If all the evidence in the universe...

[Antares]

Turns against what you believe in (e.g. Christianity, Atheism, Pagan, etc), would you convert as the evidence indicates? Or would you hold onto your beliefs?

[AgentofGaming]

I would see no point in holding a false belief especially if it were false beyond doubt. Self-deception is at most a comfort but not a good means to interact with reality or achieve self-growth and understanding.

[Nausved]

Of course I'd convert.

But I would probably feel empty and directionless for a while. Atheism is very life-affirming.

[szaxazs]

Depends on the evidence.

I would analyze anything about what I saw, and what's in my mind.

If Jesus Christ came to my room right now and said:"Hey dude, it's me, JC. Now that you have seen me, believe in me and become a 100% Christian without doubts!"

I might as well as have some funky hallucinations, or having someone play a really good prank on me, or something.

After some time of thinking I would reach a conclusion.

It is hard to give a yes/no answer here, because the possibilities are so many.

However the more striking the evidence, the more the chances of someone changing their minds.

[futureperfect5]

because, by definition, a "belief" indicates that you have some measure of doubt in your mind or that what your thinking is, somehow, unproven.

So, why not change your mind if substantiated evidence is produced.

That said, I think that it is important to know the validity of what I think. [As I do with all certainty as an arrogant, yet well-intentioned, INTJ.]

[Homini Lupus]

I think any organised religion would find a way out of the situation, like the many ones that said "the world will end on [insert past date]" and then didn't disappear.

Personally I thinked sometimes about that situation, but it's quite unlikely. Yes, I would be forced to admit I've thrown a lot of time and effort to the wind in that case, but I can't think how a situation like that could happen. Reality is by itself questionable.

[Antares]

Haha. I created this poll thinking about fundies on anything, really. Dawkins pointed out that some wouldn't convert (he quoted some fundies) even if all the evidence in the universe turns against their beliefs.

Depends on the evidence.

I would analyze anything about what I saw, and what's in my mind.

If Jesus Christ came to my room right now and said:"Hey dude, it's me, JC. Now that you have seen me, believe in me and become a 100% Christian without doubts!"

I might as well as have some funky hallucinations, or having someone play a really good prank on me, or something.

After some time of thinking I would reach a conclusion.

It is hard to give a yes/no answer here, because the possibilities are so many.

However the more striking the evidence, the more the chances of someone changing their minds.

Well, if the experience is 'real' enough... I MIGHT be convinced. There's this time I was doing homework pulling an all-nighter. I didn't close the curtains and my lights were on, so naturally I could see my own reflection in the window. Then, behind me, a wet-haired and white-robed girl with her mutilated face drifted from one side of the room to the other (as I saw from the reflections). She's not unlike Sadako, if any of you've seen the Japanese horror movie (It was quite well-executed; more so than The Ring, its Western counterpart. And also, it's original. Watch it! ;D I did so alone because I was not allowed to when I was younger, 10, perhaps. My dad had a good reason for that too.*shudder*): Ringu. It was unsettling to say the least and I was quite spooked, but I pegged it off as hallucinations. But I swore she was there. I felt this 'presence' in the room that I was being watched and all that, but I didn't believe it. So... It might just take more than a visitation or a miracle to convince me.

On the other hand, if I receive a post in my mail containing five dried orange seeds, then I might just believe in miracles :p No sense asking where I got that from.

[Solaris]

I suppose I would, but I'd have to fully examine the evidence, and weigh my thoughts on the whole thing. I think, for me, part of the problem would be my personal definition of faith. That said, I did arrive at being a Christian through logical information and examination, so it makes sense that the same could potentially unconvince me.

[muguly]

Interesting....to say I would convert is to say I didn't have as much faith in my former belief. To say I would stay true is to ignore the obvious. I guess I would believe the facts, but then I would research the "facts" and probably just say screw everything and chill on the whole religion thing.

[QED]

Almost four years have passed since original post concerning this topic was made and I couldn't help myself but to think that all those hypothetical personal transformations must be left behind for the time being. Instead let's analyse this question in a manner that would encapsulate whole humankind - not just few full-time MBTI intelligences. In other words - how and why would humanity react to such Top-class Evidential Event? Well:

1) It depends how one imagines such breaking point in the history of "us" trying to define universe not for decade or century but for ages to come i.e. having finally found that one magical finite list of "just how universe works and what is the nature of its fundamental building blocks". For I am not really sure, if the thesis "scientific determinism is true", what are the signs needed to posit a fact such as "we have all the evidence in the universe".

