My point is that they use scientific method as often as not when they give advice in those fields.
Only in a very loose sense of "scientific methods." The social sciences aren't as far along in predictive ability as the "hard" sciences. Counseling is as much an art as a science. There's no possible way to predict "if you do x, y will happen." At least, not for questions with any level of subtlty. ("If you have an affair and your spouse finds out he or she will be upset with you" is a pretty safe prediction.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... I can think of a couple of Young Earth Creationist ministers who give excellent life advice in many areas, like how to deal with your child's misbehavior, how to handle family finances, etc. because they've lived to a ripe old age and lived their lives.
Is there any reason to think that they'd give better advice than a similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I guess I still haven't made myself clear.
I'm not trying to insult ministers. I know religious teachers can give quality advice, and can give non-religious advice.
My point is that if a person gives advice based on education and experience, that's scientific method!
Xaposert asserted that scientific method is good for making some types of predictions, but that it is not good for making social types of predictions, and suggested that religious teachers would be better at giving advice in those fields.
My point is that they use scientific method as often as not when they give advice in those fields.
Yes, ministers and religious advisers often use experience and *gasp* science when they give suggestions. But what does science bring to the table when a person finds God and learns the reason they exist at all? Or when a person lays hands on the sick and they are healed of ailments that defy remedy? Yes I firmly believe that all that happens in the universe has a scientific (or else physical explanation) but that does not mean that scientists have all the tools required to understand things that God does regularly.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Why should we presume that any given preacher has the training or experience necessary for handling serious emotional problems?
Yes, a random preacher *might* have EMT training, but if I fall off my roof and break my neck, I hope that the person that finds me doesn't run to to look up "churches" in the phone book.
Similarly, if I am feeling irretrievably depressed, I'm going to look up psychiatry/psychology. If I'm trying to make a decision which I feel will effect me emotionally, I'll talk to friends, family, or a pschologist. That group may include one or more minister, but it's not their title of minister that conveys on them the appropriate relationship to me or expertise.
You will note that I specified clergy from a religion that requires training and professional certification for their clergy. Yes, there are churches whose pastors are self-ordained and may have no counseling background at all. Going to them would be the equivelent of hoping that your random person *might* have the appropriate training. If, however, we're talking about someone who was *required* to have said training in order to be credentialed, then I think it's fair to presume that they have it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... I can think of a couple of Young Earth Creationist ministers who give excellent life advice in many areas, like how to deal with your child's misbehavior, how to handle family finances, etc. because they've lived to a ripe old age and lived their lives.
Is there any reason to think that they'd give better advice than a similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists?
And is there any reason to think that the similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists would give better advice?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You will note that I specified clergy from a religion that requires training and professional certification for their clergy.
If not a member of one of these churches already, I'm not going to know which ones they are. It still makes sense to go directly to a person who's primary identification is as a credentialed counselor.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And is there any reason to think that the similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists would give better advice?
The point was that "Young Earth Creationist minister" is not a unique qualification for giving out good advice. It's just as irrelevant as "atheist", "agnostic" or "deist".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc.
Here's the problem: I think that to the extent that someone is relying on their training and education to make educated judgements, they're being definitionally "scientific." In other words, the ways in which a minister is useful at psychology are scientific ones.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc.
Here's the problem: I think that to the extent that someone is relying on their training and education to make educated judgements, they're being definitionally "scientific." In other words, the ways in which a minister is useful at psychology are scientific ones.
Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God. So what do we say because say I know from experience that God answers prayers that if God commands me to do anything with miraculous results that I am just being a scientist about it and thus religion does not introduce anything to the situation?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc.
Here's the problem: I think that to the extent that someone is relying on their training and education to make educated judgements, they're being definitionally "scientific." In other words, the ways in which a minister is useful at psychology are scientific ones.
