If you have not subscribed to eSkeptic yet, this is what your missing 
eSkeptic: October 3rd, 2006
Scroll down a bit for a very well written review of Francis Collins’s book: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief on that page.
A well-written review, indeed. No doubt, it will tread on a few sundry theist toes.
'Luthon64
Anacoluthon64… You’re dropping your “a’s” again… ;D the correct wording would be a few sundry atheist toes.
Jokes aside… I think it would be stepping on whoever is insecure in their beliefs or non-beliefs…
I would actually like to read the book. My only concern is the bias of the writer…
I have downloaded a myriad of videos from usenet, including stuff like…
Credu Mutwa
Unlocking the mystery of life
The Root of all evil
Genesis revisited
Secrets of the Matrix
Icons of evolution
Operation Hollywood
etc…
etc…
My main concern is the bias of the makers of the documentaries.
My wish is for an opinion, unbiased by preconceived indoctrinations through pastors, preachers, Darwinists, atheists, Christians…etc…
but I guess that is wishfull thinking ???
I don’t pretend to understand this joke. Perhaps you haven’t actually read the review?
Nor do I understand this. There is - or, at least, there should - always a measure of insecurity about almost any and every belief, no matter how well established it might be. It is much more a question about how reasonable it is to examine specific beliefs, rather than any insecurity or otherwise about them. Probably the biggest problem in all of this is that people are in general quite reluctant to acknowledge that their senses and intuitions are fallible.
Try as you might, you will not avoid bias, however slight. This is why it is so intensely important that one consults as wide a range of sources as possible. Doing so assists in allowing one to more easily recognise any bias. That said, however, the chances of finding, and the severity of, bias is far greater in religiously inspired works than in scientific journals and books. The reason is not hard to see: the religious writer goes in already knowing the answers, and his or her writing merely justifies or illuminates preexisting beliefs. In contrast, the scientific enterprise usually lives very firmly in empiricism, where results must, at least in principle, be independently replicable, results are always framed in tentative terms, and bias is minimised through the rigours of peer review. Though by no means perfect, such checks and balances largely ensure that the best and most general possible view of “the truth” is arrived at, instead of appeals to authority and tradition. The value of the approach is manifest when you contrast what mankind has achieved in about the last 400 years.
'Luthon64
What bias are you referring to? I haven’t read the book, only the review, but it seems to me as if he is trying to fit all the scientific facts that he knows he can’t deny into his unwillingness to let go of religious believes. Any bias, it would seem would be that of the religious kind.
In that respect, I think qrios will find a lot in common with him 
I think insecurity is the wrong word here though. Science depends on skepticism and questions to get closer and closer to the truth without ever saying: “Now we know everything, this is the truth”. It will always be willing to reconsider it’s most cherished “beliefs” if there is good evidence to support an alternative view. In this sense, it will never claim absolute truth. Religion on the other hand does claim absolute truth without much to back it up. Some people might find this “security” comforting, I however do not.
Agreed. A better term would be “doubt.” I used “insecurity” as I understood its introduction by qrios - i.e. to distinguish from “absolute certainty.”
Concise, lucid and accurate - the essence of good writing. 
'Luthon64
It was merely a jest/greeting (a play on the "dropping of vowels)
- I actually did read the article, and found it quite informative… I tried to find out more about the actual reviewer, but could not find much…
Nor do I understand this. There is - or, at least, there should - [i]always[/i] a measure of insecurity about almost [i]any and every[/i] belief, no matter how well established it might be. It is much more a question about how [i]reasonable[/i] it is to examine specific beliefs, rather than any insecurity or otherwise about them. Probably the biggest problem in all of this is that people are in general quite reluctant to acknowledge that their senses and intuitions are fallible.True.... my concern was actually more the fact that pre-conceived ideas was clogging the open-mindedness of the reader or people in general. I know this sounds clumsy, but then again english is not my first language. My point is for example. If you, as atheist would have an experience with God or any deity of your choice... would you have the guts to actually admit that you were wrong and change your beliefs?
;D Noted…
As I stated in my reply to Luthon64… A bias towards Christianity in a book (in my opinion) is no different to a bias away from it. I think Luthon64 explained it better somewhere. I think stuff like that should be totally unbiased, facts stated and explained, and the onus should be on us, the readers to except or reject on the basis of our own knowledge or lack of…
The problem arising if this is not the case, is that of errornous “programming” of our mindsets and beliefs…
I get to work with the youth a lot (BTW - that is in the nature of my field of work, which has nothing to do with the topics at hand) and I do find that most of them do not know why they believe the things they do. That is also why they tend to go with the flow and trends, and also change with it, ever to often… :-[
Okay then.
