Here's a new Open Thread.
Remember, off-topic comments should go in an Open Thread.
If you don't see a recent comment, or comments, posted, it's because you've failed to follow the above rule. Keep to the subject of a blog post if you leave a comment on it. And if you want to use this blog as a "chat room," do that in an open thread.
As noted before, it's good to have comments in a regular blog post related to its subject, and it's also good to have a place where almost anything goes in regard to sharing ideas, feelings, experiences, and such. That place is an Open Thread.
Leave a comment on this post about anything you want to talk about. Remember that I'm moderating comments, so it could take a while for your comment to be published. Almost every comment submitted to an Open Thread will be approved. Personal attacks on someone are an exception, as is hate speech. Argue with ideas, not insults.
Though I haven't been doing too well on this, I'll try to remember to always have an Open Thread showing in the Recent Posts section in the right sidebar. If one isn't showing, I've added an Open Threads category in, naturally, the Categories section. You can always find an Open Thread that way.
So if you're a believer in some form of religion, mysticism, or spirituality, this is where you can put your "praise God," "praise Guru," or "praise _______" comments.
If you see a green dragons every day, the stars and moon within, and in your experience they are undeniable, reliable, and you can test for that, just as you might test the stability of the floor, or the ability of your television to turn on when you press the controller, regardless of the time of day, your mood or condition, then it is something real for you.
That is a real part of your experience.
For anyone to say "Green dragons, fairies, inner experiences aren't real" is also correct, if they have no exposure to these things.
They are in no condition to comment, unless they have scientifically tested your experience, or refer to real research that has. In which case they may learn some things, just as we have about meditation research, or research that demonstrates the healthy benefits of going to church (you will live a few years longer), or even the benefits of exercise, even if they personally don't exercise.
But it is dangerous for anyone to conclude they have the actual science when they are referring to scientific results that are actually testing something altogether different. If they haven't tested for the perception of dragons, then they have no data. And it is an abuse of science to claim so.
It's not scientific or even a scientific world view. It's selection bias of information supporting their system of belief, not letting a full investigation of research paint the actual picture in context.
Claims are not non-existent. The claim exists. What remains for science to confirm is can its effect be tested? In the case of belief in God the answer is yes. It has been tested, and the effects are positive.
In the case of inner visions, or Out of Body experiences again, the physiological reactions are there. And at a minimum this is a physiological reality worthy of exploration.
The tendency to say "I don't believe you" without an open minded investigation, and an acknowledgement that this is the actual sincere experience of others, is a form of provincial thinking.
Atheists have used these false arguments to defend their belief in no God. But it is entirely unnecessary. No one is forcing them to believe anything. They may be right.
The issue of the Atheists argument against God, which are largely false and selection - biased arguments, is to discredit and dismiss the experiences of others.
It's one thing to say "I respect what you say as your experience, and I'd be interested to know more about the effects and causes of that experience."
It is another to say "You are hallucinating, your not being real, you aren't seeing reality like I am."
That's not science. It's childish. The playground of the cynic.
Cynic
1. a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.
"some cynics thought that the controversy was all a publicity stunt"
No where is this clearer than when someone hurls this sort of argument at another who believes differently than they do, and defends with selected evidence their particular opinion, and does not acknowledge any hard evidence presented by the alternative view.
Posted by: Spencer Tepper | July 29, 2021 at 09:48 PM