[slfnflctd]

A gut punch for me. He was influential in many ways, as multiple comments here have already attested-- in particular the 'Manna' story that has been mentioned several times, which definitely knocked my socks off.

Since no one else has brought it up yet, I want to say that one of his websites, "Why Won't God Heal Amputees" (https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/) was very important in my world. It may not exactly be the most highbrow philosophical or theological treatise you've ever encountered, but it crystallized several points I still consider hugely significant.

For anyone raised by Christian fundamentalists of the type who continue to claim to believe in miracles being possible as a direct result of prayer, it is one of the most important things you may ever read. It lays bare the blatant falsehoods at the root of all such claims, forcing you to grapple with the fact that whatever higher power(s) may exist, they do not keep their supposed written promises in any way that we human beings would consider honest amongst each other.

[cipheredStones]

I wonder how long that site will be up, given his death. Hope someone mirrors it.

It's interesting to read the Nicholas Kristof op-ed from 2006 (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/opinion/03kristof.html) which he links because it mentions the site (in its incarnation as "whydoesgodhateamputees.com") as "part of an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive", and essentially argues that the New Atheists should back off and stop being so mean.

While the New Atheists were definitely sharp-tongued (another page on the site asserts that there's no such thing as an 'atheist', for the same reason that someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns wouldn't be called an 'aleprechaunist', and atheists should instead call themselves 'rational people'), I think they had some excellent points about how the religious point of view is treated as the default in public discourse - and one of the ways that manifests is that arguments for religion (and more nebulous spirituality) are seen as expected and ordinary, while arguments against religion are seen as inherently aggressive and mean-spirited.

[norir]

This is an extreme dichotomy between fundamentalists and new atheists. I personally believe that both worldviews are wrong and inconsistent with lived reality.

[nyc_data_geek]

No higher power ever wrote anything though. That's all human writing, human promises, human propaganda.

[norir]

I'm genuinely curious how you explain your own unconsciousness which comes out all the time when speaking or writing.

[cogman10]

What's to explain? The brain is a complex structure that does weird stuff.

Consciousness is simply an emergent property of that complexity.

[nickelcitymario]

While I'm not saying it's not an emergent property of complexity, is this a falsifiable claim? Is there any proof of this? Until we can replicate consciousness (heck, until we can even measure consciousness), this is as much a matter of faith as any other belief about how consciousness emerges.

By all means, if the science has advanced on this, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. But I've yet to see anything come close to explaining the phenomenon in a testable and falsifiable way, placing this entire subject outside of the realm of rational science in the meantime.

[nyc_data_geek]

The extraordinary burden of proof is on the people making extraordinary claims, in this case that your thoughts come from an invisible, all powerful entity who we have never had any evidence actually exists, and wrote a book, instead of humans having written that book, as we have every other book that has ever existed. The burden of proof does not lay on those who say their thoughts come from biochemical and electrical signals in the brain, as all available evidence supports that assertion.

[cogman10]

> is this a falsifiable claim?

Yes, we can observe animals at various stages of consciousness and correlate their brain structures (or lack thereof) with consciousness tests (such as the mirror test).

Assuming consciousness isn't primarily a function of brain structures, we'd expect to find animals, plants, or bacteria that defy our predictions of consciousness.

> Is there any proof of this?

Yes. Beyond being able to observe varying levels of consciousness in animals, we've seen the impacts of traumatic head injuries to people. Their entire personalities change, they sometimes become unconscious (think vegetative state). We are fairly confident when operating on brains which parts control what. And we have interesting diseases like split brain syndrome where 2 separate consciousness develop in individuals when there is damage to the bridge between the brain lobes.

> Until we can replicate consciousness (heck, until we can even measure consciousness), this is as much a matter of faith as any other belief about how consciousness emerges.

This is a bit of a leap. With many physical sciences, we don't need to replicate things to make predictions, observations, and conclusions. We don't, for example, need to replicate a supernova to understand how stars are formed.