It would have to be pretty convincing, i.e. I would have to be certain that I wasn’t misled or (self-)deluded, but, yes, assuming a compelling episode of this kind, I would certainly revise my beliefs (and not just those about religious issues, either) because it would be dishonest or unreasonably denialist of me to maintain an atheist stance. As a matter of fact, though at first disruptive, such an experience would yield clear answers to a host of deep questions, and therefore actually be a very welcome occurrence.
'Luthon64
I will require evidence to change any of my beliefs. If an “experience with God” presents itself, it will have to endure some pretty close scrutiny until I am satisfied that it is indeed god, and not something else, that is causing the experience.
Spoken like a true skeptic
I think that a lot of people that come from a religious background however are unwilling to admit that they have been “programmed” to accept certain beliefs on faith, and not evidence.
Indeed it would. I actually had such an experience. That was the day I realized I’m not religious any more.
Care to elaborate??
I totally agree with the both of you as far as “compelling evidence” is concerned. This is also sometimes the problem that I have with some Christians, especially the charismatic sort… I’m not condemning their doings, but it should have a sound basis, and not just be an emotional reaction or response to compelling and vigorous preaching…
(self-)deluded…
BTW - Anacoluthon64…
As a matter of fact, though at first disruptive, such an experience would yield clear answers to a host of deep questions, and therefore actually be a very welcome occurrence.
Would these be of a personal nature, or are they sharable?
You come across as fairly educated and wise, and I would be interested to observe your train of thought…
Again, I’m not sure what exactly to make of this. Some suggestive ribbing, perhaps?
Mostly, the answers would be eminently shareable because they would pertain to a previously ill-defined aspect of the universe, and every more-or-less normal person experiences some parts of the universe in similar ways (though we may differ on the interpretations thereof). But we need to be careful here also: if the supposed experience was limited to me, and only me, I’m enough of a realist to understand that it would be far more difficult to convince myself and others of its factuality; alternatively, if there was some way to record or retain physical evidence, and/or a very large number of witnesses was present who all told essentially the same story, my experience would then be much more compelling and plausible not only to myself, but also to others. In other words, if the supposed experience was sufficient uneqivocally and objectively to transport a deity from the realm of conjecture and supposition, where they currently live, to the realm of observed fact, the consequences would be far greater than just the revision of my beliefs.
Thank you - the occasional language difficulty aside, you’re pretty okay yourself. 
And the best way to “observe [my] train of thought” is to ask me appropriate questions.
'Luthon64
As my post was a reply to posts referring to comments that both you and bluegray V made, I was merely indicating that my question was now aimed at you… Would you prefer I call you something else?
Thanks for your answer(albeit slightly vague)
I was actually hoping that we could discuss or debate issues and ideas without being on the defense, or covering our tracks(for lack of better description)… I know in some of the bigger board like ATS and the likes, every single word(including Freudian slips) WILL be held against you and torn apart.
Although I’m replying on your post, I am also commenting to whoever might be reading. If you re-read your reply to my question
Would these be of a personal nature, or are they sharable?..you will see that you (whether intently or not) cover yourself in your answer so that nothing can be said that would make you vulnerable to negative comment or anything, or am I misreading it completely?
I for one suggest a more relaxing form of debate.
I think that would also make other members less reluctant to post…
What we have now is a sort of “Scared to say something, cause what are they gonna say” atmosphere I think.
I think Stephen Colbert’s offbeat logic could be a part of our skeptical discussions… 
Colbert’s cleverly worded political doublespeak—like the press-corps-dinner joke “Don’t pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the job [Bush] is doing. I ask you this: Does that not also logically mean that 68 percent of Americans approve of the job he’s not doing?”—could plausibly have come from the mouth of Tony Snow. Or Donald Rumsfeld. Or Karl Rove.http://nymag.com/news/politics/22322/
I think this ranting of mine should have been another topic…
alas I’ll let the mighty bluegray V decide…
(Mr.)Luthon64… I think you will find that I will jump on your “case” ever so often… with good intentions, and in good spirit though ;D, even if it is just to unleash some of your Eloquent English Eruptions… ;D
My apologies - it’s that absent tone-of-voice thing again: the context led me to believe that you were unsubtly proposing that I may be “(self-)deluded,” and I wanted to be sure that such is/(is not) the case before asking why/(remaining silent). 8)
And calling me “'Luthon” or “'Luthon64” is perfectly okay - I’m not proud. ;D
Which parts do you feel are vague, and why?
Your question was whether, following a profound experience of the assumed kind, new truths and insights would be personal or shareable, which latter option I took to mean “objective.” I think the answer I gave is plain and clear. I added several caveats because it is my experience that if one neglects to do so, someone will choose to misrepresent you, and I have little desire to make repairs on that which can be preempted.
Jump madly, then, to your heart’s content. But remember that sometimes the trampoline can break…
'Luthon64
Which parts do you feel are vague, and why?
Mostly, the answers would be eminently shareable because they would pertain to a previously ill-defined aspect of the universe, and every more-or-less normal person experiences some parts of the universe in similar ways (though we may differ on the interpretations thereof).
