Have you ever had a religious or supernatural experience?

[TJ in Oregon]

Instead of chasing anecdotes, probably the most effective way to discuss whether doctors believe in miracles is to look at polls asking them that question. The answer seems to be yes by a wide margin. Not that it really proves anything besides whether doctors believe in miracles.

[Kingpoleon]

You cited Bruce Greyson, a neuroscientist, as evidence that people who study the brain believe in Christian miracles. Greyson's own research describes near-death experiences as accompanied by "auditory hallucinations"-- not the Divine speaking into a person's mind, but their own mind tricking them. He co-authored this paper that repeatedly and explicitly describes these as "hallucinations." Regardless of what Greyson himself thinks on the matter, it is clear that he lacks sufficient evidence to stake his reputation on authoring a scientific article attributing these experiences to supernatural causes.

Medical miracle pushers are very much like Trump's "election fraud" lawyers. They will make extreme and absurd claims publicly, but when it comes to actually staking their reputations and careers on their assertions (for example, perjuring themselves to a court, or putting their names on a peer-reviewed article claiming there is objective evidence for the Divine), they inevitably back down.

In any case, I've already spent far more time looking into your claims than they deserve. I don't believe that you legitimately think that naming half a dozen fringe doctors constitutes incontrovertible evidence that the Christian god is real. It is clear (to any objective observer, anyway) that you hold your superstitions to a different standard of evidence than you do everything else. Getting bogged down in the specifics of cherrypicked Christian dogma ignores the broader point-- there is no medical consensus that medical miracles occur, and so there is no reason for a member of the public to take such claims seriously. I've never completely closed the door to supernatural occurrences, and if presented with actual evidence I would always take it into consideration. But the fact that you are willing to believe-- lacking the extraordinary proof you'd need to bolster your extraordinary claims-- is indicative of a shocking lack of inquisitiveness, self-awareness, and basic skepticism.

I advise you to read that paper further. “However, the marked differences in attitudes of near-death experiencers and schizophrenic patients toward auditory hallucinations raise questions about the etiology of these hallucinations, specifically about whether in all circumstances internal voices should be classed as hallucinations. ... Regarding them in all circumstances as pathological may inhibit our investigation and understanding of their powerful influence on our world (Liester, 1996). Our finding of a high prevalence rate and predominantly positive attitudes toward auditory hallucinations following an NDE reinforces the need for further research.”

John Eccles, hardly a fringe scientist, published articles and books about what psychology and neurology indicate metaphysically.

For further reference to neurology, biology, and theology:
https://youtu.be/oBsI_ay8K70
https://youtu.be/fOFGKhvWQ4M
https://youtu.be/_H0yoBiBM5s
https://youtu.be/-sPBF1o4a4U

[afleitch]

Instead of chasing anecdotes, probably the most effective way to discuss whether doctors believe in miracles is to look at polls asking them that question. The answer seems to be yes by a wide margin. Not that it really proves anything besides whether doctors believe in miracles.

We've already discussed this very survey:

I do not trust Craig Keener's word on the efficacy of Christian miracles any more than I trust the word of David Miscavige on the efficacy of Dianetics. If there is ever a consensus in the scientific community that miracles are real-- say, on the same level as global warming-- then I'll get back to you. But cult members can't be trusted to represent their cult using facts.

This is absurd. There is no “scientific consensus” on the existence of Abraham Lincoln, or on the existence of Columbus, or on the existence of matter itself. The idea that a very narrow field such as science holds all the answers to everything and will eventually abolish the humanities is absurd. Now, it is true that 35-40% of scientists are Christians who believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, and this view is becoming more common among scientists. (This is one of two subgroups in America where religiosity is increasing.) What percent have to be Christians for you to affirm that miracles and science are not in conflict?

Experts in the field of history (which is the field of study relevant to the existence of Lincoln) agree that Lincoln exists. However, experts in the field of medicine (the field of study relevant to the existence of medical miracles) do not agree that miracles exist, and would laugh in your face if you suggested that prayer could provide an actual remedy for a person beyond the placebo effect.

What else needs to be said?

Most doctors believe in miracles, and 55 percent claim to have seen one themselves.  Admittedly, you can quibble with the survey wording, but it is clear a large percentage of doctors do in fact believe in miracles.

https://www.hcplive.com/view/3635

'Those surveyed represent physicians from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religious traditions.'

Selecting a sample of religious physicians will probably give you that result.

