Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
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.
RSS
RE: How Quaint and a revisit of the Atheist Wager
Whether the criteria is relevant or not is beside my point. I wasn't meaning to comment on the quality or relevance of the criteria, but to argue the thought process was potentially useful (as opposed to being categorically misleading, as it seemed VnutZ was claiming).
By definition, you lack objectivity in determining the trustworthiness of the relevant observations.
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. Rather, accepting it as not publicly verifiable and then interpreting/studying it within that context seems the best means of dealing with such experiences of which I can think.
View Full Discussion