“Once again we have been humbled by how God has met with us and moved among us as we’ve gathered to worship him. He note how powerfully God has been working in the lives of youth:
Mike noted how the opinions of hardened and staunch atheists had been transformed: “One of the highlights has been seeing so many come to faith and hearing their stories. One youth leader told me he’d brought seven staunch atheists to Soul Survivor, four of whom gave their lives to Jesus before the end of the week, and the other three had totally changed their opinions about God."
Mike also noted how it was the experience of God's presence that was a key factor: “God spoke to us in the main meetings and seminars, and met with us in profound ways as worshipped him and prayed for one another. We’re already looking forward to what God will do among us next year.”
Staunch atheists will often be converted through empirical experiences. Intellectual atheists will often discount the empirical aspect of salvation and empirical aspects of experiencing God's presence, but, nonetheless, personal testimonies outline how this is definitely a phenomenon that former atheists will acknowledge as powerful. Jeremiah 29.13 says, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." Understanding God is not just a matter of the mind, but also a matter of the heart. In fact, many would claim that "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart." These are reasons why personal testimonies will remain important aspects of evangelism.
Tags: Youth revival in England, Positive Christian news, present-day revivals, God working in youth, empirical knowledge of God, Harvest at UK events, experiencing presence of God, how do hardened, staunch atheists convert? The importance of personal testimonies, where are revivals today
Story noted at BCN. Read the full story at Inspire.
Staunch atheists will often be converted through empirical experiences.
ReplyDeleteThen they weren't terribly staunch, were they? ;)
Though it is also worth noting that this statement could be equally true from the other side: Staunch Christians will often be converted through empirical experiences (as opposed, pray tell, to what? ;))
(I refer you to here, BTW, for a different view: http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2012/2994)
Understanding God is not just a matter of the mind, but also a matter of the heart. In fact, many would claim that "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart."
It's worth noting that many of the techniques used at the Soul Survivor meetings (isolation from normal environments, surrounding by true believers, public encouragement to achive a particular result) are familiar ones that, when adopted by people one doesn't like (whoever that happens to be) are called brainwashing techniques.
These are reasons why personal testimonies will remain important aspects of evangelism.
Indeed; they're non-contradictable (for the most part), and speak to an emotional core. However, as indicators of anything beyond "Person X feels this way", they're logically and evidentially useless -- and, as I've pointed out before, both sides can easily generate them, as the ongoing "Why I am an atheist" series at Pharyngula points out.
You put in your tag cloud here "empirical knowledge of God", when what you have is "empirical knowledge of faith in God", which is a different thing -- these stories are not evidence for existence, but evidence for faith.
>Staunch atheists will often be converted through empirical experiences.
Delete...Then they weren't terribly staunch, were they? ;)
- This illogical conclusion would be like saying, "Wild horses can never be trained. If wild horses could be trained then they weren't wild in the first place."
In addition to illogical deductions, Imnotandrei enjoys making false presumptions:
>You put in your tag cloud here "empirical knowledge of God", when what you have is "empirical knowledge of faith in God", which is a different thing.
In his mind it is a "different thing." If a person heard a unique song while walking down the street that was never played on the radio, I wouldn't be shocked if Imnotandrei said, "You have faith that you heard a unique song, but saying that you actually heard a unique song is too much speculation because you have no visible proof."
Atheists often discount other people's experiences offhand, which is quite arrogant. They cannot permit the possibility that other people have had genuine experiences of God's presence and so they offer a litany of excuses.
Because atheists cannot allow the possibility that people can experience God, then any dramatic conversion must supposedly be based on "brainwashing."
That technique seems to be bit more like the tactics of secular humanist education, where only one 'politically correct' view is allowed for discussion. As Jesus exemplified, and unlike secular humanist education, we are not afraid of questions, discourse and debate. Whereas Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and many other highly appraised atheists love to make illogical excuses for not debating theists. Sometimes actions speak louder than words:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
The only snippet in Imnotandrei's entire rant is the fact that testimonies are non-contradictable.