'A national poll of 1,100 physicians from different religious faiths asked whether they believed in miracles;'

[John Dule]

You cited Bruce Greyson, a neuroscientist, as evidence that people who study the brain believe in Christian miracles. Greyson's own research describes near-death experiences as accompanied by "auditory hallucinations"-- not the Divine speaking into a person's mind, but their own mind tricking them. He co-authored this paper that repeatedly and explicitly describes these as "hallucinations." Regardless of what Greyson himself thinks on the matter, it is clear that he lacks sufficient evidence to stake his reputation on authoring a scientific article attributing these experiences to supernatural causes.

Medical miracle pushers are very much like Trump's "election fraud" lawyers. They will make extreme and absurd claims publicly, but when it comes to actually staking their reputations and careers on their assertions (for example, perjuring themselves to a court, or putting their names on a peer-reviewed article claiming there is objective evidence for the Divine), they inevitably back down.

In any case, I've already spent far more time looking into your claims than they deserve. I don't believe that you legitimately think that naming half a dozen fringe doctors constitutes incontrovertible evidence that the Christian god is real. It is clear (to any objective observer, anyway) that you hold your superstitions to a different standard of evidence than you do everything else. Getting bogged down in the specifics of cherrypicked Christian dogma ignores the broader point-- there is no medical consensus that medical miracles occur, and so there is no reason for a member of the public to take such claims seriously. I've never completely closed the door to supernatural occurrences, and if presented with actual evidence I would always take it into consideration. But the fact that you are willing to believe-- lacking the extraordinary proof you'd need to bolster your extraordinary claims-- is indicative of a shocking lack of inquisitiveness, self-awareness, and basic skepticism.

I advise you to read that paper further. “However, the marked differences in attitudes of near-death experiencers and schizophrenic patients toward auditory hallucinations raise questions about the etiology of these hallucinations, specifically about whether in all circumstances internal voices should be classed as hallucinations. ... Regarding them in all circumstances as pathological may inhibit our investigation and understanding of their powerful influence on our world (Liester, 1996). Our finding of a high prevalence rate and predominantly positive attitudes toward auditory hallucinations following an NDE reinforces the need for further research.”

Lol! So after three pages of discussing this-- all the time claiming that incontrovertible proof of Christian miracles exists-- you are now treating the phrase "reinforces the need for further research" as a win? Again: Nobody is closing the door completely on the supernatural. I have never said that I know for certain that god/gods do not exist. But the problem here is that you are treating the possibility of miracles as proof of miracles, whereas I am saying that it is silly to stake your convictions on something that is not (yet) substantiated by evidence. The truth is that the very person you named as "proof" that supernatural miracles exist himself said that the evidence is inconclusive! And in fact, the language he uses in that paper repeatedly refers to these instances as hallucinations-- unwilling, clearly, to make any concrete argument that these experiences are caused by something external to the brain itself.

Look, all I'm asking is that you admit that your faith is just that-- faith. You shouldn't feel the need to justify your beliefs using the language of science (which will inevitably result in disappointment). You cannot reason through a belief that you didn't arrive at through reason in the first place-- so why try? Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to believe what you want. The problem arises when you try to make others respect your beliefs as valid, in the same way that we might respect, say, the law of gravity or evolution. Your beliefs are not owed that level of respect, and the more reasonable Christians on this site-- Nathan and Scott, for example-- understand that and don't try to wage a religious war on science's terms. I have no objection to Christians who speak about their faith in terms of their personal experience with how it has improved their life, but trying to quantify supernatural occurrences in the way you're doing is simultaneously futile and oddly self-defeating.

[Former President tack50]

For what is worth I will say that if I ever get some sort of incurable severe desease I'd definitely be hoping for a literal miracle to happen even if I don't believe in miracles

At that point I'd look out to literally anything.

[RFayette]

'A national poll of 1,100 physicians from different religious faiths asked whether they believed in miracles;'

I don't see anything saying unaffiliated people were excluded from the survey.  I don't have access to the original study, but this seems unlikely and rather the press statement is just saying a wide variety of faiths were included among the respondents.

[John Dule]

For what is worth I will say that if I ever get some sort of incurable severe desease I'd definitely be hoping for a literal miracle to happen even if I don't believe in miracles

At that point I'd look out to literally anything.

Well, this is precisely why it should be illegal for people to sell miracle cures, healing crystals, or any other quack pseudoscientific trash under the pretense that it will cure an incurable illness. It is perfectly rational for a desperate, dying person to exhaust every possible option they have to help themselves, and so it is easy for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of them.