2) Presumably modern physics will be successful with all its theories and after a while (or not so a while) will present some sort of Grand Theory of nature that in fact will successfully predict and explain all the phenomenon inside and outside standard model (or presumably any other model that stands in the line to become next headache of international scientists' community). Let's also posit the fact that somehow we will be able to explain things related to still fragile concepts of "mind", "language", "knowledge" etc. in non contradictory and unified way. Here comes another presumption - with all this knowledge in our hands there passes few millenniums (hopefully human race is still there to experience that time period) and nothing of big importance (except for maybe one or two intergalactic wars) happens. Will we then be justified to say "with all the evidence in the universe I proudly declare my final decline of any religion whatsoever"?

3) Dawkins is quite a remarkable guy. For the fact he is so sure about inexistence of God it makes me wonder: does he (and presumably others) know that thinking of something as non-existent doesn't Actually make that particular thing unreal?

4) Going back to the topic (I must apologize for Dawkins) - How and Why would humanity react to the greatest day when everything would be settled once and for all?

5) I have briefly argued in sections 1 and 2 (although few lines aren't enough) that in case of non-eschatologious scenario we would still be left with no other tools except for few empirical theories no matter how sophisticated it will become (and of course - good old faith in the eschatology that is presumably yet to come) to guide us through both epistemological and ontological updates required to cope with reality. One could also freely argue that "up-to-date evidence (2012.02.05) about universe Is pretty much what you need to stay away from those fundamentalists in a way that: A) "We already have sufficient knowledge about universe and therefore positing God isn't needed"; or; B) "Even though we still have unexplained phenomenon it is likely that in the future we will be able to explain it by adopting more powerful technology combined with new theories of nature, thus renunciation of God is a matter of ticking clock".

6) In other words – even if we manage to properly describe and explain all the on-going phenomenon using some sort of Grand Theory Of Nature and with that description in hands spend, let‘s say few millenniums without any not predicted phenomenon appearing or already observed phenomenon not conforming to our beloved Theory, a rabbit hole will always be a rabbit hole untill the day somebody finally measures its innermost point (it depends whether empirical science is capable of such achievement).


7) As for the question "how and why would humanity react to such Top-class Evidential Event"? Well, let me govern my answer by means of positing two fundamental assumptions:

(A) Thesis "God exists and Christ will come to bring His judgement upon mankind" is true;

(B) Thesis "God doesn't exist and science is fully capable of describing universe, even more - there will come time when the Grand Theory Of Everything will explain every phenomenon in a way that there will be left no place for any metaphysical assumption whatsoever" is true;

For (B) scenario - It's humankind bound up to no one, slowly colonising cosmos amongst countless intergalactic warfares with no one to stop them for they long ago have turned away from God naming Him "The One Who Never Was".

As for scenario (A) - It's humankind bound up to no one, slowly colonising cosmos amongst countless intergalactic warfares with no one to stop them for many of them long ago have turned away from God naming Him "The One Who Is No More".

8) And of course - all the fun awaits now - at the momentum I'm composing this post. For there are many out there who by don't believing in God automatically turn His hypothetical appearance into the worst nightmare you can think of. On the other side you have those who do believe in Him and honestly await the day of last judgement.

9) In the end, what will really happen, is a matter of yet unfolding human nature. One can define it as a process of evolving from one state to another. As long as this process is guided naturally by the person himself the outcome is seldom disingenuous and there is still a possibility to convert. On the contrary - I think everyone imagines what impact would sudden exposure to divine power have over non believers. Instantaneous annihilation of the possibility of honest transition towards faith gives a hint.

[Oros Ull]

My beliefs change constantly with new information anyway… So yeah.

I don’t even really consider them beliefs as much as just current perceptions of reality.

[Hymn]

My beliefs change constantly with new information anyway… So yeah.

I don’t even really consider them beliefs as much as just current perceptions of reality.

I am very much like that myself.
When I was a christian, I was one because what I knew about the world seemed to be consistent with christianity. Every argument against it, I could defeat. And when I couldn't anymore - when I realised that I wasn't really arguing against something and for something else, but rather was moving the goalpost in order to not be wrong - I abandoned my faith. And then, after some time as an atheist, I came to the conclusion that hardcore atheism might me too rigid as well, and started looking for answers/clues in other religions, sciences and philosophies, not to believe in (since I think that whatever complete answer humankind can come up with, is wrong) but to get some perspective from.

So yes, if I'd be presented with undeniable evidence that god/gods is/are one way or another (or not) - I would believe in that, even if it might take a while for the ego to settle down and be comfortable with the thought. But I assume in this hypothesis that the evidence really is undeniable, which I doubt would be the case.

As for humankind as a whole, I don't think that religion will be the same forever. But I believe that some people will refuse to conform to new evidence, and some won't. Just as it is today, with the only difference that those who would refuse to "see the truth" would be slightly more religious than those who refuse to believe in evidence we have today. I think we would have to change the way our brain works in order to really be able to adapt to new, "better" theories, without a fight.

[Sethis]

That will never happen. It's purely hypothetical.