I don't agree. Science is a process separate from education. You can use the scientific method to find more effective ways to treat a problem, but your actual training isn't what I would consider "scientific," even if you are learning methodology that has scientific applications. A psychologist studying the effect of parenting styles on child development is doing science. A psychiatrist treating a child for emotional trauma is doing medicine, not science. And a student of psychology learning about child trauma in class is undergoing education, which he or she may utilize in the process of science in the future, but which isn't really in any way scientific at the moment.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And is there any reason to think that the similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists would give better advice?
The point was that "Young Earth Creationist minister" is not a unique qualification for giving out good advice. It's just as irrelevant as "atheist", "agnostic" or "deist".
Indeed. I would also add that while the "advice" that the minister gives is indistinguishable in efficacy than that of anyone else that lacks religious training, by contrast an untrained doctor attempting to act as a doctor is just as likely to kill someone as to help someone.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God.
If indeed I believed that ministers could do this, and that this produced a measurably beneficial effect, I would concede the point.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But what does science bring to the table when a person finds God and learns the reason they exist at all? Or when a person lays hands on the sick and they are healed of ailments that defy remedy?
Controlled studies that "faith healing" has no significant effect beyond that of a simple placebo. (And can actually harm your health if you forgo medical treatment in favour of it)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God. So what do we say because say I know from experience that God answers prayers that if God commands me to do anything with miraculous results that I am just being a scientist about it and thus religion does not introduce anything to the situation?
If calling on God will provide useful results, why should an intermediary be necessary?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But what does science bring to the table when a person finds God and learns the reason they exist at all? Or when a person lays hands on the sick and they are healed of ailments that defy remedy?
Controlled studies that "faith healing" has no significant effect beyond that of a simple placebo. (And can actually harm your health if you forgo medical treatment in favour of it)
Better yet, in a recent study of intercessory prayer on heart patients, the patients who were told they were being prayed for had worse results than those who were not prayer for and those who were prayed for anonymously. The latter two groups were essentially indistinguishable.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God.
If indeed I believed that ministers could do this, and that this produced a measurably beneficial effect, I would concede the point.
Well when it happens, give me a shout.
quote: Controlled studies that "faith healing" has no significant effect beyond that of a simple placebo. (And can actually harm your health if you forgo medical treatment in favour of it)
Well I am certainly glad you think your studies have a large enough sample size to make such a sweeping claim.
But your studies do not invalidate that which I myself have experienced.
quote:If calling on God will provide useful results, why should an intermediary be necessary?
Myriad reasons. A person who needs help is an opportunity for somebody else to help another and grow from it. Learning to be like God includes learning to administer to other's needs. Practice makes perfect.
God is mindful of our needs, and sometimes his advise needs to come from somebody we are more ready to speak to.
Somebody who is angry with God will possibly not be willing to speak directly to Him and thus needs an intermediary to work through his/her issues.
But an intermediary is certainly not a REQUISITE for all problems. They may or may not be essential depending on circumstance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that to the extent that someone is relying on their training and education to make educated judgements, they're being definitionally "scientific."
So if someone goes to a religious school and learns all about the Bible and nothing else, then they are being "scientific" when they apply that education to making judgements?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I'm wrong BlackBlade, but isn't it a commonly held Christian belief that God often explicitly does nothing when asked for help, because God's ways are mysterious, because what you ask for is not in your best interests, because God wants you to experience what you're going through, learn from things, etc?
It seems to me, in light of this, that going to a holy person for religious help isn't necessarily the best thing if you want your problem solved, only if you want God's solution to your problem.
Fortunately, if your leg is gangrenous, the doctor won't turn you away because he feels you'll be better off learning from the experience.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if someone goes to a religious school and learns all about the Bible and nothing else, then they are being "scientific" when they apply that education to making judgements?
Since their education was all about the Bible and nothing else, they would be scientific when making judgements about the Bible and nothing else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well I am certainly glad you think your studies have a large enough sample size to make such a sweeping claim.
But your studies do not invalidate that which I myself have experienced.
I would note that you're criticizing the sample size of studies (of a size unknown to you, since I have not yet provided links) in favour of anecdotal evidence from a sample size of 1 (yourself).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God. So what do we say because say I know from experience that God answers prayers that if God commands me to do anything with miraculous results that I am just being a scientist about it and thus religion does not introduce anything to the situation?