[Kingpoleon]

Lol! So after three pages of discussing this-- all the time claiming that incontrovertible proof of Christian miracles exists-- you are now treating the phrase "reinforces the need for further research" as a win? Again: Nobody is closing the door completely on the supernatural. I have never said that I know for certain that god/gods do not exist. But the problem here is that you are treating the possibility of miracles as proof of miracles, whereas I am saying that it is silly to stake your convictions on something that is not (yet) substantiated by evidence. The truth is that the very person you named as "proof" that supernatural miracles exist himself said that the evidence is inconclusive! And in fact, the language he uses in that paper repeatedly refers to these instances as hallucinations-- unwilling, clearly, to make any concrete argument that these experiences are caused by something external to the brain itself.

Look, all I'm asking is that you admit that your faith is just that-- faith. You shouldn't feel the need to justify your beliefs using the language of science (which will inevitably result in disappointment). You cannot reason through a belief that you didn't arrive at through reason in the first place-- so why try? Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to believe what you want. The problem arises when you try to make others respect your beliefs as valid, in the same way that we might respect, say, the law of gravity or evolution. Your beliefs are not owed that level of respect, and the more reasonable Christians on this site-- Nathan and Scott, for example-- understand that and don't try to wage a religious war on science's terms. I have no objection to Christians who speak about their faith in terms of their personal experience with how it has improved their life, but trying to quantify supernatural occurrences in the way you're doing is simultaneously futile and oddly self-defeating.

I believe you misunderstood me. I am an advocate of cessation of miracles theologically.

I do not argue that my beliefs, with regards to religion, love, and human rights, are as well established as gravity, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. Unlike those latter things things of knowledge, I would be quite prepared to die to defend the former things of belief. Because of this, I am forced to conclude NOT that belief is irrational or less real than scientific fact, but rather that it is super rational and more real than scientific fact. Kierkegaard comes highly recommended, in my view.

I should be quite clear here: I do not believe in your definition of faith and belief as being without evidence. It is as clear to me that God is real as it is that I love my mother, for I have felt it in my heart. You may attempt to make your heart a slave to your head, but pigs will fly and the moon will fall before such a thing comes to pass.

[afleitch]

'A national poll of 1,100 physicians from different religious faiths asked whether they believed in miracles;'

I don't see anything saying unaffiliated people were excluded from the survey.  I don't have access to the original study, but this seems unlikely and rather the press statement is just saying a wide variety of faiths were included among the respondents.

www.jta.org/2004/12/23/lifestyle/when-doctors-believe-in-miracles/amp

All reporting of the survey mentions it was measuring people of different faiths.

[John Dule]

Lol! So after three pages of discussing this-- all the time claiming that incontrovertible proof of Christian miracles exists-- you are now treating the phrase "reinforces the need for further research" as a win? Again: Nobody is closing the door completely on the supernatural. I have never said that I know for certain that god/gods do not exist. But the problem here is that you are treating the possibility of miracles as proof of miracles, whereas I am saying that it is silly to stake your convictions on something that is not (yet) substantiated by evidence. The truth is that the very person you named as "proof" that supernatural miracles exist himself said that the evidence is inconclusive! And in fact, the language he uses in that paper repeatedly refers to these instances as hallucinations-- unwilling, clearly, to make any concrete argument that these experiences are caused by something external to the brain itself.

Look, all I'm asking is that you admit that your faith is just that-- faith. You shouldn't feel the need to justify your beliefs using the language of science (which will inevitably result in disappointment). You cannot reason through a belief that you didn't arrive at through reason in the first place-- so why try? Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to believe what you want. The problem arises when you try to make others respect your beliefs as valid, in the same way that we might respect, say, the law of gravity or evolution. Your beliefs are not owed that level of respect, and the more reasonable Christians on this site-- Nathan and Scott, for example-- understand that and don't try to wage a religious war on science's terms. I have no objection to Christians who speak about their faith in terms of their personal experience with how it has improved their life, but trying to quantify supernatural occurrences in the way you're doing is simultaneously futile and oddly self-defeating.

I believe you misunderstood me. I am an advocate of cessation of miracles theologically.

I do not argue that my beliefs, with regards to religion, love, and human rights, are as well established as gravity, general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. Unlike those latter things things of knowledge, I would be quite prepared to die to defend the former things of belief. Because of this, I am forced to conclude NOT that belief is irrational or less real than scientific fact, but rather that it is super rational and more real than scientific fact. Kierkegaard comes highly recommended, in my view.

I should be quite clear here: I do not believe in your definition of faith and belief as being without evidence. It is as clear to me that God is real as it is that I love my mother, for I have felt it in my heart. You may attempt to make your heart a slave to your head, but pigs will fly and the moon will fall before such a thing comes to pass.

