Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[Bear Wild]

Nothing should be considered real that does not manifest empirically, that is, to the senses.

How do we measure awe and wonder empirically? How can we empirically measure love?

 

[Bear Wild]

Measure isn't the correct word if by that you mean quantify it. Discern is a better choice. I experience consciousness directly every waking moment.

So, if those 10 people experience the presence of a land spirit, how would you know it is not real. How can we be certain their experience is not real?

 

[Bear Wild]

Same answer. I experience it directly as an attitude, and indirectly in the actions of others. Maybe you should change the word science to experience or empiricism. All of what we know is learned empirically. My skeptical position on the gods you refer to doesn't come from science. Very little of the relevant knowledge in my worldview does. It comes from experience, from tweaking (trial-and-error) best guesses until they are useful and produce desired results.

It seems then if people as recorded in the audio records in Ireland that they directly experienced the fairy folk or other numinous beings, their experience would be valid. It was shared by many people with similar experiences.

 

[Bear Wild]

No.

No.

Not enough information.

Yes.

Yes,

One question for you.

If 10 people report a similar experience, are those 10 people necessarily correct about the cause of that experience?

Well, your answers are certainly direct and certain. I have somewhere lost my ability to be so certain. As for the question the answer is we do not know because we did not share that experience. For them it is real. Does experiencing that kind of relationship require taking the time to create the relationship and open to its possibility?

 

[ppp]

As for the question the answer is we do not know because we did not share that experience.

If we ((you and I) were two of the ten to experience what we thought were wights, would the experience alone be sufficient to justify our conclusion. You seem to be arguing that it is. I, however, am not so...certain.

Having the experience justifies the reporting of the experience. The experience alone does not justify conclusions about the cause of the experience.

For them it is real.

Reality exists independent of my experiences. Yours?

Does experiencing that kind of relationship require taking the time to create the relationship and open to its possibility?

I find this to be a be a truly bizarre question. Why would I need to be open to a possibility in order to accept the actuality when it is demonstrated? I have been resolutely and adamantly closed to claims many, many times over the decades, only to be persuaded to reverse my position by sound thoughtful reasoning and good standards of evidence.

I find these reversals to be intellectually satisfying and effing delightful.

It seems to me that when people are telling me that I should be "open to its possibility" that what they are really saying is that I should ignore the fact that they have not put in the work.

 

[MikeF]

It is reassuring that we know enough to know there is nothing more. out there than what is defined by our rational brain. The problem is it does not feel that way experientially. When I went through what may be described as a "mystical" experience in coming in alignment with the goddess, my perception and relationship with the world was profoundly changed in what seemed like an instant. The degree in which my perception and interaction of our world seemed greater than what I could understand or explain in normal neurological network patterns. I felt a presence of something far greater than myself. The problem is I cannot explain it in words. They all fail to explain what I experienced from what I have learned from years of medical training and neuroscience. Reality for me had shifted from before this experience. I would like to stay open for views on this so maybe you can explain in our current knowledge and science what happens when we go through a mystical experience and a shift in consciousness.

I see this as dangerous ground upon which to comment. You have shared a profound personal experience. If I recall correctly, you have also indicated a general dissatisfaction or unhappiness in your life prior to this experience. You offer your specific case and then ask me to speak to the general. If you are a medical professional and a neuroscientist then you should know more than I all the ways in which our very complex CNS can be affected, both positively and negatively. I am sure you are aware that similar experiences to what you described can be induced through the use of psychedelic compounds for example. I shall not speculate on all the ways in which we can misperceive or misinterpret what has been perceived.

If you are happy and healthy, then what more could one ask.

 

[Bear Wild]

I see this as dangerous ground upon which to comment. You have shared a profound personal experience. If I recall correctly, you have also indicated a general dissatisfaction or unhappiness in your life prior to this experience. You offer your specific case and then ask me to speak to the general. If you are a medical professional and a neuroscientist then you should know more than I all the ways in which our very complex CNS can be affected, both positively and negatively. I am sure you are aware that similar experiences to what you described can be induced through the use of psychedelic compounds for example. I shall not speculate on all the ways in which we can misperceive or misinterpret what has been perceived.

If you are happy and healthy, then what more could one ask.

That was a nice response, well except for the misperceive and misinterpret part neither of which happened. It was more like opening my eyes for the first time and seeing the world unclouded by western industrialized world view.

 

[Bear Wild]

It seems to me that when people are telling me that I should be "open to its possibility" that what they are really saying is that I should ignore the fact that they have not put in the work.

Why be open when you already have all of the answers. Considering the possibilities, I suppose could be dangerous thinking. You might discover something you had not known before.

 

[ppp]

So, you are saying we have the ability to know everything about nature at this time?

Why be open when you already have all of the answers

That is the second time that you have accused me of thinking that I have all the answers. There is nothing I have said and no position that I have stated that event vaguely hints at my thinking so. Your accusations are false, and I strongly suspect, made in bad faith.

The problem with your approach is not the wights. The problem is that your approach to achieving rationally justified knowledge is fundamentally flawed. Even if wights exist in reality, there is no reason to think that you know, or are even capable of knowing such a thing.

Considering the possibilities, I suppose could be dangerous thinking. You might discover something you had not known before.

Dude, get over yourself. Wights are not subversive or radical. Even if they were real they would still be irrelevant. Just be another mythic thingy playing the world's longest and most pointless game of peekaboo.

Meanwhile in reality, we have gravity waves and large language models We have multiple paths to the cure to coronavirus based common colds. We have Cas12 clinical trials.