If calling on God will provide useful results, why should an intermediary be necessary?
Because God, most often, works in us and through us. Again, people are mistaking God with some sort of superbeing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that ministers can routinely call on God for advise and relay what they hear from God. So what do we say because say I know from experience that God answers prayers that if God commands me to do anything with miraculous results that I am just being a scientist about it and thus religion does not introduce anything to the situation?
If calling on God will provide useful results, why should an intermediary be necessary?
Because God, most often, works in us and through us. Again, people are mistaking God with some sort of superbeing.
Then, and forgive me if this sounds harsh, what's the point of having a god?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: [QB] Correct me if I'm wrong BlackBlade, but isn't it a commonly held Christian belief that God often explicitly does nothing when asked for help, because God's ways are mysterious, because what you ask for is not in your best interests, because God wants you to experience what you're going through, learn from things, etc?
It seems to me, in light of this, that going to a holy person for religious help isn't necessarily the best thing if you want your problem solved, only if you want God's solution to your problem.
God's ways may be, "mysterious" but that does not mean he isn't in the business of sharing his inteligence with his children. Again the wisdom of whatever he does invariably becomes apparent given time.
quote:Fortunately, if your leg is gangrenous, the doctor won't turn you away because he feels you'll be better off learning from the experience.
That's a pretty finite way of looking at things. How is death not solving the problem of a gangrenous leg?
We have another thread where it was mentioned that a woman was basically forced to have a C-section against her will but in retrospect admitted that the doctor taking steps to save her life in spite of her wishes was a good idea.
Clearly he hoped/believed the wisdom of his decision would be understood given some time.
Now imagine God as this sort of super doctor/psychologist/engineer/physicist/chemist, who also happens to be a good teacher.
I'm sure much of what he does seem odd if not down right foolish, but in my experience I have yet to see him do such things without an ultimately positive result being the end. But that is just my experience, perhaps you know of a circumstance where God did something and in the end nobody was happy about it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well I am certainly glad you think your studies have a large enough sample size to make such a sweeping claim.
But your studies do not invalidate that which I myself have experienced.
I would note that you're criticizing the sample size of studies (of a size unknown to you, since I have not yet provided links) in favour of anecdotal evidence from a sample size of 1 (yourself).
I am not saying my personal experience invalidates studies done on this topic. I said their studies do not invalidate the evidence I myself have seen.
You are also wrong about me being ignorant of such studies and their sample sizes, they are not unknown to me. I myself have read studies on faith based healings and their effects. The studies to me prove nothing, for the oft stated reason that God does not submit himself to be viewed with any sort of man made apparatus.
You could argue that scientific studies to see if faith based healings can do anything are actually harmful as God may in the interest of maintaining man's free agency allow an individual to suffer from terrible ailments rather then healing him/her.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The studies to me prove nothing, for the oft stated reason that God does not submit himself to be viewed with any sort of man made apparatus.
You could argue that scientific studies to see if faith based healings can do anything are actually harmful as God may in the interest of maintaining man's free agency allow an individual to suffer from terrible ailments rather then healing him/her.
How wonderfully convenient and shockingly cruel at the same time.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "wisdom" of anything can become apparent with time. Humans have a fantastic ability to attribute causes and meanings to things after the fact. I can roll a pair of dice and come up with the number 10. Later in the I may see the wisdom of the information, and attribute all sorts of meaning to the outcome.
Maybe I saw 10 cars go through the intersection before I had a safe space to cross. Perhaps I needed $10 to buy the groceries I wanted at the store, and I received $1 in change, which is 10 x 10. None of that means that the dice had any wisdom, or that any other number might not have produced different or better results.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Prove it.
I think 14 pages may be a new record.
Notice I didn't ask BB to prove the existence of God. I asked him to support his statement that God speaks directly to his clergy, who then pass on that wisdom. Not only do they hear the voice of God whispering in their ear, but they do so routinely.