Every argument I've had with theists on this matter has begun and ended in the same way. It begins with the theist asserting that their beliefs are supported by a wealth of irrefutable evidence which, if examined by an open-minded person, clearly points to the existence of the Divine. After a lengthy conversation that inevitably exposes the gaping holes in their reasoning, the theist then ends the discussion with an unrelated appeal to pathos, usually accompanied by some poetic analogies and the not-so-subtle implication that atheists are cold-hearted meanies who are incapable of appreciating beauty. At no point does the theist ever acknowledge just how far the goalposts have drifted over the course of the conversation, or the deep and obvious bias they have demonstrated in assessing their own beliefs. They act as though this last-ditch emotional appeal is a sufficient counter to the arguments presented against their claims-- for their fellow theists, it is probably enough, but it will do nothing to sway the opinion of an objective observer.

Theists have, in the past, made excellent soldiers, authors, poets, scholars, politicians, philosophers, and artists. But damn, do you guys leave a lot to be desired as debaters.

[Kingpoleon]

Every argument I've had with theists on this matter has begun and ended in the same way. It begins with the theist asserting that their beliefs are supported by a wealth of irrefutable evidence which, if examined by an open-minded person, clearly points to the existence of the Divine. After a lengthy conversation that inevitably exposes the gaping holes in their reasoning, the theist then ends the discussion with an unrelated appeal to pathos, usually accompanied by some poetic analogies and the not-so-subtle implication that atheists are cold-hearted meanies who are incapable of appreciating beauty. At no point does the theist ever acknowledge just how far the goalposts have drifted over the course of the conversation, or the deep and obvious bias they have demonstrated in assessing their own beliefs. They act as though this last-ditch emotional appeal is a sufficient counter to the arguments presented against their claims-- for their fellow theists, it is probably enough, but it will do nothing to sway the opinion of an objective observer.

Theists have, in the past, made excellent soldiers, authors, poets, scholars, politicians, philosophers, and artists. But damn, do you guys leave a lot to be desired as debaters.

This is, from beginning to end, a lie. At no point did I suggest that irrefutable evidence existed which proved God’s existence. At no point did you demonstrate complete and utter objectivity while I goggled like a toddler over your bright intelligence. As for this appeal to pathos? It was a reference to Hume, hardly the most prominent Christian thinker in history.

I did point out a number of flaws with materialism, citing neuroscientists and physicists in their field, and you accused me of a fallacious appeal to authority after you had just insinuated that all serious scientists are materialists. You refused to answer any of these points from start to finish and have now ended with insults that are not only immoral but illogical as well. You make your fellow libertarian, Nassim Taleb, look humble and polite by comparison.

[Torie]

Not to my knowledge.

[John Dule]

Every argument I've had with theists on this matter has begun and ended in the same way. It begins with the theist asserting that their beliefs are supported by a wealth of irrefutable evidence which, if examined by an open-minded person, clearly points to the existence of the Divine. After a lengthy conversation that inevitably exposes the gaping holes in their reasoning, the theist then ends the discussion with an unrelated appeal to pathos, usually accompanied by some poetic analogies and the not-so-subtle implication that atheists are cold-hearted meanies who are incapable of appreciating beauty. At no point does the theist ever acknowledge just how far the goalposts have drifted over the course of the conversation, or the deep and obvious bias they have demonstrated in assessing their own beliefs. They act as though this last-ditch emotional appeal is a sufficient counter to the arguments presented against their claims-- for their fellow theists, it is probably enough, but it will do nothing to sway the opinion of an objective observer.

Theists have, in the past, made excellent soldiers, authors, poets, scholars, politicians, philosophers, and artists. But damn, do you guys leave a lot to be desired as debaters.

This is, from beginning to end, a lie. At no point did I suggest that irrefutable evidence existed which proved God’s existence. At no point did you demonstrate complete and utter objectivity while I goggled like a toddler over your bright intelligence. As for this appeal to pathos? It was a reference to Hume, hardly the most prominent Christian thinker in history.

I did point out a number of flaws with materialism, citing neuroscientists and physicists in their field, and you accused me of a fallacious appeal to authority after you had just insinuated that all serious scientists are materialists. You refused to answer any of these points from start to finish and have now ended with insults that are not only immoral but illogical as well. You make your fellow libertarian, Nassim Taleb, look humble and polite by comparison.