R:Atheists often discount other people's experiences offhand, which is quite arrogant. They cannot permit the possibility that other people have had genuine experiences of God's presence and so they offer a litany of excuses
DeleteSo tell us again... How do we make a distinction between the experience of "God s presence", a "trick from the Devil" and just plain illusion from the brain? Do you have any criteria?
You also pushed forward the theory that god helps out christian athletes based on personnal accounts. When exact statistics were presented to you, showing that it is false, you just ignored contradictory data as always.
R:That technique seems to be bit more like the tactics of secular humanist education, where only one 'politically correct' view is allowed for discussion
Bold assertion. Do show that only the "politically correct view" is allowed for discussion in secular humanist education.
R:Whereas Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and many other highly appraised atheists love to make illogical excuses for not debating theists
Liar. You have never been shown their reasons to be illogical. Or do you again claim that their reasons are illogical because they are not presented in the form of a syllogism? 8)
>Staunch atheists will often be converted through empirical experiences.
Delete...Then they weren't terribly staunch, were they? ;)
- This illogical conclusion would be like saying, "Wild horses can never be trained. If wild horses could be trained then they weren't wild in the first place."
1) Notice the smilie. Often evidence of an indication towards humor.
2) I suppose one could make your statement make sense if you put it as, "When formerly-staunch atheists convert, it is usually due to empirical experience". Of course, it's also not true, since there is nothing "empirical" about a feeling generated by, say, a conversion experience. It can't be verified, it can't be tested, all that there is is a person saying "I felt this." "Empirical experience" here is almost an oxymoron.
>You put in your tag cloud here "empirical knowledge of God", when what you have is "empirical knowledge of faith in God", which is a different thing.
In his mind it is a "different thing."
That's because it is. We can run experiments on people's "faith in God." -- ask them what they believe, etc. That's not evidence of God, that's evidence of belief. Otherwise, we'd have loads of evidence for, say, belief in Santa, provided we asked only people under a certain age. Believing in something is not evidence for the existence of that thing.
"You have faith that you heard a unique song, but saying that you actually heard a unique song is too much speculation because you have no visible proof."
If that person claimed to have possession of truth and knowledge of how people were to live their lives because of that song, I'd question why I should listen to the claims. If what you want is to claim that you experienced "something", and press no reason for belief in that something on other people, go ahead-- but that's not what you, or most people relying on testimony in these cases, is doing.
Also -- if she asserted she heard a unique song, and someone else, walking in the same place and time, asserted they'd heard a known song -- who would I have more reason to believe?
Atheists often discount other people's experiences offhand, which is quite arrogant.
As do religionists -- experiences of someone else's God are dismissed, or labeled as "false revelations" or "satanic deceptions" or any one of a number of things.
They cannot permit the possibility that other people have had genuine experiences of God's presence and so they offer a litany of excuses.
Oh, I permit the possibility. But that possibility is sufficiently small, compared to many of the other explanations, as to make it not worth qualifying as any sort of significant "evidence". If enough people had the *same* experience, and there were not significant numbers of contradictory experiences, then we might be getting somewhere. But that's not what we see.
Because atheists cannot allow the possibility that people can experience God, then any dramatic conversion must supposedly be based on "brainwashing."
Nompe. Not all conversions are based on brainwashing. I merely pointed out the similarity in technique and situation. Really, Rick, learn to distinguish between "Some X are Y" and "All X are Y". Or "This might be a contributing factor to A" and "A must be because of this."
As Jesus exemplified, and unlike secular humanist education, we are not afraid of questions, discourse and debate.
DeleteBy which we can deduce you never went to the University of Chicago, law schools across the country, or many modern institutions of learning, in which exploration, critical thinking, and the Socratic Method are core portions of the curriculum.
Ask yourself, Rick: which viewpoint has a single sacred text that cannot be argued with, and which features at its center a method that constantly works to correct itself through exploration.
Whereas Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and many other highly appraised atheists love to make illogical excuses for not debating theists.
