Albert Einstein used to ask, "If I were God, how would I solve this problem?" His famous theories resulted. Did he really need to ask? Or would he have come up with his theories without asking, without his faith?
If you have ever studied geometry, then you are probably familiar with points, lines, planes, etc. Such objects are considered imaginary, yet they allow us to describe reality and solve real problems.
Question: If points, lines and planes are purely imaginary, why do they work for us?
Those who practice some form of religion are often accused of believing in imaginary things. However, such things add value to their lives in many cases.
Question: If God is imaginary, why does belief in God work for so many?
If something you believe in works for you, why should you stop believing? You are told that there is insufficient evidence to support what you believe. You are told that you are hallucinating when you experience God or any feeling of spirituality.
I think the best way to test reality is to simply ask yourself: Does my belief work for me? If your answer is no, then you probably are hallucinating. However, if your answer is yes, then you are no worse off than a mathematician who uses imaginary points to solve problems.
What nonbelievers fail to grasp is that there is no hard line separating what is considered imaginary and what is called reality. And what do they mean by "insufficient evidence"? Who decides for you what evidence is sufficient?
Well, YOU do. It is your universe. Welcome to it.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 58
If we mere humans actually have the power to change a god's mind, then I can only think that we mere humans are much more powerful than we ever thought!
Why would people need to pray for something? Doesn't your god already know what it in your heart and mind? If he doesn't, then he's not all-knowing. If a god is going to save you from drowning, he's going to do that whether you pray or not, right? Else, if he waits for people to pray before saving them, then that seems kind of cruel. But a god who changes his mind based on whether someone prays to him does not know already whether that person is going to pray. That god could not be omniscient.
Prayer Works as a Cure
Prayer Helped Recovery But Not The Death Rate
In A study of 1100 doctors 85% believe that religion, spirituality and prayer had a positive influence on a patient's health and recovery
If you divide people into two groups, one that is being "officially" prayed for and one group that is not being "officially" prayed for, how to you eliminate "UNofficial" prayer? Even if you divided people up by religious beliefs as well as by similarity of health problems, what rules out friends and relatives from praying for the supposedly nonprayed for control group? How do we rule out subconscious prayer? Conditions can get so bad even some Atheists can be driven to pray though they may or may not admit it.
Lots of articles and blog entries talk about the 1995 Dartmouth study about heart patients
Exodus 32:11-14 (New International Version)
11 But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. "O LORD," he said, "why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: 'I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.' " 14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
And whether or not prayer actually helps patients, it cannot be said that "God did it", only that the act of prayer somehow helped the patient. This is well known as the placebo effect - someone who believes that a pill or prayer will medically help them, even if that pill actually is only a sugar pill, or even if that prayer is directed to a non-existent (unbeknownst to the person praying) entity. So, the medical effectiveness of prayer is not a proof of a god.
Just because 85% of doctors believe something is not proof that that something is true! 500 years ago, 99% of people on Earth believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. They were wrong! So Belief is not evidence of the truth of that belief.
My faith in God started when I was a child. I look at the Master Artist's morning sky and am in awe. I watch the squirrels romp in the morning and listen to the birds, and I know in my heart, in my mind and in my soul that there is a loving God.
But I don't know why or how God's mind is changed through prayer, or if it is. It could be that we're merely affirming God's original intent when we pray. There are so many things we will never know until (if) we get to Heaven. And when we get there, the things we didn't know will probably no longer be important.
My moto is "It is not what happens it is what you do about it." The emphasis is on the YOU.
"If you are in a sinking boat, do pray, but swim like heck for the shore."
Faith and prayer are united with the soul and the soul is connected to God which in turn is connected to other believers so thats why prayer works.
Why does belief in God NOT work for even more people???
Why does belief in God NOT work for even more people???
I take it you have performed a random survey with a margin of error of + or - 3%? Or maybe you just have faith in your assertion.
I take it YOU have performed a random survey yourself? Or do YOU just have faith in your own assertion?
If I might comment on random surveys: a survey cannot possibly be assured of accuracy unless at least 50% of the population is surveyed. That's just a cold hard, mathematical fact that so many statisticians forget to mention.
Actually, I do not need to perform a random survey to come to my conclusion. Of those who believed in a god, how many of the survivors of 9/11 would you say attributed their survival to a god? I can't speak for you, of course, but I saw many, many folks doing just that. However, it doesn't take a survey to wonder how many of the folks who died horribly in the twin towers were also believers and were praying fervently. Now, I'm thinking that a god didn't work out quite so well for those folks. I think this is a reasonable position.
How many believers die every day, every hour, every minute from horrible, painful diseases like the ebola virus? How's their belief in a god working out for them do ya think?