I'm not saying that you "goggled like a toddler." I'm just saying that you took it upon yourself to provide rational, scientific evidence for the existence of God-- a task that has eluded everyone in history, from great thinkers like Descartes to not-so-great thinkers like Craig Keener. This is a monumental undertaking, and it is through no fault of your own that no evidence yet exists that would actually support your claims. The problem, again, is not that your beliefs are unsubstantiated. The problem is that you expect your unsubstantiated beliefs to be treated with a respect that they are not owed.

Also, I did not criticize you for appealing to authority. I pointed out that the authorities you cited were either A) Controversial/discredited fringe theorists, or B) People like Bruce Greyson who do not actually agree with you and whose research you misrepresented. And regardless of how many individual theist scholars you can cherrypick who endorse these extremist views, that will not change the fact that these so-called "miracles" cannot (by your own admission) be replicated in a laboratory setting, which makes them 100% unconfirmed.

Anyway, I'm honestly sorry that I was impolite during this conversation, and I do tend to get carried away sometimes. However, it's difficult to respond honestly to arguments like yours without a certain degree of bluntness. I'm happy to continue this discussion if you'd like to present more arguments against the deterministic-materialistic worldview that I support, but only if you're willing to hold your claims to the same standard of evidence that you would hold others' claims.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I actually tend to agree with Dule in this debate. Miracles, by definition, are supposed to defy what is either 'reasonable' or expected. They cannot be scientifically examined or replicated, because they are not meant to be. If they were, then they wouldn't actually be miracles.

That is why I've come to understand miracles, such as the one I that experienced as a child, as personal gifts that are meaningful to the person or people experiencing it. I believe they're as real as anything else, but quantifying those miracles by declaring them as a 'normal' part of the human experience is to water down those miracles. It is unnecessary to argue for their existence using the language of science, but I am a believer that not all things in this reality can be explained scientifically. Our finite minds simply cannot comprehend the splendor of either God or the universe we live in.

[Kingpoleon]

Also, I did not criticize you for appealing to authority. I pointed out that the authorities you cited were either A) Controversial/discredited fringe theorists, or B) People like Bruce Greyson who do not actually agree with you and whose research you misrepresented. And regardless of how many individual theist scholars you can cherrypick who endorse these extremist views, that will not change the fact that these so-called "miracles" cannot (by your own admission) be replicated in a laboratory setting, which makes them 100% unconfirmed.

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century. I did not misrepresent Dr. Greyson in any way, shape, or form. He has just published a book in which he explains why he thinks NDEs that he’s spent decades researching prove the existence of an afterlife, if you’re actually curious about his research. He has another interesting paper I will link here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X17301903

Anyway, I'm honestly sorry that I was impolite during this conversation, and I do tend to get carried away sometimes. However, it's difficult to respond honestly to arguments like yours without a certain degree of bluntness. I'm happy to continue this discussion if you'd like to present more arguments against the deterministic-materialistic worldview that I support, but only if you're willing to hold your claims to the same standard of evidence that you would hold others' claims.

1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5608
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7544

I maintain not only that there is a rather decent case for God’s existence if we begin within your materialistic framework, but the universe is not deterministic. It is probabilistic, and the collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. If a tree falls in a forest and nothing’s around to hear it, it has not fallen until something observes that it has.

[John Dule]

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century.

Then why did you begin this digression by citing Craig Keener, a man who has based his entire career on the presumption that miracles occur in modern times? Without any further explanation, this sounds like an absurd viewpoint. So god just stopped performing miracles as soon as cameras were invented? What about all the "miracles" that people claim have occurred since the 19th Century? Are you saying that those miracles are all fake? If so, then why are you so willing to discount all of those anecdotal testimonies while simultaneously accepting as fact the "miracles" that occurred in the past?

I did not misrepresent Dr. Greyson in any way, shape, or form. He has just published a book in which he explains why he thinks NDEs that he’s spent decades researching prove the existence of an afterlife, if you’re actually curious about his research. He has another interesting paper I will link here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X17301903

To be clear: You brought Greyson into this argument as an example of a serious scholar who believes in "medical miracles" that point to the existence of the Christian god. So far, I all I have read from the man are articles discussing as-yet-unexplained hallucinations, in which he suggests that there might be non-materialistic explanations for these occurrences. That is a much less radical argument than the one you were initially making, and a far cry from the proof you would need to bolster such an unsubstantiated claim. Because of this, yes, I say that you are misrepresenting Greyson's work. Even if the man believes in nonmaterialistic or probabilistic factors in human consciousness, that does not mean he agrees with you that "medical miracles" are real or that the Christian soul exists.