> But I've yet to see anything come close to explaining the phenomenon in a testable and falsifiable way, placing this entire subject outside of the realm of rational science in the meantime.

Have you looked and are you a biologist?

Look, I'm not a biologist, just someone interested in the subject. But from my own personal research on what it known, it's far less a mystery than what you might assume. For example, modern biology doesn't really recognize consciousness as being just a binary on or off sort of thing. There are multiple parts to it that all function in tandem.

The unfortunate thing is that consciousness is not simple. Because of that, it's not something that you could reasonably expect an explanation of in a comment. But if you are interested in a primer then this looks to be a good article [1]

[1] https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-did-consciousness-evo...

[vacuity]

It's blatantly untrue to conclude that when we are largely ignorant of the detailed workings of the brain and of the universe at large, and ultimately unscientific, using Popper's falsifiability principle.

[eboynyc32]

I guess you figured it out. Go pick up your Nobel prize.

[ben_w]

Are you conflating "unconsciousness" with "higher power" here?

[vacuity]

If we want the highest level of rigor, claims such as "the unconscious is/isn't influenced by a higher power" aren't falsifiable. Anything that you aren't aware of can't be explained by you. Others can examine your mental state, but your perception of others is itself a part of your mental state. It's solipsism, in a sense. By definition, a higher power that transcends our ability to comprehend can't be verified or denied in existence. It is ultimately a matter of faith, or another axiomatic belief, in how you ascribe labels to that which you can't scientifically explain.

So it could be that a "prophetic dream" you experienced one night is truly a sign from a higher power. Or it could be garbled nonsense from electrochemical reactions. You are not allowed to know. If you received authoritative evidence one way, you'd have to verify that the evidence stems from reality, and from there it's a recursive loop.

[lores]

But considering a higher power as even a plausible hypothesis is purely due to historical reasons. Alien mind control, Illuminati mind control, living in a simulation, or humans being the fruiting body of Gaia would be impatiently dismissed despite requiring fewer assumptions than an all-powerful entity. Why should that idea even be entertained, rigorously speaking?

[vacuity]

It's difficult to speak of rigor for any of these hypotheses, but anyways. If we take "higher power" to roughly mean that there is some driving force, whether personal or impersonal, that inherently defines and imposes order and fate, I can see how it is compelling. It's simpler than introducing a third party like aliens or the Illuminati, and early humans had much less reason to feel they weren't just another part of the natural ecosystem. They were struggling against natural forces, and when interesting and terrifying things happened, they thought of these as supernatural forces, not having developed theories of, say, lightning or disease.

[ben_w]

Yeah, that works. There's someone I know who picked up religion as an adult, and what everyone else sees as his subconscious, he himself thinks is literally the world of god.

Münchhausen trilemma makes it impossible to argue that point either way.

[red-iron-pine]

all life is merely an orderly decay of energy states; I am simply a "strange loop" within that set chemical reactions.

god doesn't make my brain work, biochemistry does, and imbibing certain chemicals impacts that in obvious ways, e.g. alcohol, lithium, or diazepam

just because I cannot see or understand my unconsciousness does not mean it isn't just another chemical process, in the same way that I do not have conscious control of how my body produces white blood cells or bile.

[nashashmi]

Has any book itself claimed to be written or orated by a higher power?

[nerdponx]

There are sections of the Hebrew Bible that are supposed to be the directly quoted word of God.

And there are various religious traditions that claim various holy texts as being the direct product of a deity.

[nashashmi]

Obviously someone who has come to atheism is not going to speak well of prayer. The guy ends each section with more questions than answers. And each of those questions comes from a highly confused state about what religion is, about what prayer is, about what God is. And maybe even what your purpose is.

In the words of the Bible, “ the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. ...” meaning his guide will only take him to further darkness and misguidance.

[slfnflctd]

> a highly confused state about what religion is, about what prayer is, about what God is.

