The limited value of religious testimony

 [Originally written as a reply to a Christian-religious fundamentalist]

Asking a fellow fallible human
about the existence, nature, and will of a literal "God"
would make no sense.

It would be like asking you if Super-Intelligent aliens exist, what they want from me, and if I should submit to them (whichever religious person) ... as an authorized voice of those aliens.

Even if you had a fantastic story about being abducted and probed, ...

Me hearing it
does not =
me "knowing" it.

You can't function as a surrogate me.

If you experientially know something,
you can't pass that on as "knowledge".

You could only pass it on as a claim.

If your evidence is lousy, then that's not my problem.

If your claim is non-credible, that's not my problem either.

If I don't believe you, ...
EVEN IF it's all true, ...
I have not morally ~wronged~ nor "rejected" your favorite alien.
---

If I eventually get abducted and probed too, ...

I would then, finally, experientially "know" that aliens exist; provided that their tech is so far beyond ours that it can't be faked.

And yet, if those aliens claimed to be "all knowing",
that would be pointless. Because all-knowing-ness cannot be demonstrated.

If they claimed to have literally always existed,
that too would be pointless.
Because that cannot be demonstrated either.

If they claimed to be literally infinite in power or knowledge, ...
the same problem exists.
Those claims cannot be demonstrated.

Now, if I have an encounter with a fellow who identifies himself as a "God" or a "Jesus", ...
what is that to me?

They could not demonstrate ANY of the traits which might differentiate them from a super-alien.
So I'd have to take their word for being "more than that" ... or not.

They could tamper with the chemicals in my brain, to create a sense of euphoria.

Using that method, they could also create a mental receptiveness to suggestion.
But then again, aliens could do that too.
In fact, governments and religions have gotten really skilled at that.
And let's be honest, this IS the "experience" you speak of.

In fact, I bet you didn't even hear real voice or see a "Jesus".

You FELT something.

The words which DEFINED that experience for you ... were the words provided to you by mere fallible humans.

So do I believe you've had such an experience?
Yep. I sure do believe that.

I also believe it when a Catholic, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a devoted North Korean Kim-cultists claims it.
I believe them.
They really did have those "experiences" with: what they call "the divine".

---
That's not the thing I doubt.

What I'm doubting is their 100% subjective interpretations of those experiences.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gods Exist; As A Way Of Thinking And Speaking That We Can Grow Past

Image
[Version 3.0 Please pardon the typos and other "wonk". This is a work in progress. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. But even if all you do is read it, I'll still be very grateful.  Thanks] ====== Some people worship actually-existing things; like the Sun.  Some Sun worshippers proceed without assuming the Sun is sentient.  They have that relationship to the Sun, as a brilliant, live-giving, and sometimes punishing power.  It's a humbling awe. It's also an idea that informs them of who they are. They are a recipient of life from a personified life-giver.  They are a subject to the threat that anyone who dares stare too long at the Sun may be struck blind. They are subject to limits and consequences, if they spend too much or too little time in the Sun's presence.  The Sun blesses us caretakers and sharers of the abundant life that the Sun imparts.  The Sun makes sure the lakes and sky share their life giving waters. It directly helps ~shape~ ever Sun-wors
Read more

Responding to "HOW DO YOU KNOW?" that (any) historical issue is a settled issue(?)

Image
This blog was inspired by a discussion happening in a forum on Facebook. Specifically, the issue on the table was: "Did the writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke/Acts think that Jesus was either part of a Triune-Godhead, or at least the same "God" as the patriarchal deity of 2nd Temple Judaism?" Predictably, a Trinitarian religious fundamentalist said "yes". Predictably, an enabler of unspecified background has rushed in to support that fundamentalist. In context, it's really obvious to me that the enabler was raised in that same ideological culture; no matter how religious they may-or-may-not-be currently. So when I pointed out what actual scholars say about it, I also pointed out that this is a settled issue. In reply, he insisted: There are never any truly settled issues among qualified scholars. Both a real scholar and an honest (and minimally intelligent) laymen would realize this. [Note: this is just a variation of the stunt being
Read more

Christian-Fundamentalism's Relationship To Racism

Image
For now, I'll just start with a few key issues; in no particular order. 1. Atheism isn't a worldview or a values system. It's like being a non-astrologist, or a non-Leprechaun-ist. If someone doesn't believe in leprechauns in general, or if they more specifically don't believe in "The Eternal King of the Leprechauns", this really doesn't inform their personal views and values. 2. For context, I don't identify as an "atheist". The term "atheist" means "not a theist". The term "theist" means "believes in a god". The term "god" means: whatever the invoker wants it to mean. Therefore, the term "atheist" fails to make any meaningful distinction, because the term "god" fails to provide its own meaning. However, ... 3. Once a god-word-invoker does clarify their meaning, then (in that context) the term "atheist" can be contextually meaningfu
Read more