[gemli: ]”The only kind of evidence that can be relied upon is that which can be observed and tested.”
Thank you for illustrating my point to perfection.
The essential problem with this, however, is that religious claims can be observed and tested, but not in the publicly verifiable sense that scientific ones can....
Oh dear. Talk about “scientism.” Can we use the term “religionism” similarly?
Gemli’s comeback:
gemli Hoosier • a day ago
I wonder how religious claims are observed and tested while they're unable to be observed and tested. It sounds like they're simply felt and imagined, as if these feelings come from nothing more than human imagination combined with human fears and longings.
Theological claims don't run counter to gravity. They don't run counter to, or in step with, anything in the universe. They're merely ideas that have no effect on the physical world--except, of course, in stories that people tell which can't be confirmed and leave no evidence that can be examined. If crucially important evidence of the divine is claimed to have existed, it is always lost, stolen, buried, misplaced, hidden or destroyed. It makes a fellow wonder if it ever existed at all.
Gemli makes short work of the next response, which really is nothing more than religious scientism incarnate:
Hoosier gemli • a day ago
Funny how your claims cannot be observed nor tested either. Do tell me how you intend to prove your theory of religious cognition?
Because that must be proved. The witnesses of many people contradict your materialistic worldview. We testify of our experiences. We testify of what we know. You have to dismiss our witness or your worldview crumbles. So you have your theory. Can you prove it? If not, it will rest on the same sandy ground you ascribe to us: a story invented to meet your needs.
− gemli Hoosier • a day ago
Those who make a positive claim of something's existence have the burden of proof.
It’s a little embarrassing that an adult, in a discussion about scientism, presents anecdotal “witnessing” as evidence. However, this is a blog pushing a movie where “witnesses” are presented as virtually unassailable evidence, so maybe it is inevitable. Illogical, yes, but on this blog, inevitable.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen more than a handful of ufo movies with equally compelling “witness” accounts.
More of an anti-gem, really, or maybe a gemli gem, once removed.
DanielPeterson gemli 10 hours ago
gemli: "some underlying story that was made up out of whole cloth to begin with"
That's the dogma speaking in you, gemli. Try really, really hard to think and speak for yourself. I'm convinced, based on my own experience, that you would find the experience exhilarating.
gemli: "Truth is that which can be observed, tested and confirmed."
But may, in fact, currently be unobserved, untested, and impossible to confirm -- and may NEVER be observed, tested, or confirmed.
Did a being named Glambo, son of Glorp, once live on a planet in the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy? If one did, we will almost certainly never know.
“ Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.“
—-Carl Sagan
This may have to be broken out into a separate thread, but for now I thought an appropriate addition to “gemli’s gems” would be: “Moksha’s Meaningfulnesses.”
I have in mind Moksha’s response to a particularly disturbing conclusion quoted in a certain blog location:
For how foolish it is to long for a future that, first, always remains uncertain and, second, even at best — namely, when it is really fulfilled — only brings one nearer to the grave....
When knowledge of the inescapability of death has really seized a person, then everything that fills his days becomes stale and empty.
Wow. Really? The implication seems to be that there is no reason to live life well without believing in an afterlife. What a depressing approach. Moksha lightens the mood considerably with just the right touch of levity and care:
Moksha [to the rescue]:
Hope springs eternal. Might as well have it till the inevitable end along with Wellbutrin as needed. Best wishes and condolences to all who need that as well.
Awesome response Moksha! My experience has been the opposite — my life seems more important and meaningful because it’s all I’ve got. I think it’s hard for someone who’s been a theist all her life to understand how an atheist experiences life. Not that we all do it identically, but we’re don’t tend to fit well with theist stereotypes of atheists.
