soulcougher73
Lifer
- Nov 29, 2006
- 15,878
- 4,431
- 136
You're totally right. The difference is that we don't call what George Orwell writes the word of God, nor do we proclaim it infallible. Furthermore, there is no hard line of demarcation in the Bible between what is considered parable and what is considered literal. What is chosen as literal, then, seems to be selected by the reader and their own personal biases.
On a slightly separate topic, I think it's worthwhile to separate a notion of Truth (with a capital T) from science. It will always be possible to superimpose a supernatural model on whatever you are able to observe. I don't think even the most ardent atheists in this forum would object to that suggestion.
Whether that assertion that God can exist is a useful point of discussion then becomes the primary question. There are an infinite number of things that might be true that I have no way of confirming. God could be wonderful and benevolent. There could be a cabal of Gods that created life just so they would have something to torment. There could be no God at all. To differentiate between these equally viable models, I would need to have a falsifiable experiment that would have different outcomes for each of those possibilities outlined above. Without such an experiment, there is no effective difference between them and the notion of God is not a useful one for me. Furthermore, an inability to measurably distinguish between the existence and nonexistence of something, under any other circumstances, would lead a person to assume non-existence. Again, this would not be a proclamation of absolute Truth, but rather a practical consideration that life is complicated enough without worrying about things that are inherently unverifiable.
Which brings me to:
If you want to convince me that prayer is worthwhile, though, there needs to be some persistently measurable metric. Perhaps a double-blind trial where one group of patients have people in another room praying for their recovery, and another has a room of people praying for donuts? Such an experiment would be relatively easy to set up, and should provide easily discernible results.
The problem, when you suggest that prayers are "answered in many ways" is that it then provides me no tangible benefit to prayer. If I am unable to actually demonstrate that it does me any good, then why bother with it? Saying that you "just know" that you are being helped reeks of confirmation bias.
:thumbsup::thumbsup: "He is wicked smart"