Dismissing the Supernatural

[Furrowed Brow]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true.

• Proposition P:
  there is someone of unsullied reputation and of otherwise good character prepared to die for their belief they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead.

Given just two choices

• (A) is lying
  (B) is true,

Premise 1 means it is more likely they are (A) lying, than what they say is ever going to be (B) true.

I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

[Jagella]

I’m not aware of any specific occasions in which we are aware of someone dying for a lie.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, may well be one example of a person dying for a lie. Other examples may not be well known not because it is rare to die for a lie but that such deaths are not given much attention. People tend to glorify martyrs, and that may be why we know of numerous evident examples of people dying for what they think is true while known cases of people dying for lies may be comparatively rare.

To elaborate, a person holding irrational beliefs is behaving rationally when is behavior is consistent with, and logically follows from, his beliefs (which are the assumptions in his reasoning).

You may not be fully aware of what I mean by a “sensible person.� Not only would a sensible person act sensibly but she would have sensible beliefs as well. If a person dies for believing that she will be zapped by space aliens if she doesn't eat toad stools, then would you argue that she's acting rationally? After all, is it not a rational act for her to eat those toad stools hoping that their poison won't kill her rather than face certain death in the energy rays of angry aliens?

I don't think so.

Jagella

[fredonly]

Do you know what the probability of the Big-Bang creating this universe? Even if nothing else existed besides the atoms that make up this universe, for them to arrange themselves in such perfect order where we humans developed the ability to reason, 1/10^10,000,000 power would only be a very generous 'rough' estimate, for it is much greater than that if we consider quarks. It is trillions of times beyond the 'impossibility factor', yet look how many intelligent people believe it?

Please share your research that is behind the math. I think you are off by quite a bit.

[arian]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it. Have psychologists done studies that demonstrate that people, if given an ultimatum of recanting a claim or suffering death, will not recant if they know the claim to be true? Personally, I would probably recant any claim I've made—true or false—if recanting would save my skin.

Hello Jagella.

Belief, and belief that you just KNOW it's true:

So let's say that you just came home from a ball game with your husband/wife and two kids, 16 and 19 years old, and the four of you settle down to play some Monopoly. About an hour into the game, comes a harsh knock on the door, you open it and it's the police. They push you aside and yell the name of your eldest kid; "Billy, is Billy here?"

He politely stands up and as he utters the words "Here I am, may I ..." he is thrown to the floor, handcuffed and is dragged away.

You yell in panic, "What has he done officers?" and with a stern voice right in your face you are warned not to interfere, or you too will be dragged in for accessory.

You beg one of the younger officers there; "What did he do?" and him being a rookie, he quietly whispers to you: "His girlfriend and his whole family have been brutally murdered. We found that your family cars engine is still warm." then he is ordered to shut up and they leave with your kid. You know that his girlfriend and her family live 45 minutes out of town.

Plot:
The son of the Sheriff of your town has been in love with your sons girlfriend, but you don't know this.

You visit your son in jail, and he seems completely out of it, won't talk only mumble in confusion. If anyone else seen him, they would think the reason for his actions are because he is guilty, but you believe, No, you 'KNOW' he is innocent. He never left your sight even for a minute the whole day, and the distance to his girlfriends house is almost an hour away. The rest of the family is as sure of his innocents as you are.

As you try to explain to the detective on the case that he was with you and your family the whole day, you are again threatened not to interfere with the investigation, or you will be arrested for accessory to murder. He tells you they have two reliable eye-witnesses of the murder, and also claim they 'believe' seeing someone else in the car, but could not see him/her clearly, so don't push the issue.

Up till now, you believed that something fishy is going on here, but with that same threat, your belief changes, and you 'know' something smells fishy, even rotten.

Now tell me, would you still stick with your claim you made here?:

Personally, I would probably recant any claim I've made—true or false—if recanting would save my skin

Another problem with the assertion in question is that it's way too vague. What does it mean to “die for a lie�? Is the claim made known to be false by the person facing death or is it another person's lie? If a person “dies for a lie,� then did they die voluntarily or involuntarily? We don't always have a choice in the matter, of course.

