I had an argument with Scott before where he was 100% certain that I simply did not understand a biochemical reaction within my body so I assumed that it must have been a spiritual experience.
I beg to differ. I was not “100% certain that you did not understand”. I was certain that the biochemical reaction is a far more plausible explanation than the supernatural one.
Humans make mistakes. That’s an almost trivial fact. It’s readily observed almost any time you really care to look for it. Supernatural events have never yet been shown to be true, but events that some people believe to be supernatural have been shown to be the result of human mistakes.
My point was that even having experienced it directly, the “error” explanation is still more plausible than the supernatural one. Or, put another way, it’s more rational to assume you hallucinated (or otherwise got it wrong) than to assume that you’ve experienced something for which there’s no supporting evidence.
It is a personal and spiritual experience, even for those born into the religion.
I’ve actually come to suspect that it’s kind of “rigged” that way—that you (perhaps unconsciously) arrange to create circumstances conducive to creating this “experience”, and then encourage its misinterpretation.
Naturally, you will insist otherwise, and I certainly have nothing more than an intuition.
There’s still no rational reason to apply the interpretations you offer for the experiences.
I’ve been doing the military gig too long to concede with the removal of religious support for service members.
I don’t know how I can say this any more clearly. I did not advocate “the removal of religious support for service members”. I simply think that they should seek such support from civilian sources. I think they should be given appropriate leave to do so, assuming it doesn’t unduly interfere with their duties. I just don’t think the government should be paying for it.
* * item2.1
# # item2.1
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.