These are all incredibly subjective concepts with a multitude of meanings to different people. Plenty of people are confused about them, because they simply cannot be universally defined and are therefore by their very nature confusing.

For better or worse, large numbers of humans believe in a literal, conscious deity who can read their thoughts and then act upon the real world to make physical changes in it, provided they shape those thoughts 'just so'. There is no hard evidence these kinds of beliefs are true, and at least some evidence that they can be harmful.

I am not opposed to prayer. I even still do it myself sometimes. However, I think people should be more careful about making strong claims that anyone is actually listening to those prayers, let alone acting on them. Marshall Brain's website helped me to much better understand and articulate this in simple, concrete terms.

[skulk]

> And each of those questions comes from a highly confused state about what religion is, about what prayer is, about what God is.

No need for goalpost moving. The holy book claims that God answers prayers. This is, in fact, a lie. Some people aren't yet fully convinced of this, and reading the website helps them along. (see uncle comments)

[ben_w]

The steel-man position here — and I say this as one who does not believe in any of the many variations/presentations of the Christian god — is that "answer" does not imply "does what you ask".

What does indicate that the claim "God answers prayers" is false, is the near total lack of personal responses to those praying*, not even so much as "your prayer is important to us, you are number 184,693,224 in the queue" that I'm sure is an SMBC comic but cannot find easily on Google right now — if I had even once had such a clear and obvious statement ringing in my ears when I went through a Catholic school, I wouldn't have switched to Wicca before giving up on religion entirely.

(Not that Wicca gave me direct answers to prayers, just that it never claimed it would, either — Doreen Valiente and Janet & Stewart Farrar were both very clear about having made up the rituals themselves).

* Almost all such people, at least. Just as the number of people who claim to be able to physically shape-shift into werewolves is very small but not zero (guess how to join the dots between me knowing this and having had an interest in Wicca), the number is small enough that… other… causes are more plausible than the divine.

[nashashmi]

> who does not believe in any of the many variations/presentations of the Christian god

> Not that Wicca gave me direct answers to prayers, just that it never claimed it would, either — Doreen Valiente and Janet & Stewart Farrar were both very clear about having made up the rituals themselves).

You might find the Youtube channel "Han Meditations" and their reviews of various religions relevant in your quest.

[nashashmi]

I think you overlook that holy book says “only” God answers prayers. And pray to God for he will answer. The answer doesn’t necessarily have to be the answer you think is correct.

A leg amputated is a leg lost and the journey of a test and struggle that begins next. That’s an answer. Not a lie.

Once again, the writer doesn’t understand God, prayer, religion, and the purpose of man. And he cannot make sense out of this paradigm. So he falls further into misguidance, like a schoolboy who misses the primary instructions only to reject the class entirely.

[skulk]

Then I don't really see how God's answer to losing a leg (or any such calamity) doesn't boil down to "literally just deal with it bro." Which is, no doubt, solid advice to someone who needs it.

[nashashmi]

That goes back to God’s definition. God gives strength to deal with situations. God doesn’t burden any soul with more than he can bear.

In other words despite you not believing in prayer and not believing god answers your prayers, you are still only burdened with what you can bear.

[johnsonjo]

I agree the author of the site does not understand God from the aspect that a Christian would (regardless of whether he is a former Christian). So while some may say by me saying that I'm about to pull a "True Scotsman" fallacy on what a True Christian would say I would counter by saying he is merely "straw manning" what God, the Bible, and a Christian would say and is taking things out of the context of the Gospel whole.

I haven't read his whole site, but probably have counted atleast 5 times so far reading it that he quotes Mark 11:24 which has Jesus saying, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." I think the issue for non-Christians is they take that statement to be defeated by people that pray righteously and don't get what they want. However for Christians this is not an issue Jesus states in Matthew 5:45 "for [God] maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Job is an example of this. My point is that to a Christian these two statements/ideas are not at odds though they may seem that way at first.