I'll happily discuss his arguments, but even so, this is still one man's opinion. He openly acknowledges at the beginning of his article that the materialistic paradigm of psychology remains the overwhelming consensus.

1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5608
2. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7544

I maintain not only that there is a rather decent case for God’s existence if we begin within your materialistic framework, but the universe is not deterministic. It is probabilistic, and the collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. If a tree falls in a forest and nothing’s around to hear it, it has not fallen until something observes that it has.

I find these kinds of arguments compelling, especially the notion that subatomic particles operate probabilistically-- which could potentially both establish the existence of human free will and disprove determinism in one fell swoop. That would be awesome. The issue, of course, is that your claim is inherently unfalsifiable. It is (by definition) impossible to know how an object behaves when it is not under observation, and while I'm happy to speculate, arguing definitively for one side or the other is just futile. Sure, you're free to believe that there is some intangible quality in the observer that creates reality-- but there is no reason to believe that yet. I'm always open to the possibility of these things, but based on the knowledge we've amassed right now, the laws of causality appear absolute. If we were to find an exception to these laws (and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this exception was not based on our own misunderstanding), then that would puncture the deterministic model of the universe pretty definitively. However, no such evidence exists, so I'm forced to conclude that arguments against determinism amount to wishful thinking.

[Kingpoleon]

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century.

Then why did you begin this digression by citing Craig Keener, a man who has based his entire career on the presumption that miracles occur in modern times? Without any further explanation, this sounds like an absurd viewpoint. So god just stopped performing miracles as soon as cameras were invented? What about all the "miracles" that people claim have occurred since the 19th Century? Are you saying that those miracles are all fake? If so, then why are you so willing to discount all of those anecdotal testimonies while simultaneously accepting as fact the "miracles" that occurred in the past?

To be clear: You brought Greyson into this argument as an example of a serious scholar who believes in "medical miracles" that point to the existence of the Christian god. So far, I all I have read from the man are articles discussing as-yet-unexplained hallucinations, in which he suggests that there might be non-materialistic explanations for these occurrences. That is a much less radical argument than the one you were initially making, and a far cry from the proof you would need to bolster such an unsubstantiated claim. Because of this, yes, I say that you are misrepresenting Greyson's work. Even if the man believes in nonmaterialistic or probabilistic factors in human consciousness, that does not mean he agrees with you that "medical miracles" are real or that the Christian soul exists.

I'll happily discuss his arguments, but even so, this is still one man's opinion. He openly acknowledges at the beginning of his article that the materialistic paradigm of psychology remains the overwhelming consensus.

The first notion is not on the basis of convenience, but upon that of skepticism. I am skeptical of miracles, and for a long time I found none after the second century even remotely compelling. However, after reading biographies and first person accounts from John Wesley, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman, I was forced either to conclude that these three people were delusional, pathological liars, or experienced miracles. I see little reason to believe the first two based upon contemporary accounts and the fact that nobody seemed to doubt it at the time - shocking considering the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were hardly more Christian than our own, particularly among the intellectual elite.

I find these kinds of arguments compelling, especially the notion that subatomic particles operate probabilistically-- which could potentially both establish the existence of human free will and disprove determinism in one fell swoop. That would be awesome. The issue, of course, is that your claim is inherently unfalsifiable. It is (by definition) impossible to know how an object behaves when it is not under observation, and while I'm happy to speculate, arguing definitively for one side or the other is just futile. Sure, you're free to believe that there is some intangible quality in the observer that creates reality-- but there is no reason to believe that yet. I'm always open to the possibility of these things, but based on the knowledge we've amassed right now, the laws of causality appear absolute. If we were to find an exception to these laws (and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this exception was not based on our own misunderstanding), then that would puncture the deterministic model of the universe pretty definitively. However, no such evidence exists, so I'm forced to conclude that arguments against determinism amount to wishful thinking.

Three questions. So, as a determinist, I assume you don’t concur with Dawkins that life began by chance?

Secondly, what do you think of this, which seems to indicate that superposition goes above the atomic level?

Thirdly, are you familiar with Donald Hoffman’s work on the implications of evolution on neuroscience?

[Kingpoleon]

I also wish to contend against Dule’s seeming proclamation of his own objectivity. Years ago, I discovered a fascinating hypothesis which suggests that confirmation bias and presupposition is intrinsic and the most powerful influence on our beliefs. After years of research, every piece of evidence thus far assembled supports this hypothesis without exception. This seems to indicate that objectivity and neutrality are rather difficult, if not impossible, to accurately impute in any discussion such as this.