I've never known an otherwise sane person to claim that God spoke to them -- even the most religious people I know mainly speak of communicating with God through signs, hints, hunches, and other proxies. So I thought it was a little unusual that when BlackBlade has a problem, he can just ask his preacher, who then goes and gets the answer right from the big man himself.
I don't have any problem with someone believing that God answers prayers, but saying that He speaks directly to a minister (it wasn't clear whether that was any minister, or only those of a certain denomination and rank) is a large leap.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How wonderfully convenient and shockingly cruel at the same time.
Convenient or not, that's how it is. I'm sorry you feel slighted that you have to find God on HIS terms instead of your own. All I can say is that as far as I can tell it works better this way. Undoubtedly you will simply continue to think, "How convenient that the only way is the best way."
quote:Notice I didn't ask BB to prove the existence of God. I asked him to support his statement that God speaks directly to his clergy, who then pass on that wisdom. Not only do they hear the voice of God whispering in their ear, but they do so routinely.
You are welcome to investigate my church and decide for yourself if it is the product of men's fancy or God's will. I have come to the conclusion that it is of God.
Yes men and women within my church receive revelation from God on a very frequent basis. I may be misleading you with the verb, "speak" as I use it to mean any communication from God to man. That includes literal moving of the mouth or hearing the voice of God, but that is not the only medium God uses to speak ("communicate" I just did it again that's how ingrained the word is) to people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"'m sure much of what he does seem odd if not down right foolish, but in my experience I have yet to see him do such things without an ultimately positive result being the end. But that is just my experience, perhaps you know of a circumstance where God did something and in the end nobody was happy about it."
You sound like the old Chinese dude in the story:
"A man's horse ran away. The other villagers said, "Oh, great misfortune! We sympathize!". The man said "Wait and see."
The man's horse came back, and had 6 wild horses following it. The man tried to capture the wild horses, and succeeded. The other villagers said "Oh, great fortune! How lucky!" The man said "Wait and see."
The man's only son was taming the horses, and fell and broke his leg. The other villagers said "Oh, great misfortune! How terrible! Your only son may become crippled for life!" The man said "Wait and see."
The army comes through the village and conscripts every able-bodied young male. The only young man left in the village is the man's broken-legged son."
quote:Originally posted by steven: "'m sure much of what he does seem odd if not down right foolish, but in my experience I have yet to see him do such things without an ultimately positive result being the end. But that is just my experience, perhaps you know of a circumstance where God did something and in the end nobody was happy about it."
You sound like the old Chinese dude in the story:
"A man's horse ran away. The other villagers said, "Oh, great misfortune! We sympathize!". The man said "Wait and see."
The man's horse came back, and had 6 wild horses following it. The man tried to capture the wild horses, and succeeded. The other villagers said "Oh, great fortune! How lucky!" The man said "Wait and see."
The man's only son was taming the horses, and fell and broke his leg. The other villagers said "Oh, great misfortune! How terrible! Your only son may become crippled for life!" The man said "Wait and see."
The army comes through the village and conscripts every able-bodied young male. The only young man left in the village is the man's broken-legged son."
Etc.
That is one of my favorite stories
If you are interested the man in the story is known to the Chinese as Sai Weng, pronounced, "Sigh Wong (the "ong" part has the same O sound as "groan")
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I was referring more to being so cruel as to refrain from healing people because they are a part of a scientific study. For that I find your god morally bankrupt and its actions inexcusable.
Thankfully he doesn't exist, or I might be angry about it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:BB, I was referring more to being so cruel as to refrain from healing people because they are a part of a scientific study. For that I find your god morally bankrupt and its actions inexcusable.
Well fortunately for him I suppose I was only speculating on an arguement that could be made, not saying, "MY GOD WOULD DO THIS!"
Incidentally assuming this IS the choice and there is nothing God can do to modify it,
Would you rather a person die with a gangrenous leg and go on to a happier existance, or live with the full knowledge of God's existance and expectations and go to hell as all people who know of God's existance and fail to act properly on that knowledge do?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would you rather a person die with a gangrenous leg and go on to a happier existance, or live with the full knowledge of God's existance and expectations and go to hell as all people who know of God's existance and fail to act properly on that knowledge do?