So, though Jesus doesn't explicitly state you don't get everything you've ever wanted just by praying for it he does state no matter who you are you good or evil you will have good and bad in your life. To me, I believe God does bless us for good/prayer just not in the way we may expect and ultimately all wrongs will be made right and justified just maybe not in this life. He is not a cosmic vending machine of which when we do a good work we are instantly gratified.

One of my main points in saying all this in a more general way is that to non-Christians The God of the Old and New Testament may seem to contradict himself, but I know there are answers to every one of those possible supposed contradictions even though not every person may immediately know the answer to every one of them.

[WorkerBee28474]

> It may not exactly be the most highbrow philosophical or theological treatise you've ever encountered

It's worse than that, it's bad theology on a topic that has been discussed for millennia.

[slfnflctd]

I've studied a fair amount theology, it was my original college major. I am aware of this.

The most salient point he made as far as I'm concerned is that there are very specific claims made throughout the Bible and other Christian literature about what exactly prayer does-- and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that many if not most of those particular claims are false.

I am not opposed to people praying, and in fact wholeheartedly support it in many cases. What I am opposed to is making unreasonable assertions about what is happening when someone prays, and what kinds of results are to be expected.

[WorkerBee28474]

> there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that many if not most of those particular claims are false

Most, but not all, of these claims are, theologically, untestable.

Here's an analogy: Would you find a guy walking down the street, ask him to take part in your science experiment measuring how high guys can jump, hear him say "no I don't want to take part", then conclude that because he did not jump for you he is unable to jump? You wouldn't. In fact, you might get disciplined by your university's ethics review board for experimentation without consent. In the same way, for most tests, the Bible says that God does not want to be tested. You should assume that your unwilling test subject will not cooperate, or even work to frustrate, your tests.

The talk about observations over longer times can seem persuasive. I think an analog would be hiring a PI to tail the unwilling guy test subject for years. But if you don't see him jump in 5 years, does that mean he can't? What more if he knows you're following him and that you want to see him jump, is years of not jumping valid evidence then? That's not evidence at all, much less overwhelming evidence.

[CoastalCoder]

As an agnostic, this is a topic that greatly interests me.

One challenge I've found in navigating this is determining the extent to which (interpretation from an untrained but intelligent layperson) == (interpretation from someone with a lot more historical, linguistic, and theological training).

I.e., how much research is needed before one can reasonably conclude that the "promise" being evaluated isn't just a straw man.

[WorkerBee28474]

You could reach out to someone with knowledge in that area and ask to talk. Like a theology professor, nerdy pastor, or even a local Jesuit.

[CoastalCoder]

Yup, that's my m.o.

Let's hear it for 3-hour breakfast convos at a local greasy spoon :)

[Terr_]

It does contain a bit of a false-dilemma though: It asserts that the only "real" form of god involves a specific flavor of Christian evangelical prayer-interventionist deity, and that the only other option is (B) no god(s) exist at all.

I'm very much in favor of showing how silly or self-contradictory (A) is, but it is fundamentally unsound to jump from that to asserting (B) is true.

[amelius]

Interesting website. But there's one rationalization missing, imho: that God alters the timeline. That is, amputees are in fact healed in response to prayer, but nobody knows about it because God goes back in time and ensures the amputation never happened in the first place.

Disclaimer: I didn't read the entire website yet.

[slfnflctd]

Not the worst argument I've seen! I've been down numerous rabbit holes with regard to the "God is beyond time" concept. I even prayed for Abraham Lincoln at least once or twice, and started conceptually mapping out the number of prayers various historical figures may have tallied up over the centuries.

Now that I'm more of an agnostic utilitarian realist, it all seems a bit silly at this point, but there are certainly some fun thought experiments to explore.

[qgin]

Wow, I never realized that Manna and Amputees were both created by him. Both of those had a big impact on my thinking and have stuck with me since I read them.