Bald assertion, as usual -- and, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, your definition of "logical" is narrow, and one you do not yourself follow. (Links available upon request.)
The only snippet in Imnotandrei's entire rant is the fact that testimonies are non-contradictable.
Which rather diminishes its value as evidence, ironically enough -- because there's no way to verify it. I could testify to having received a message from God informing me that Rick Warden was utterly wrong; and you would have no way of contradicting my saying so. I take it you see the lack of usefulness here?
AnonyRus,
Delete>Liar. You have never been shown their reasons to be illogical. [...Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and many other highly appraised atheists love to make illogical excuses for not debating theists]
- How sad that the best that atheist commenters, such as AnonyRus, have to offer at my blog is to throw around unsubstantiated and unjustified slander.
In the comment you are referring to, I had provided a link to the following quotes:
"So, for example, I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought."[4]
"Now, if you then ask me where I get my 'ought' statements from, that's a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan"[5]
When Dawkins claims there is "no logical connection between what is and what ought" he's basically admitting he believes there is no objective and logical foundation for his ethics."
Beginning in December 2011, an atheist blogger named Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. I've recently noted Imnotandrei's habitual slander habit.
If there are any atheists out there in the ethernet who are able to carry on a civilized debate and show some kind of logic and reasoning behind their beliefs, now would be a good time to make an appearance.
As always, Rick, you have ignored almost every single point of my post. But why am I not suprised?
DeleteDawkins gave two valid reasons why he refused to debate with Craig.
1. Craig is a dishonest person who repeats the same arguments again and again even if it was shown they are false. He is only interested in promoting himself instead of searching for truth. Not yielding to Craig s childish provocations and refusing to let him promote himself on Dawkin s account is perfectly logical.
2. Craig and you, Rick, do support the genocide of the Cannanites. Refusing to interact with such person to show one s disdain is perfectly valid.
Dawkins own view on morality are completely irrelevant to the discussion here. And the only thing your quotes show here is that he does not base his moral views on science (though, he seemed to have changed his opinion since then with Sam Hariss s book).
And now we see why Rick had to remove the "please no ad hominem attacks" line from the bottom of the page.
DeleteIf there are any atheists out there in the ethernet who are able to carry on a civilized debate and show some kind of logic and reasoning behind their beliefs,
Well, you've got one and a religion-non-declared who are trying, but you've decided that since they did one thing you didn't like, their reasoning is invalid. Which is the *classic* ad hominem attack, and a logical fallacy.
Try addressing the the points, Rick, rather than attacking the messenger.
As to the rest:
"Now, if you then ask me where I get my 'ought' statements from, that's a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan"[5]
In other words, one thing has empirical evidence behind it, while the other one relies upon much more nebulous evidence. I do not find this in any way unreasonable. Saying A is more defensible than B does not mean that B is indefensible.
no logical connection between what is and what ought" he's basically admitting he believes there is no objective and logical foundation for his ethics."
"Objective", perhaps -- but not "logical". The two are not identical, and your conflation is dishonest.
And holding "There is not an objective foundation for ethics" is not, inherently, an illogical position. You may find it *wrong*, but that's not the same as "illogical" -- despite, again, your common conflation of the two.
I note that, again, your making false statements that could be considered defamatory is "debate", while one of your debaters disagreeing with you forcefully enough, or making an error, is "atheist slander." Your double standard is duly noted.
>Dawkins gave two valid reasons why he refused to debate with Craig.
Delete- No, these are not valid reasons at all. You are obviously blinded by your commitment to support a favorite atheist hero.They are the illogical excuses of a deceived individual:
7 Reasons why Dawkins' Excuses for not Debating Craig are Illogical
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/7-reasons-why-dawkins-excuses-for-not.html
This reminds me of a famous experiment. A group of people would be gathered in a room and shown a black pyramid. The whole group, but one, would from the start be instructed to call the pyramid white. The one person, who was ignorant of the conspiracy, would end up completely lost. The black pyramid is called white, despite it being clearly black, and some people would agree with the group. The rate of agreement among aldults is fairly low, but among teenagers and children it is almost 100%.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you make the exercise just a little more difficult (instead of indentifying the color of the pyramid, ask to indentify on a photography the sex of an elderly) the number of people agreeing with the false assessment of the group goes up exponantly.