It seems to me, perhaps not to you I grant, that there are way more people who have prayed for deliverance from some "evil" or harm and not gotten it that those who claim that they were save due to their prayers.
Of course you don't.
I take it YOU have performed a random survey yourself? Or do YOU just have faith in your own assertion?
Is it your "belief" that I made an assertion? I thought I was asking a question--but I will make an assertion now: most people in the world are religious. Atheists make up an miniority. I am 99.99 percent confident that the surveys and polls support my assertion.
If I might comment on random surveys: a survey cannot possibly be assured of accuracy unless at least 50% of the population is surveyed.
You should look up the central limit theorem. A random sample of 1000 should give you a margin of error of + or - 3%.
That's just a cold hard, mathematical fact that so many statisticians forget to mention.
Maybe it is not so cold, or so hard, or so factual. Having faith is fun, Isn't it?
Actually, I do not need to perform a random survey to come to my conclusion. Of those who believed in a god, how many of the survivors of 9/11 would you say attributed their survival to a god? I can't speak for you, of course, but I saw many, many folks doing just that. However, it doesn't take a survey to wonder how many of the folks who died horribly in the twin towers were also believers and were praying fervently.
Were you there? Or are you making leaps of faith again?
Now, I'm thinking that a god didn't work out quite so well for those folks. I think this is a reasonable position.
Maybe they were secular types. Isn't making assumptions fun? Not very scientific though.
How many believers die every day, every hour, every minute from horrible, painful diseases like the ebola virus? How's their belief in a god working out for them do ya think?
The same as it worked for Job. The lesson I take from Job is you are always better off if you keep your chin up (keep your faith), then if you just give up. Further, you are only looking at their deaths and not the totality of their lives. Such an evidentiary method is known as "cherry picking."
It seems to me, perhaps not to you I grant, that there are way more people who have prayed for deliverance from some "evil" or harm and not gotten it that those who claim that they were save due to their prayers.
This is an example of your faith. It feels good to believe in something that makes you feel better about your world view. The only modification I would make is to simply recognize what you are actually doing. It has nothing to do with science, empirical evidence or facts. You believe it because you want to. If it works for you, then so be it.
Gary, the bottom line is that you simply do not understand what "faith" is. I most assuredly do not have faith in anything I have said or think or do. Before we can get anywhere, you need to define what you think faith is. You seem to be clearly demonstrating how someone one runs from the truth. You don't seem to be able to consider for one instant that you could be wrong. You seem to be unwilling to have a meaningful discourse.
You make statements to me like "isn't having faith fun". Unless I misunderstand, that just sounds like sarcasm in an ad hominem manner. And it is so very characteristic of folks who will not answer a question directly and who are afraid to face the error of their own thinking.
But you go ahead and believe what you believe. I see it as just a shame that you cannot see that you are hoist by your own petard. Not just once, but several times, over and over. Your long post above proves my points so very well. It is amazing how you choose to make your own rules.
Is it really more fun to have faith, than to actually seek the truth and what is not true?
Again, I encourage you to look up the central limit theorem. Whether you sample half the popuation or just 1000, the bell curve looks pretty much the same. According to the theorem, the population is like a stew: you only need to sample a portion of it to know the ingredients.
That is a simple mathematical principle.
Which one?
Do YOU understand what the margin of error is based on?? Do YOU understand what the degree of certainty really is??
Yes, I took a courses in statistics and probability. A sample of 1000 will give you a 95% confidence level at two standard deviations, and a margin of error of + or - 3%.
I only looked it up in the dictionary, so I am not privy to your secret knowledge of the word's true meaning.
I most assuredly do not have faith in anything I have said or think or do.
Including this assertion?
Before we can get anywhere, you need to define what you think faith is.
The definition is nothing out of the ordinary. You seem like a bright guy, I am surprised that you need someone to define what is obvious.
You seem to be clearly demonstrating how someone one runs from the truth. You don't seem to be able to consider for one instant that you could be wrong. You seem to be unwilling to have a meaningful discourse.
You seem to be lacking any evidence that supports your allegations. I often put my points in the form of questions, because I don't assume I am always right. Are your allegatons a matter of faith for you? Do they make you feel better? See what I mean?
You just keep dogding the questions. You are not giving me many straight answers. Instead, you simply say that the definition is nothing out of the ordinary.
What specific allegations are you referring to? Hmmmm? Will you give me a straight answer? If you are talking about my statement "You seem to be clearly demonstrating....", then I reply that you do SEEM, according to my observations and past experience, to be "... clearly demonstrating..." This is an observation. Are you disagreeing with this? Or will you simply dodge the question again?