Those Believers in Christ who have died by cruel tortures, by being crucified, burnt at the stake were sure of their faith. I know many in communist countries who were tortured, spent many years separated from family in prisons, and did not recant, even till death. They never fought back or hit back or hurt anyone, but went to their death sometimes along with their children without a doubt.

Now there is a difference in this kind belief system than those that strap a bomb to their chest and blow up innocent men, women and children at a market.

One is done in love NOT to harm, but to bring eternal peace to mankind, peace that they felt even under persecution. This is love so strong that it is willing to sacrifice death of self AND their family, by those that hate them because of who they 'BELIEVE in'. The death is NOT their wish, but is brought about by hate and those that cannot stand their 'faith' in something they themselves are not willing to accept.

The other is done in obvious HATE for anyone who do not accept their faith in whom 'THEY BELIEVE IN'. Christians who believe in killing others for ANY reason belong to this group.

Finally, if an person chooses death over recanting a belief, I question that person's credibility. I tend to be more likely to believe people I think are sensible, and in my opinion sensible people won't die for beliefs. A person martyred for a religious belief, then, is less likely to be dying for the truth than a person who knows better than do die in such an unreasonable way.
Jagella

By what you say here, I too would question YOUR credibility.
So what you are saying is, as in the scenario I gave you above, when they take your kid to the electric chair, you would simply say: "Sorry son, but I will NOT risk my life just because I 'believe' you are innocent. I was asked that if I push my beliefs of your innocence to the media or anyone else, I too will get the electric chair, and I would not risk my life for my 'beliefs'. You understand, ... don't you son?"

There is a difference between killing someone because they would not accept your belief, your 'faith', no matter how perverted and hateful it is towards humanity,

and being made to suffer and even be killed for your belief in love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control and to turn the other cheek, AND the belief in the ONE who taught you these truths.

[arian]

Do you know what the probability of the Big-Bang creating this universe? Even if nothing else existed besides the atoms that make up this universe, for them to arrange themselves in such perfect order where we humans developed the ability to reason, 1/10^10,000,000 power would only be a very generous 'rough' estimate, for it is much greater than that if we consider quarks. It is trillions of times beyond the 'impossibility factor', yet look how many intelligent people believe it?

Please share your research that is behind the math. I think you are off by quite a bit.

I see you have problem visualizing my 1/10^10,000,000 number, but it is no different than looking beyond the visible/known universe. For us, it becomes just numbers.

This is how I started;

Visualize a junk yard.
Now visualize a 747 with every part, every bolt, foam, plastic, every nut and bolt, and figure out the possibility of a tornado going through that junk yard and assembling a brand new 747 Jet Airplane.
It is something like 1/10^647 power.

Now look at only the 'known universe' every star, planet, and then look at earth, every living thing on the earth, every creature, every animal, human body, then organs, then cells, then atoms and when you have that number, define it, and create an equation representing the possibility of all that coming together by 'chance' creating such order as we see.

Let's say it is something like 1/10^164,000 to one chance. But that is only the 'known universe', and down to the atom.

I said what if we considered the entire (yet unknown) universe, down to particles like quarks and those that make up the quarks? So I placed a number: 1/10^10,000,000. Am I off you say? Then here is a better known equation to explain all this, E=MC2.

But, I'm just a simple Believer in Jesus, not a mathematician, scientist, nor a philosopher, but I do look into those claims made by them, and find it lacking. For some reason I cannot 'limit' my imagination to only the visible, I tend to go beyond these (for the present) physical limitations.

I could define the entire universe residing in Eternity by this same number; 1/10^10,000,000 'of' Eternity,
and who is to prove me wrong?

Thanks fredonly.

Odon

[Jagella]

Now tell me, would you still stick with your claim you made here?:

Personally, I would probably recant any claim I've made—true or false—if recanting would save my skin

Probably yes, but I'd need to make some adjustments when other people are also in jeopardy, of course.

Those Believers in Christ who have died by cruel tortures, by being crucified, burnt at the stake were sure of their faith.

Maybe, but keep in mind that many “believers in Christ� burnt others at the stake and inflicted “cruel tortures� on them as well. These executioners were also sure of their faith. Such fanaticism can skew a person's thinking pressuring them to believe at all costs—even at the cost of truth. As a result, their claims may not be credible.

