't want to start debating all that in this thread. It's already been done so many times elsewhere.

 

[Town Heretic]

Wow, that grew fast. I would prefer not to carry on a conversation in which the posts exponentially increase in size to no end, so I'll try to pare this down again.

That was my thought as well. The only thing I could think to do and still respond fully was to break the response into segments.

The conversion statistic was found here.
Statistics for the relationship between theism and age are found here. (That page also contains statistics for theism and education level, but not for IQ. Statistics for IQ are here.)

Interesting, if within the context I provided not really indicative of anything other than the prevailing cultural bias. The variance between some college education and those possessing postgrad. degrees, like yours truly, was a whopping 2%. And the IQ correlation is a fine example of how to make statistics appear to say something they don't. Most people believe in God. Most people's IQs are found in the average range. And here is a link to an article referencing a study that found Atheist intellectual superiority usurped by Jews and Anglicans (with the faith of my father and my family tradition coming out on top). So what does that tell us? How to use research to mislead people and little more.

Re: Mental gymnastics...

When I speak of mental performance, I do mean processing speed.

Which shouldn't be confused with mental performance, being only a portion of that consideration and one where some among the elder set, perhaps by virtue of an earlier significant deviation in that regard, could function with equal or greater speed than their much younger counterparts even so. To put it differently, if Einstein reduced his intellect through steady drinking and age, he'd still likely be smarter than most people at any age. And if one's mental processes are significantly ahead of the mean, a diminution of them might leave one simply a lessened distance ahead of those with a less degraded biological constitution.

Development of risk assessment is usually completed at about 25, peaking later than raw mental power used for things like math problems.

Rather, you're confusing a particular trend for a particular sort of creative process with a very impressive, if technically meaningless phrase, mental power. And this completion you mention corresponds with the outside figure for the full development of those areas of the brain responsible for judgment.

An important point is that teenagers are more prone to faulty reasoning than adults when in stressful situations, while their reasoning skills are approximately equal when calm.

That isn't supported by the data I've seen, but the placing of stress into the equation, which in most meaningful decisions is an inherent factor, makes the point a bit moot, I suppose.

I don't think my incomplete development is a significant hindrance when it comes to assessing evidence and logical inconsistencies.

Well if it does you'd be likely not to know it. And I'd say that underscores my point, as your failure to consider a differing contextual interpretation of the data you referenced earlier was an illustration of part of what comes only or mostly with experience, further education and wider perspective.

By the way, processing speed starts to slow down at about age 40.

:chuckle: The key being the slow down, mostly related to speed and not the integrity of process, is gradual. And, again, where you start is of some importance.

The books of the Bible were written independently? Not really.

Yes, really. Your scholarship in this regard is deficient if you believe otherwise. I can point you to better resources if you're interested, but given much of what you find objectionable isn't actually my argument I'll move on absent your expressed curiosity and deal with your remaining points.

The origins of the Old Testament books aren't all clear, but we know that the books in the New Testament were written with the Old Testament in mind.

Aren't clear in what manner and to whom? And the second part of your declaration on point is little more than spin. You could as readily (and I think more honestly) say that the authors of the NT referred to the understandings of Judaism that were also part of their tradition. That is, if I wrote a book of U.S. history of the 20th century and incorporated references to earlier events that paralleled or were the foundation of later events I meant to chronicle you could make the same vague allegations with no more real support.

It doesn't work to claim that the books verify each other. The sources were by no means unbiased.

Unlike your examination of them? Then imagine my relief that I didn't suggest they weren't biased (the authors believed what they related to be true) or argue that they were self authenticating. I merely reminded you that they were collected and came from disparate sources over a not inconsiderable period of time.

Regarding the problems with the Bible: you probably have already heard most of what I would say, and obviously you have not found the arguments convincing. I don't want to start debating all that in this thread. It's already been done so many times elsewhere.

Fair enough, but I'd argue that if you aren't prepared to defend them you should abstain from raising them, no? And I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't respond to my posit regarding the faith based nature of your own conclusion/posture...but, it was pleasant making your acquaintance in any event and I wish you the best both in your time here and in the fuller context of your life. :e4e:

Perhaps we'll do something like this again.

 

[Ktoyou]

Go Anglicans!

O' not Helmuth Nyborg!

Rushton is a bit of a nut
The late Herrnstein and A. Jensen are mainly concerned with this field and the replication of their results.
Charles Murray seems to have written most of the Bell Curve, it is his interest to crusade against welfare, fist he said choosing welfare was a good choice(Losing Ground), later, (BC) he says it is low IQ that is the common factor in all underdog groups.
Flynn effect seems to have been more relevant than it continues to be in first world nations.

 

[zon3d]

I do hope you find the truth while you are here.