Any allegations that you think I have made, according to the definition of faith that I have already clearly defined, are most assuredly not based in faith. Instead they are based on an understanding of human nature and observations gleaned over 40+ years of living. I could give you all my evidence specifically, but WHO would CARE?? This is all beside the point! You appear to be simply trying to distract and confuse the issue. For example: You end your comment with "Do they make you feel better? See what I mean?" My feelings, for better or worse, are irrelevant. And, NO I do not see what you mean!
And please don't give that "seeing the same kind of red" stuff again. You are simply falling into the trap of equivocation - a logical error. By equating the physical, optical experience of vision with understanding a concept or idea, you are using equivocation. So, "seeing what I mean" and "seeing the same color red" are different. One is related to understanding, while the other refers to optical vision.
And the confidence level and margin of error is based on the ASUUMPTION that IF, I repeat IF, a particular survey were to be repeated a certain number of times, the results would be with a certain margin of error. So, now pay attention here, this is important!, That IF requires one to have FAITH in that ONE, 1, numero uno, sample as being accurate. You may indeed have taken statistics courses, and you may have a lot of knowledge about statistics, but you obviously do not UNderstand them.
It is entirely possible for any survey to be just simply wrong. This has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, not the least of which are exit surveys done in the last two elections. Are you really disagreeing that at least 50% of the population must be surveyed to have certainty about its accuracy?? If you are, then just clearly say so - because then, we can debate no further about surveys.
Well, my point would simply be that it is irrational to believe in something without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. What's the harm? Well, none if you're not stepping on my toes.
My only other point would be that you are again making the logical error of equivocation with your post content of: "Question: If points, lines and planes are purely imaginary, why do they work for us?
Those who practice some form of religion are often accused of believing in imaginary things. However, such things add value to their lives in many cases."In the case of believing in imaginary things, the word "imaginary" is used to denote something that has existence only in one's mind (imagination), or something that is unreal. But when you apply "imaginary" to points, lines, and planes, you are referring to things that only appear to have no substance. Points, lines, and planes would exist whether or not any human ever discovered them. Plus, they are mathematical constructs important to geometry. The word "constructs" should not be construed to be "entirely created" in one's mind. Without lines, points, and planes, there would be no spacetime, no universe. As an additional explanative example, points are used to mark locations. You can't say that locations are imaginary, can you?
Therefor, since the two concepts of "imaginary" are of different things, you cannot make them equal to one another. They are not equivalent, they are different. Using them as did in your post is equivocation!
You have faith in evidence. To have faith in evidence, you need to have faith in your senses--even though they can occasionally play tricks on you. Assuming nothing in the universe lacks variation, there is always contrary evidence. The proverbial glass is partly full, but partly empty. If it is mostly full, then it is rational to have faith in the glass.
My only other point would be that you are again making the logical error of equivocation with your post content of: "Question: If points, lines and planes are purely imaginary, why do they work for us?
Those who practice some form of religion are often accused of believing in imaginary things. However, such things add value to their lives in many cases."In the case of believing in imaginary things, the word "imaginary" is used to denote something that has existence only in one's mind (imagination), or something that is unreal. But when you apply "imaginary" to points, lines, and planes, you are referring to things that only appear to have no substance. Points, lines, and planes would exist whether or not any human ever discovered them.
In any geometry textbook, points, lines and planes, etc. are defined as imaginary. If you think they are real, then you agree with my perception of those objects. I am not equivocating, but rather pointing out the equivocation of the formal definition of those objects. I think it is ironic that they would be defined as imaginary in the face of their use to solve real problems. Me pointing out a logical error is not the same as me making one.
Plus, they are mathematical constructs important to geometry. The word "constructs" should not be construed to be "entirely created" in one's mind. Without lines, points, and planes, there would be no spacetime, no universe.
Or, another way to look at it is: without the universe, there would be no lines, points and planes for us to imagine or construct. In GR theory spacetime is assumed to be smooth, and many successful calculations are made with this assumption, yet spacetime at the derivative scale is a chaotic mess, but because that chaos has an expectation value of smoothness, the math works. If you look at a straight line through a microscope, it won't be straight any more, but you can treat it as straight and get a good approximate measurements.
As an additional explanative example, points are used to mark locations. You can't say that locations are imaginary, can you?
No one has even suggested that. Locations aren't imaginary, but the dot or point you imagine marking that location could very well be imaginary. But imaginary things can work very well.
Therefor, since the two concepts of "imaginary" are of different things, you cannot make them equal to one another. They are not equivalent, they are different. Using them as did in your post is equivocation!
What are you babbling about? All I did was point out that imaginary things can have their uses as you have inadvertedly demonstrated above.
Why is the definition of faith relevant? You can use your own private defintion if you prefer. It in no way prejudices any points I have made.
You just keep dogding the questions. You are not giving me many straight answers. Instead, you simply say that the definition is nothing out of the ordinary.