I know many in communist countries who were tortured, spent many years separated from family in prisons, and did not recant, even till death. They never fought back or hit back or hurt anyone, but went to their death sometimes along with their children without a doubt.

It's very unfortunate that they felt that they needed to die for their beliefs. If they weren't “true� Christians, then they would have done what any sensible person would do; People should say what they must say to save their lives.

Finally, if an person chooses death over recanting a belief, I question that person's credibility. I tend to be more likely to believe people I think are sensible, and in my opinion sensible people won't die for beliefs. A person martyred for a religious belief, then, is less likely to be dying for the truth than a person who knows better than do die in such an unreasonable way.
Jagella

By what you say here, I too would question YOUR credibility.

That's good! Always think critically and question people's credibility if what they say doesn't add up.

So what you are saying is, as in the scenario I gave you above, when they take your kid to the electric chair, you would simply say: "Sorry son, but I will NOT risk my life just because I 'believe' you are innocent. I was asked that if I push my beliefs of your innocence to the media or anyone else, I too will get the electric chair, and I would not risk my life for my 'beliefs'. You understand, ... don't you son?"

Actually, there would be little I could do to save my son.

In any case, you are confusing dying for a claim with dying for a person. I said I wouldn't die for a claim; I didn't say I would not die for a person. If I made some claim prior to my son's arrest that if recanted would save him from execution, then I believe I would recant the claim even if I knew it to be true. I may die for a person, but I don't think I'd die for a claim. To die for a claim would be fanatical and irrational.

By the way, have you noticed the different consequences to your approach to beliefs and my approach? My approach serves to save people from death while your approach may often result in an increased demand for body bags.

...and being made to suffer and even be killed for your belief in love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control and to turn the other cheek, AND the belief in the ONE who taught you these truths.

You may have such “truths.� I prefer to live as a liar than die for some “sacred truth.� Keeping people alive and well takes precedence over beliefs. It's the sensible thing to do, in my opinion.

Jagella

[arian]

Now tell me, would you still stick with your claim you made here?:

Personally, I would probably recant any claim I've made—true or false—if recanting would save my skin

Probably yes, but I'd need to make some adjustments when other people are also in jeopardy, of course.

Those Believers in Christ who have died by cruel tortures, by being crucified, burnt at the stake were sure of their faith.

Maybe, but keep in mind that many “believers in Christ� burnt others at the stake and inflicted “cruel tortures� on them as well. These executioners were also sure of their faith. Such fanaticism can skew a person's thinking pressuring them to believe at all costs—even at the cost of truth. As a result, their claims may not be credible.

I know many in communist countries who were tortured, spent many years separated from family in prisons, and did not recant, even till death. They never fought back or hit back or hurt anyone, but went to their death sometimes along with their children without a doubt.

It's very unfortunate that they felt that they needed to die for their beliefs. If they weren't “true� Christians, then they would have done what any sensible person would do; People should say what they must say to save their lives.

Finally, if an person chooses death over recanting a belief, I question that person's credibility. I tend to be more likely to believe people I think are sensible, and in my opinion sensible people won't die for beliefs. A person martyred for a religious belief, then, is less likely to be dying for the truth than a person who knows better than do die in such an unreasonable way.
Jagella

By what you say here, I too would question YOUR credibility.

That's good! Always think critically and question people's credibility if what they say doesn't add up.

So what you are saying is, as in the scenario I gave you above, when they take your kid to the electric chair, you would simply say: "Sorry son, but I will NOT risk my life just because I 'believe' you are innocent. I was asked that if I push my beliefs of your innocence to the media or anyone else, I too will get the electric chair, and I would not risk my life for my 'beliefs'. You understand, ... don't you son?"

Actually, there would be little I could do to save my son.

In any case, you are confusing dying for a claim with dying for a person. I said I wouldn't die for a claim; I didn't say I would not die for a person. If I made some claim prior to my son's arrest that if recanted would save him from execution, then I believe I would recant the claim even if I knew it to be true. I may die for a person, but I don't think I'd die for a claim. To die for a claim would be fanatical and irrational.