It all depends on whether you want to see evidence. One has to first of all define what is sufficient evidence to convert.

If I see Jesus appearing in front of me I'm more inclined to believe I'm schizophrenic than that God exists. But that's just me.

[Distance]

Convert? No. Adjust my perception? Yes.

Should add that I'm an atheist who will never worship but will believe if all the indisputable factual evidence points to the existence of an omnipotent being.

[sed0007]

True faith for the religious acknowledges the deity as beyond any mechanism of logic; science or knowledge. Human effort at proving or disproving the existence of one's deity is in itself a denial of Grace and indicative of a lapse of faith. To do either is futile.


(Just sayin')

[Feral]

Probably. It would have to be solid evidence, though... something more akin to proof.

For example--
A.) God descends from the sky one day, works some crazy miracle that is unexplainable any other way, and tells us what's up. Then I would believe.
B.) Someone hands me a book, says it was written by god, and therefore god exists because this book says so... that is not evidence.

[logan]

Scary number of "No's"!

[SarcasticVlad]

What? Never! Jesus is my friend!

[Othesemo]

If, for example, I saw god descend from the heavens, single me out, claim that he does exist, and then perform some miracle in front of my eyes, and then all of this was followed by hundreds of people swearing that they saw the same thing, I'd convert. Anything short of that? Not likely.

[MrFox]

Yesterday (5(?)Feb12), 06:07 PM #10
QED
New Member [01%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1


Um, … Hi there – Welcome to Forum, QED (hard to believe that name lasted until you recently (?) claimed it). Your very first (and apparently only) experience with us, is it? Must confess I don’t recall a first post ever reaching quite to the level of ease and insight that yours displays. Anyway, good to have you aboard. Let’s get to it, shall we? -

*** In other words - how and why would humanity react to such Top-class Evidential Event? Well:

*** I am not really sure, if the thesis "scientific determinism is true", what are the signs needed to posit a fact such as "we have all the evidence in the universe".

If it’s left to human beings to answer the question: “(do) we have all the evidence in the universe”? – the answer will always be a curt “no”. No matter how many “signs” there are, there will never be enough to settle the matter conclusively – in that you can justifiably have “faith”.

*** Will we then (after a few millennia pass) be justified to say "with all the evidence in the universe I proudly declare my final decline of any religion whatsoever"?

Um… excuse me, sir – how did we transit from an analysis of “received” evidence to a repudiation of religion? Simply because some (presumably ultra-“deep throat”) source gifted humanity with certain facts – how does that compel a rejection of faith? Mankind didn’t create, or discover for itself, this conclusive proof – it was gratuitously bestowed (from above?) by some (higher?) authority, or at least it arrived from some other non-human source. Seems to me such an occurrence would likely inspire faith in quite a few people – kinda proves there’s something out there that’s superior to the human intellect, doesn’t it? Faith doesn’t require more than that to flourish, does it?

(Dawkins (?) postulates: )"Even though we still have unexplained phenomenon it is likely that in the future we will be able to explain it by adopting more powerful technology combined with new theories of nature, thus renunciation of God is a matter of ticking clock".

IMO the clock metaphor is off the mark, for it presumes an inevitable end-point, at which there will remain no unanswered questions. A more apt analogy, IMO, would be to penalty-yardage in American football – the penalty may never be greater than half-the-distance to the goal line; it’s not even theoretically possible to advance the ball all the way to “pay-dirt”, even with an infinite number of flags being thrown. Viewed from this angle, there will always remain some things “unknown”, and some space for faith.

As for the question "how and why would humanity react to such Top-class Evidential Event"? Well, let me govern my answer by means of positing two fundamental assumptions:

Save the assumptions, though they were quite well written. The short answer to “how” is – with intense skepticism. And to “why” – because no other response is reasonable. If it’s too good to be true ….

And of course - all the fun awaits now - at the momentum I'm composing this post. For there are many out there who by don't believing in God automatically turn His hypothetical appearance into the worst nightmare you can think of.

Not really – some people will fall to their knees in rapturous submission at the appearance of the burning bush; the non-believers will reach for a fire extinguisher – don’t worry about them; they’ll be fine, thanks.

On the other side you have those who do believe in Him and honestly await the day of last judgement..

Well, what about the rest of us – don’t we count? Talkin’ about those who don’t have a committed opinion one way or the other – our open minds would probably enjoy giving the (allegedly) conclusive evidence a good cross-examination, and declaring it bogus (assuming that’s what a client was paying me to do).

OBTW: I’m really not supposed to be here either, so let’s keep this between the two of us - OK, whoever you are?

[machacatrov]

My position is more of a lifestyle than being doubtful, so it would not convert me in any way.

[Miryr]

I try to be as rational as I possibly can, so I usually go where the evidence leads me...