Fortunately, God allows people who visit doctors to live long and healthy lives. He also doesn't seem to make a conclusive case against evolution, so that a person can go through life unsure of God's existence or expectations - therefore safe from an eternity of torture and punishment.
Good thing Pascal never had to make that wager.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Would you rather a person die with a gangrenous leg and go on to a happier existance, or live with the full knowledge of God's existance and expectations and go to hell as all people who know of God's existance and fail to act properly on that knowledge do?
It's a bit of a moot point, as I don't believe in god, miracles or an afterlife (of reward or punishment).
Now, to address the hypothetical. If your god existed and acted exactly as you say he does, and it was me with the gangrenous leg, I would say heal it. Heaven wouldn't be heaven, at least to me, if it's ruled by a totalitarian dictator. So I would take my chances with all the gay people.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are welcome to investigate my church and decide for yourself if it is the product of men's fancy or God's will. I have come to the conclusion that it is of God.
Which, conveniently, is indistinguishable from men's fancy.
------------
Sorry, I didn't intend to start down the old 'god exists/doesn't exist' road. I normally let that one pass me by, but all the talk of faith-healing and God speaking directly to you just pushed my buttons.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since their education was all about the Bible and nothing else, they would be scientific when making judgements about the Bible and nothing else.
Okay, what about someone who studies the nature of the world, but uses the Bible as their only source in school? Would such a person be scientific when making judgements about the nature of the world, insofar as they based those judgements on the education they received from the Bible?
quote:I would note that you're criticizing the sample size of studies (of a size unknown to you, since I have not yet provided links) in favour of anecdotal evidence from a sample size of 1 (yourself).
That's the advantage other forms of evidence can have over science. Science requires large sample sizes to be convincing. Personal experience requires a sample size of only one, and yet can be equally convincing for certain questions that are best answered through personal experience.
It should be noted, though, that this is also the reason personal experience cannot answer many other questions. You can't, for instance, determine whether ice cream is healthy just because you personally eat it and are healthy. That is the sort of question that is better suited for science.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, what about someone who studies the nature of the world, but uses the Bible as their only source in school? Would such a person be scientific when making judgements about the nature of the world, insofar as they based those judgements on the education they received from the Bible?
Well, here we run into a classic dilemma: do they conform observed reality to the book they read, or do they learn to dismiss the book in the places where it deviates from observed reality? If the latter, then yes, they're scientific.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And is there any reason to think that the similarly aged group of atheists, agnostics, or deists would give better advice?
The point was that "Young Earth Creationist minister" is not a unique qualification for giving out good advice. It's just as irrelevant as "atheist", "agnostic" or "deist".
Ah. I misunderstood your point at first. Thank you for the clarification.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Personal experience requires a sample size of only one, and yet can be equally convincing for certain questions that are best answered through personal experience. "
Convincing? Sure. True? Not nearly so probable.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now, to address the hypothetical. If your god existed and acted exactly as you say he does, and it was me with the gangrenous leg, I would say heal it. Heaven wouldn't be heaven, at least to me, if it's ruled by a totalitarian dictator. So I would take my chances with all the gay people.
You completely missed the point. By having your leg healed you are asking to be made fully aware of God's existence and ALL that entails. Are you ready RIGHT now to be perfect? Are you ready to just cast aside anything you thought was true for this perfect version of the truth? I hate to use the matrix but you were basically given the red pill and immediately thrown in front of Agent Smith and told to beat him in a fight if you fail to its endless torment and misery for you.
You were basically thrown into the driver's seat of a speeding car as a 10 year old and told, "You can't stop, but you must not crash."
If you know exactly who God is and you choose not to be perfect you are directly sinning against the truth. The natural consequence for sinning against the truth is misery. You'd likely curse God just as loudly for allowing you to be put in such a difficult situation without proper preparation.
Obviously you do not believe in God in the first place, but perhaps you might understand just alittle bit more why believers do not consider it barbarous and cruel that God does not simply reveal himself to all of mankind. I personally see it as an act of mercy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