Jeez… I think what you said was… You could tell, but our perceptions might differ on ill defined aspects of the universe. I am not even gonna try and define…
more-or-less normal person!!! :
if the supposed experience was limited to me, and only meIt is not supposed... you either experienced it or you were not there and did not.....
I can see what you are trying to say, more or less, but by closing all possible loopholes you are becoming vague.
Just say what you want to say in South African English. If some ill informed-judgemental wants to debunk you or your experience or whatever, we can just ask the moderator to delete the thread and continue via PM’s. Then no-one will know or learn anything, which is not the objective here.
I would like to know what could change one so drastically, and what questions would still haunt one afterwards… If you feel that it is private, I have the fullest respect for that. If you feel that you will be judged, I also understand. If you make general philosophical statements like
, if the supposed experience was sufficient uneqivocally and objectively to transport a deity from the realm of conjecture and supposition, where they currently live, to the realm of observed fact, the consequences would be far greater than just the revision of my beliefs, I don’t understand… ???
I understand what you are saying, but I still think it is a tad vague… :-\
Okay, here’s a paraphrased version that you might find more accessible, but before I render it, an explanation:
- The phrase “the supposed experience” means “the experience we assume to have happened” - there’s no point in debating whether it did or did not; we assume that it did, and that it meets the requirements of being convincing.
Mostly, the answers would be eminently shareable because they would pertain to a previously ill-defined aspect of the universe, ...Yes, the answers would be shareable, rather than personal, because they would shed light on generally observable things that have so far remained unclear.
... and every more-or-less normal person experiences some parts of the universe in similar ways (though we may differ on the interpretations thereof).Most people, i.e. those without gross brain damage or bodily deficiencies, experience reality in similar ways, but they may disagree on the explanation of those experiences.
But we need to be careful here also: if the supposed experience was limited to me, and only me, I'm enough of a realist to understand that it would be far more difficult to convince myself and others of its factuality; alternatively, if there was some way to record or retain physical evidence, and/or a very large number of witnesses was present who all told essentially the same story, my experience would then be much more compelling and plausible not only to myself, but also to others.All this says is that one must also consider the [i]quality[/i] of the evidence, not only what it suggests.
In other words, if the supposed experience was sufficient [i]uneqivocally and objectively[/i] to transport a deity from the realm of conjecture and supposition, where they currently live, to the realm of observed fact, the consequences would be far greater than just the revision of [i]my[/i] beliefs.The experience must be such that there can be only very little doubt about the actual existence of a god or deity. If it is so, then it would affect much more than just my beliefs - given sufficient time to spread, it would radically change the world itself, and the way people and I myself view it.
I hope that’s a bit clearer.
If you’re actually asking what type of experience I think I require to revise my views, that was not clear from what you wrote, and it’s a bit difficult to answer with specifics. If I was faced with an entity claiming to be a god, I would demand proof in the form of definite types and varieties of knowledge. For example, extensive knowledge of my past and current thoughts and actions; things currently beyond mankind’s grasp, such as a proof or counterexample of the Riemann Hypothesis, and a proof or disproof of the NP status of the general integer factorisation problem; clear resolutions to certain logical paradoxes and dilemmas; the ability to evoke particular experiences at will, and so on. I can’t readily think of a single experience that would immediately convince me. It would have to be a range of demonstrations of extraordinary powers. But such demands do not, of course, find favour with believers in a personal god, and, more importantly, I may still be dealing with a very advanced, but nonetheless mortal, entity, which is where the element of doubt would persist.
The only questions that would really haunt me afterwards is how and why and where the deity hid its presence so well for so long.
If, on the other hand, a theist’s god is meant, i.e. one who set things in motion at some point and then stopped caring about them or interfering with them, such a being is completely indistinguishable from what we call the “Laws of Nature,” and its existence or non-existence is therefore irrelevant - both to the universe and to me.
'Luthon64
Thanks for the explanation…
It was more or less how I understood it, but it sure makes for easier reading… ;D
I respect and understand how you feel to a great extend. I know that the whole issue of deity and religion is immensely complicated and closely related to personal feelings, experiences etc…
I was actually referring(asking) about the type of experience… emotional experience, physical manifestation etc…
I’m sure if I was faced with a deity claiming to be God, I would react in the same way…
Regarding
The only questions that would really haunt me afterwards is how and why and where the deity hid its presence so well for so long.
I think that would (as far as visual presence is concerned) be as easy as moving outside our limited visual range.
The rest of presence I think is reliant on our significance as human individuals. I do not have your linguistic abilities, but what I mean to say is - - If you review your (and my) significance in relation with earth/mankind/universe etc… why should any deity prove his existence to you/me??
Might even be a “can’t see the forest for the trees” scenario… interesting speculation nevertheless…