[Bunker Man]

I might keep a twisted version of them around out of irony. But assuming that this is as conclusive as you present it, it's not like you accomplish anything around pretending like you have such a strong will that you're proving something by blatantly rejecting reality.

[IreOfDesire]

Sure, we're Te based creatures here after all.

[Sk8ordude]

It could be the devil tricking me.

I dont really believe in anything now so I would add it to my speculations.

[Polymath20]

Prove to me that there is no teapot in orbit around Mars. I dare you. I double dare you. I double-dog dare you.

[Oros Ull]

Prove to me that there is no teapot in orbit around Mars. I dare you. I double dare you. I double-dog dare you.

There are no British on Mars….

[Polymath20]

There are no British on Mars….

Can you prove that?

[sed0007]

As Mars does not have two or more tribes on it, the British are unable to conquer by dividing, and are powerless here.

[Polymath20]

As Mars does not have two or more tribes on it, the British are unable to conquer by dividing, and are powerless here.

Have you sent a survey crew to Mars to ascertain the truth of the absence of said tribes? I thought not. And also, the present absence of tribal groups on Mars does not preclude ancient Britons from having developed (and subsequently lost) space flight, at which point they could have left a teapot in orbit on accident eons ago.

[darniem]

The thing I have contention with is that "evidence' changes all the time. Some of it is pretty sound, but "science" (because there are individual sciences, they don't all act as an organized entity in complete union) is always advancing and improving, and in its course, disproves things that were once accepted as scientific fact or reaffirms completely what has already been known.

So I take scientific advancements and discoveries with a grain of salt. Science does not have all the answers, but it does have some good ones. I see science as a means to explain how, when, what, where but not why. I believe our life and existence is more than empirical, so I get the answer to my why from my faith, and accept the science that explains the rest.

So...em..."no."

[Polymath20]

The thing I have contention with is that "evidence' changes all the time. Some of it is pretty sound, but "science" (because there are individual sciences, they don't all act as an organized entity in complete union) is always advancing and improving, and in its course, disproves things that were once accepted as scientific fact or reaffirms completely what has already been known.

So I take scientific advancements and discoveries with a grain of salt. Science does not have all the answers, but it does have some good ones. I see science as a means to explain how, when, what, where but not why. I believe our life and existence is more than empirical, so I get the answer to my why from my faith, and accept the science that explains the rest.

So...em..."no."

I think you're confusing "scientific theory" with "scientific fact" - many things that are colloquially accepted within the scientific community are still just theories. Evolution, big bang, even plate tectonics is still just a theory. Science is about gathering facts and evidence. A scientific fact is verifiable and reproducible - and it is just one little piece of evidence in a larger puzzle.

Unfortunately, many people who try to wield science as a sword and shield do not understand this.

[darniem]

I think you're confusing "scientific theory" with "scientific fact"

This may be the case. I am not trained in the field of science outside of what was required for my undergrad studies.

[Purgatid]

Burden of proof always lies with the one doing the claim. Therefore - proof is needed for the teapot orbiting mars, but no proof is needed to refute the claim. Hence - a lot of the things we think we know, are actually things we believe.

[MrFox]

Burden of proof always lies with the one doing the claim. Therefore - proof is needed for the teapot orbiting mars, but no proof is needed to refute the claim. Hence - a lot of the things we think we know, are actually things we believe.

And the recurring failure to distinguish between the two leads all too often to tears and tragedy.

[topquark]

Even if God could be proved to exist, I don't think I would want to worship him. I would believe, if there was solid proof, in the same way that I believe in the existence of trees, tables, etc, but I don't think it would make a huge difference to my personal morals.

[Polymath20]

Burden of proof always lies with the one doing the claim. Therefore - proof is needed for the teapot orbiting mars, but no proof is needed to refute the claim. Hence - a lot of the things we think we know, are actually things we believe.

But I've seen the teapot, I just didn't have a camera, so the burden is on YOU to go see it for yourself!

[TheStranger]

I'd convert, but mourn the loss of my innocence.

[MrFlaneur]

All the evidence is my belief.

[Selene]

Depends on the credibility of all evidence presented before me, really. Can't possibly take that grand leap of faith without logical information and a healthy measure of doubt, after all, evidence and arguments can easily be misrepresented for sinister reasons.

[elTee13]

It would still be irrelevant.

[scorpiomover]

In my religion, if G-d's word disagrees with reason, G-d wants us to follow reason. So the values of my religion, can only be contradicted by evidence, if the evidence cannot make sense, and if the evidence cannot make sense, then it cannot be right.

[Phaze228]

But I've seen the teapot, I just didn't have a camera, so the burden is on YOU to go see it for yourself!

I too have seen this teapot and can vouch for its existence, anecdotal stories are always more credible when you have more people saying the same thing.