Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
In some cases it's enough, and in some it's not. The evidence you cite is interesting, and should be taken into account when evaluating an experience, but it simply isn't sufficient to explain any and all revelatory experiences. Also, although one cannot obtain pure objectivity when interpreting on one's own experience, lacking public verification, an outsider has even less ability to speak authoritatively on the subject.
I'd like to get further into the revelation discussion, but it's off topic, so I'll hold my tongue.
This comment has 13 replies.
RSS
RE: How Quaint and a revisit of the Atheist Wager
One lacks pure objectivity, yes, but that's far from being enough to completely invalidate the worth of the experience - especially given the lack of direct comment from a "purely objective" source.
One lacks anything resembling objectivity. The best indicator of this is that these "experiences" are invariably in line with one's own personal prejudices. Muslim have Muslim revelations, Mormons have Mormon revelations, Jews have Jewish revelations, Hindus have Hindu revelations, Buddhists have Buddhist revelations.
This further correlates with the fact that artificially stimulating the temporal lobe consistently results in an experience that is normally described in religious terms - and again, always in terms of one's religious predispositions - Muslims see Allah, Christians see Jesus, Jews see Moses.
If this isn't enough to discount any such experience, it shows your completely lack of objectivity.
View Full Discussion