By the way, have you noticed the different consequences to your approach to beliefs and my approach? My approach serves to save people from death while your approach may often result in an increased demand for body bags.

...and being made to suffer and even be killed for your belief in love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control and to turn the other cheek, AND the belief in the ONE who taught you these truths.

You may have such “truths.� I prefer to live as a liar than die for some “sacred truth.� Keeping people alive and well takes precedence over beliefs. It's the sensible thing to do, in my opinion.

Jagella

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't think twice to lie to save your skin, and you save on body bags, while I would die not to hurt anyone, and would die for the truth, I cause more death???

... you rather die a lier?

very sensible, ... to save your own skin of course. Not very Christian like. The Churches are full of Christians who would do anything to save their own skin. That's why I am a Believer, the name Christian has been perverted, and does NOT mean Christ-Like anymore.

[Mithrae]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true. . . .


I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

I think Fredonly hit the nail on the head in post 2; the problem lies in what we class as 'supernatural.' Time travel could be considered 'supernatural' now, just as space travel would have been considered supernatural a thousand years ago.

If archaeologists in a 3rd century BCE site found a manuscript of the book of Daniel, which was carbon-dated at three universities to 270 BCE, it'd be proof of 'supernatural' prophecy. But according to your Premise 1, it's more likely that the archaeologists and universities were bribed and threatened by a militant Christian group with billionaires' backing to falsify the information.

If a team of scientists said they'd managed to invent time travel, but for fear of temporal paradoxes were willing to share their heavily-patented research only with two other scientific teams internationally and in addition confirm their ability by accurately predicting (in a secret manner) a dozen future lottery draws, it'd be proof of time travel. But according to you, it's more likely (again) that a militant billionaire group managed to bribe and threaten enough people to pull off the whole hoax.

And as for space travel... well, we know that the moon landing was faked!

Rather than beginning with a premise which presupposes a complete understanding of what is 'natural' and what isn't, wouldn't it make more sense to weigh evidence in each case and decide whether there's a sufficiently compelling case to expand one's notion of what might be possible? In essence, your premise says that there is no possible volume of evidence which would convince you that something you consider 'supernatural' is possible.

[Goat]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true. . . .


I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

I think Fredonly hit the nail on the head in post 2; the problem lies in what we class as 'supernatural.' Time travel could be considered 'supernatural' now, just as space travel would have been considered supernatural a thousand years ago.

If archaeologists in a 3rd century BCE site found a manuscript of the book of Daniel, which was carbon-dated at three universities to 270 BCE, it'd be proof of 'supernatural' prophecy. But according to your Premise 1, it's more likely that the archaeologists and universities were bribed and threatened by a militant Christian group with billionaires' backing to falsify the information.

First of all, the date of the writing of Daniel was pretty much established between 160 bce and 165 bce. Second of all, the terminology was such that the 'prophecies' were vague to be able to be retrofitted into multiple situations, which would cause it to fail on his list anyway.

[dianaiad]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it.
<snip to here>

I think a better way to express this would be 'it is highly unlikely that someone would truly die for something they knew to be a lie."

Not "impossible,' but 'highly unlikely." In those cases where someone DOES 'die for a lie,' it generally happens that they are really dying for a different truth. The mother who confesses to a crime her child committed, even though she might be put to death for it, isn't dying for a lie; she's dying to protect a greater truth; her conviction that HER life is less important than her child's.

[arian]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it.
<snip to here>

I think a better way to express this would be 'it is highly unlikely that someone would truly die for something they knew to be a lie."

Not "impossible,' but 'highly unlikely." In those cases where someone DOES 'die for a lie,' it generally happens that they are really dying for a different truth. The mother who confesses to a crime her child committed, even though she might be put to death for it, isn't dying for a lie; she's dying to protect a greater truth; her conviction that HER life is less important than her child's.

Another words, the Bible is wrong in punishing children who are disobedient, even if they commit a crime worthy of death, right dianaiad?

So you believe that your child (8-80) committing crimes worthy of death is more important than the 'truth'?
This is the result of 'indoctrination'. I pray you seek the the real value of truth my friend.

I do admit you present a much nicer scenario than the one who would 'lie' to save his/her own skin.