I believe you did excellent resolution when you picked up this subject of this article of yours here. Do you as a rule make your posts by yourself or maybe you have a partner or even a helper?
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt, and after much study of Craig, that he is very competent in debating. Furthermore, I hold no respect for Dawkin's 'philosophical'arguments, such as that of "mount improbable". It is a shame Dawkins refused to debate with Craig, although I can understand why; Dawkins flourishes when he argues with extremists such as creationists and terrorists, and he very much feels these people represent the entirety of religion. The problem for me presented in this piece, however, is that it claims religious experience can be veridical. I have been to soul survivor twice, last year and the year before. If you have ever watched the piece by Derren Brown where he successfully tricked someone into having a religious experience, you would understand how someone can question religious experiences; at soul survivor, Mike Pilavachi and his encore work up the crowd, bringing out repressed memories and emotions. The first time I went to soul survivor I was tricked into such an event, and felt like I was reborn afterwards. Around six months after the event I was studying Freud and Brown, and I realised that what had happened was due to atmosphere and emotion. I went again last year, and keeping these things in mind, I had a very different experience. I would not conclude there is no God, only that a large amount of religious experiences, especially those that happen at soul survivor, seem to fit very much to the description given by commonly followed atheists. Of course more testing is necessary, and I will return for one last time this summer.
ReplyDeletePs. sorry for linking only my twitter, I do not have any of these accounts that are offered to comment as.
Hi Adam,
DeleteThanks for stopping by.
>The problem for me presented in this piece, however, is that it claims religious experience can be veridical.
- I can understand your disappointment with human organizations and human approaches to social events. To begin with, you seem to be a highly intelligent person and, unfortunately, there seems to be a low caliber of thoughtful presentations today in the church environment. However, as you pointed out, Christian apologists such as Craig are extremely adept at presenting theism not only as viable, but as logically superior as a worldview to the descriptions of the top secular atheists today.
The paradox of transcendent reality is that we cannot see it, yet, there is a lot of evidence that it not only exists, but that the physical universe is completely dependent upon this unseen transcendent reality. This is evident when you objectively consider the facts regarding,
1. quantum mechanics,
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html
2. the organizing principle of the universe,
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/organizing-principle-of-universe.html
3. the fact that time and the universe had a beginning.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/01/vilenkins-math-supports-creation-model.html
These are some of the scientific and logical issues that cannot be adequately and logically reconciled based upon a materialist worldview.
Unlike most atheists who come to this blog, you seem to have an open mind towards the possibility of God's existence.
Also, I believe debating towards understanding is very valuable. I learned more about atheist arguments simply by debating online. Feel free to challenge any ideas that are presented here.
When you look at even "objectivist" arguments by atheists today, you find they aren't really objective at all from a philosophical perspective:
A Refutation of Dawson Bethrick's Central Argument Against Theism
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/11/refuting-dawson-bethricks-objectivist.html
Hope something here helps.
Adam, with regard to evidence of sound and valuable truth, you might appreciate this quote by C.S. Lewis:
DeleteI believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis
Adam, I recommend strongly you read the *comments* to Rick's articles, as well; often they contain challenges and refutations of his points.
DeleteI am also curious; what do you find unacceptable about "Mount Improbable"? It seemed a very valid explanation for the diverse results of evolution to me.
I could not resist commenting. Perfectly written!
ReplyDeleteVisit my web blog - quantrim guarantee
The more you shall honor Me,
ReplyDeletethe more I shall bless you.
-the Infant Jesus of Prague
(<- Czech Republic, next to Russia)
trustNjesus ALWAYS, brudda,
and wiseabove to Seventh-Heaven...
cuzz the only other realm aint too cool.
God bless your indelible soul.