[John Dule]

The first notion is not on the basis of convenience, but upon that of skepticism. I am skeptical of miracles, and for a long time I found none after the second century even remotely compelling. However, after reading biographies and first person accounts from John Wesley, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman, I was forced either to conclude that these three people were delusional, pathological liars, or experienced miracles. I see little reason to believe the first two based upon contemporary accounts and the fact that nobody seemed to doubt it at the time - shocking considering the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were hardly more Christian than our own, particularly among the intellectual elite.

I don't know how exactly to respond to this, because I have no idea what makes some miracles more "convincing" for you than others. I do know, however, that Harriet Tubman was struck in the head when she was 13, cracking her skull and possibly giving her a case of epilepsy. It is therefore likely that the "voice of god" she experienced was somehow related to this injury-- at least, more likely than the notion that the divine was somehow speaking through her. As for why nobody doubted this at the time, that probably has less to do with the prevalence of Christianity than it does with the lack of a credible alternative explanation (which modern medicine and neuroscience can provide us with). Regardless, I'm sure you know that pointing out specific instances of "miracles" is simply not convincing for someone who isn't already converted; you have to want to believe in order to take these kinds of stories at face value.

Three questions. So, as a determinist, I assume you don’t concur with Dawkins that life began by chance?

I don't pay much attention to Dawkins, but if that's his assertion then yes, I would disagree. A deterministic model demands that every event was set in motion from the moment of the Big Bang (and, potentially, earlier). There is no chance, luck, or fortune involved. And again, I'm not wedded to this idea, and I don't particularly like it. It is simply the rational assumption based on how we understand the universe at this moment; if new and credible information arises I will be more than happy to reject this model.

Secondly, what do you think of this, which seems to indicate that superposition goes above the atomic level?

Without reading the original research paper and fully understanding their methods, I can't really respond. However, my suspicion on this subject has always been that the act of observing (specifically, the instruments used) may affect the particles in ways that make it impossible to draw solid conclusions.

Thirdly, are you familiar with Donald Hoffman’s work on the implications of evolution on neuroscience?

Based on the overview I just glanced at, it sounds like he's saying something similar to what I've thought for a while-- as creatures evolve to higher levels of intelligence, it's possible that their newfound awareness of their own existence forces them to evolve certain coping mechanisms to deal with the understanding of their own mortality, etc. This makes intuitive sense to me; I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to though.

I also wish to contend against Dule’s seeming proclamation of his own objectivity. Years ago, I discovered a fascinating hypothesis which suggests that confirmation bias and presupposition is intrinsic and the most powerful influence on our beliefs. After years of research, every piece of evidence thus far assembled supports this hypothesis without exception. This seems to indicate that objectivity and neutrality are rather difficult, if not impossible, to accurately impute in any discussion such as this.

As I've said before, I've never made any claim to being more intelligent/rational than anyone else. The only difference, I think, is that I at least acknowledge that objectivity is an ideal worth striving towards, whereas certain people seem to view it as unattainable and therefore not worth anyone's time. The problem is not that theists are biased, it is that they either do not know they are biased or do not care that they are biased. And no matter what broad claims you make about how humans are incapable of thinking purely objectively, you will never be able to draw a fair equivalency between the views of theists and the views of atheists, because one is clearly less substantiated by evidence than the other.

[John Dule]

Also, am I crazy or are these two comments completely contradictory? Like WTF does this even mean

The odds are decidedly not in your favor. Craig Keener’s estimate of 100 million miracles in the last hundred years is such a large number that the odds of all of them being false or naturally explainable is roughly equivalent to the odds that George Washington was not a historical person.

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century.

[Kingpoleon]

Also, am I crazy or are these two comments completely contradictory? Like WTF does this even mean

The odds are decidedly not in your favor. Craig Keener’s estimate of 100 million miracles in the last hundred years is such a large number that the odds of all of them being false or naturally explainable is roughly equivalent to the odds that George Washington was not a historical person.

I am a cessationist - I do not believe miracles continue in the present day, and in fact have seen no convincing accounts of such since the nineteenth century.

One is a philosophical point that requires a theological rebuttal. For example, I think the best rebuttal to ID is theological in nature, not scientific or philosophical.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't know how exactly to respond to this, because I have no idea what makes some miracles more "convincing" for you than others. I do know, however, that Harriet Tubman was struck in the head when she was 13, cracking her skull and possibly giving her a case of epilepsy. It is therefore likely that the "voice of god" she experienced was somehow related to this injury-- at least, more likely than the notion that the divine was somehow speaking through her. As for why nobody doubted this at the time, that probably has less to do with the prevalence of Christianity than it does with the lack of a credible alternative explanation (which modern medicine and neuroscience can provide us with). Regardless, I'm sure you know that pointing out specific instances of "miracles" is simply not convincing for someone who isn't already converted; you have to want to believe in order to take these kinds of stories at face value.