That is a very specific answer to your question. My definition of faith is Webster's definition. You can look it up.
What specific allegations are you referring to? Hmmmm? Will you give me a straight answer? If you are talking about my statement "You seem to be clearly demonstrating....", then I reply that you do SEEM, according to my observations and past experience, to be "... clearly demonstrating..." This is an observation. Are you disagreeing with this? Or will you simply dodge the question again?
Which question? The one about how faith is defined?
Any allegations that you think I have made, according to the definition of faith that I have already clearly defined, are most assuredly not based in faith. Instead they are based on an understanding of human nature and observations gleaned over 40+ years of living.
Yes, I can see that. Anyone who disagrees with you must be missing some marbles. What else could it be? There is no way he/she could teach you anything. After living for 40 years, you know everything. I envy you.
I could give you all my evidence specifically, but WHO would CARE?? This is all beside the point!
Translation: "I got nothin'"
And, NO I do not see what you mean!
Your problem, not mine. You can always ask a friend, and he/she will tell you what I mean.
And please don't give that "seeing the same kind of red" stuff again.
OK, so you aren't good with metaphors. Good to know.
You are simply falling into the trap of equivocation - a logical error.
LOL! Clean up your own backyard. Whoops! That was metaphorical. Let me translate that for you: work on your own logical errors.
By equating the physical, optical experience of vision with understanding a concept or idea, you are using equivocation.
No I am not. My main point is that which is defined as imaginary (unreal) can be useful. That being the case, it may not be entirely unreal or imaginary. Here is an example of true equivocaton:
All banks are beside rivers.
Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river.
Here the word "bank" has two meanings, and the logical error is based on the assumption that the word means "financial institution" rather than river bank. The word "imaginary" means unreal and was used in that context. What other meaning are you confusing it with?
So, "seeing what I mean" and "seeing the same color red" are different. One is related to understanding, while the other refers to optical vision.
Assuming you take everything literally.
Yes, that is one of the axioms of the central limit theorem.
So, now pay attention here, this is important!,
OK, professor.
That IF requires one to have FAITH in that ONE, 1, numero uno, sample as being accurate.
It does require faith in the central limit theorem.
You may indeed have taken statistics courses, and you may have a lot of knowledge about statistics, but you obviously do not UNderstand them.
Well, clearly your lack of training supercedes my understanding. LOL!
It is entirely possible for any survey to be just simply wrong.
That is true. Many surveys are not conducted properly. Many have a political bias. However, these facts do not invalidate the central limit theorem which assumes an unbiased random survey.
This has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, not the least of which are exit surveys done in the last two elections.
Uh huh.
Are you really disagreeing that at least 50% of the population must be surveyed to have certainty about its accuracy??
Why is 50% the magic number? Why not 100%? To create a normalized bell curve you don't need numbers that high.
If you are, then just clearly say so - because then, we can debate no further about surveys.
What debate? It's more like you sneezed and I said "Bless you." LOL!
But then I truly believe that ignorance is bliss, and who are we to take it away from anyone.
Most of the people 80% in the world are spiritual to some degree, their gods may be different than ours or yours. Indians saw god in everything.The great spirit called Tunder and the big skies bring rain, and so on, and they respected the Earth.
Organized religion is different, based on a book in our case, which the Indians never got but they had a good idea about what was in it.
When man begins to manipulate religion and god for its own evil purpose then we get really sick results.
Look in your heart and listen
the wind whispering in the pines,
Look at the night sky with billions of stars
as the Earth spins, dance
stare at the moon and wonder
who are you, but a traveler
who soon will lay down to sleep
among the grass by the river bank
But faith is counterproductive to truth-seeking. To have faith in a proposition is to abandon the effort to seek the truth of that proposition.
Faith is perception distorted by emotion.
Faith at its best is inductive reasoning based on data selected by emotion.
Faith at its worst is assumption based on emotion.
Faith is training wheels for those who haven't figured it out.
Faith is a condom for horny minds fearing nihilism.
I don't need faith to bet my life on a righteous God. I only need to figure out that a righteous God holds my best chance of getting to worthwhile life.
I have often wondered, if I had been raised by wolves and never been around people/religion - would I have thought of a God on my own?
Nevertheless, I have no fundamental problem with what you wrote, Gary.
Belief in (some sort of) God is apparently helpful for some people. So long as that is true, I'm in favor of them continuing to believe.
I don't get upset until somebody decides it's time to "go and make disciples of" everybody else. At that point, the value of belief to the individual is outweighed by the rights of other individuals to their own beliefs.
Shira
I am not a believer -
The only time I have a problem with believers is when they try to make ME believe with them. I think religion is a private thing, and we are all entitled to our own beliefs.
After all, this IS our universe.