Wesley has several fascinating miracles. Beyond his raising a dead man to life, he also alleges that a mob broke into a house to murder him, and when he ran past them “but they were blinded and could not see me escape, though I could see them on the other side of the room.” (Or something of that sort.) Truth actually alleged that she got her name in a vision from God. “And He appeared to me in a dream and gave me the name Sojourner because I was to travel up and down the land, showing the people their sins, and being a sign unto them. But I asked for a second name, cause everybody else had two names; and the Lord gave me Truth, because I was to declare the truth to His rebellious people."

Without reading the original research paper and fully understanding their methods, I can't really respond. However, my suspicion on this subject has always been that the act of observing (specifically, the instruments used) may affect the particles in ways that make it impossible to draw solid conclusions.

The observer effect clearly demonstrates that, in order for anything to actually happen, there must be an observer. As things actually happened prior to our existence, who was this observer? In other words, quantum physics is dependent upon there being no mind-independent reality. This is one reason why H. L. Mencken, for example, considered physicists to be modern day witch doctors.

[If my soul was made of stone]

The observer effect clearly demonstrates that, in order for anything to actually happen, there must be an observer. As things actually happened prior to our existence, who was this observer? In other words, quantum physics is dependent upon there being no mind-independent reality. This is one reason why H. L. Mencken, for example, considered physicists to be modern day witch doctors.

The observer effect doesn't postulate that nothing happens without observation, merely that observation alters any perceived outcomes. With no observer, things would still happen, but without the quantum effects of the observer's presence.

What, for you, is the key difference in credibility between the Christian miracles that you have been discussing this whole time, apparently happening with no clear element of human will, and the practices of shamanism (which you insist on referring to derogatorily) found in numerous cultures, in which it is the power of human interaction with the sphere of the spiritual that creates results as well as the value of performance and self-expression, or in the interaction of science with the forces of creation in such a manner? I find the latter two to be far more interesting and philosophically sound means of realization, personally. Why would the latent power of forces beyond us intercede on our behalf without some sort of manipulation and fundamental understanding of the workings thereof? Why is the idea of "there being no mind-independent reality" incompatible to you with the acknowledgement of the presence of spiritual force of which we as a species occupy a part?

[Kingpoleon]

The observer effect doesn't postulate that nothing happens without observation, merely that observation alters any perceived outcomes. With no observer, things would still happen, but without the quantum effects of the observer's presence.

What, for you, is the key difference in credibility between the Christian miracles that you have been discussing this whole time, apparently happening with no clear element of human will, and the practices of shamanism (which you insist on referring to derogatorily) found in numerous cultures, in which it is the power of human interaction with the sphere of the spiritual that creates results as well as the value of performance and self-expression, or in the interaction of science with the forces of creation in such a manner? I find the latter two to be far more interesting and philosophically sound means of realization, personally. Why would the latent power of forces beyond us intercede on our behalf without some sort of manipulation and fundamental understanding of the workings thereof? Why is the idea of "there being no mind-independent reality" incompatible to you with the acknowledgement of the presence of spiritual force of which we as a species occupy a part?

You are correct about the observer effect specifically - I should have cited superposition and wave collapse, which do require an observer. There are a number of metaphysical positions consistent with quantum mechanics, including dualism, theism, idealism, panpsychism, and solipsism, but materialism is not one of them.

[Kingpoleon]

Based on the overview I just glanced at, it sounds like he's saying something similar to what I've thought for a while-- as creatures evolve to higher levels of intelligence, it's possible that their newfound awareness of their own existence forces them to evolve certain coping mechanisms to deal with the understanding of their own mortality, etc. This makes intuitive sense to me; I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to though.

Hoffman sort of reminds me of William James here. In The Varieties of Religious Experience, James argues that the truth claims of a religion are an improper measurement - instead, they should be measured by their utility. On this note, he places Christianity and Buddhism as the best religions in the world. Advocates of this religious utilitarianism today include Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, and Brian Greene.

Hoffman’s actual point is that we are designed for fitness, not truth, and as such we are not seeing things accurately. All living things - or at least most living animals - are conscious agents, and humans are conscious agents all the way down. He explains it in contrast to physicalism in this video at 42:00-43:30.