You want dangerous change-the-face-of-humanity-crap-your-collective-pants thinking? We have freaking mammalian artificial wombs!!!
"Human trials of artificial wombs could start soon. Here’s what you need to know
US regulators will consider clinical trials of a system that mimics the womb, which could reduce deaths and disability for babies born extremely preterm."

Can your wights measure up to that? Your elves? Kobolds? No. No, they cannot.

 

[ppp]

Why be open when you already have all of the answers.

Something for you to consider:
Knowledge is not absolute. All knowledge is tentative pending disconfirming evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree. I'm comparing people making claims with people making claims.

That is not what I was comparing. I was comparing courts of law and decisions made there to religions and decisions made about them.
How decisions are made in court is not the same as how decisions are made for religions. That is why you are comparing apples and oranges.

Those are just the consequences of your "decision" to believe the claims.
Either you believe a claim is true or you don't. Yes, there are consequences of believing claims to be true or false moving forward, but does that actually matter to the standard used for believing claims?

The standard for believing claims in a court of law is different from the standard for believing religious claims. When you are convicting someone of a crime based upon evidence it has to be evidence that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. Nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a religion is true or that God exists.

Since other people on the jury are determining the fate of another person there is a higher standard for evidence in a court of law than there is for a religious claim. The difference is that when we look at evidence for a religion we are determining our own fate.

Consider having an MRI scan. The doctor looking at the scan can then conclude if you have cancer or not. Concluding you have a cancer might be a death sentence or a prelude to a very harsh treatment. Does this consequence have any effect at all on the standard to believe the claim?
Is the consequence a reason to not believe the claim?

I say "no".
You seem to be saying "yes".

The consequences of not believing the claim that you have cancer, as evidenced by the MRI scan, could be a matter of life and death, but the consequences of not believing a religious claim are not a matter of life or death. That is why the standard of evidence in medicine is higher than the standard of evidence for a religion.

Right, so you do say "yes" to that.

No, I do not say yes, that the consequence is a reason not to believe the claim. I was only saying that the consequences of not believing a claim made my a doctor are greater than the consequences of not believing a religious claim.

The consequence of believing a claim is, for you at least, an additional factor which will determine the standard of evidence.
I say it doesn't. I say either the evidence is sufficient enough to believe a claim or it isn't. For me, that standard is the same for all claims and at best it only changes based on the nature of the claim in terms of precedents (which are sufficiently supported by evidence).

I agree that either the evidence is sufficient enough to believe a claim or it isn't.
I disagree that that standard is the same for all claims. The standard of evidence changes based on the nature of the claim. The same kind of evidence cannot be used to support all claims. There is no forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony for a religious claim,and there is no MRI scan to support a religious claim.

For example, someone claiming to have eaten pizza last night will have lower standard of evidence then someone claiming to have eaten a magical pizza last night.

That's true, and that is what I was trying to say above! It could be verified that someone ate a real pizza last night but it cannot be verified that anyone ate magical pizza.

To me this looks like you saying that the claims of a person aren't enough followed by saying that the claims of a person are enough.
What they write down and what they do (or rather: supposedly did...) is all part of the claims. It's just claims / anecdotes. There's nothing verifiable there. So it all falls under the same umbrella.

The claims of the Messenger are not enough. It is the character of the Messenger, what he did on His mission, and what he wrote that causes me to believe the claim that He was speaking for God.

The kind of person they are, what they did on their mission, and what they write down is not part of the claims. It is evidence that supports the claims.
We can verify all of this evidence, but we cannot verify that a man got a message from God, since God speaking to a Messenger is not verifiable.
We either believe that the evidence warrants a belief that he got a message from God, or we don't believe the evidence warrants that belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

You said a religion is from god and superstition isn't.
When I ask how you can find out if it's mere superstition, you answer "when it isn't from god".

This is akin to "the bible is true because god says in the bible that it is" and "god exists because it says so in the bible".

No, that isn't what I said. I said we can know it isn't from God if it is superstition, as defined below.

superstition
1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Definition of SUPERSTITION

Sounds like religious beliefs concerning supernatural stuff to me.
How is it not?

Supernatural dos not equate to superstitious.
Supernatural is that which is not natural.
Superstitious an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

 

[Bear Wild]

Just be another mythic thingy playing the world's longest and most pointless game of peekaboo.

Sorry but can you explain what you are trying to say with this?

 

[ppp]

Sorry but can you explain what you are trying to say with this?

We have a world full of people pushing their fave supernatural/alien/cryptid beings/events based on three things:

• Vague and/or Unsubstantiated Report A
• You Don't Know Their Wrong
• and Fear/Shame mongering Tactic Y

If any of these gods/wights/elves/aliens/tulpa/etc exist, they are out there playing games with random passers-by. Here I am! Now I am gone! Nope I'm over here/ Now I am gone! Rinse. Repeat.

Maybe Hide and Go Seek would have been a better analogy. The only applicable part of Peekaboo is that it is tiresome as hell.

 

[Bear Wild]

We have a world full of people pushing their fave supernatural/alien/cryptid beings/events based on three things:

• Vague and/or Unsubstantiated Report A
• You Don't Know Their Wrong
• and Fear/Shame mongering Tactic Y

If any of these gods/wights/elves/aliens/tulpa/etc exist, they are out there playing games with random passers-by. Here I am! Now I am gone! Nope I'm over here/ Now I am gone! Rinse. Repeat.

Maybe Hide and Go Seek would have been a better analogy. The only applicable part of Peekaboo is that it is tiresome as hell.

Thank you for your knowledge of these beings. I did not know you were that familiar with them. Oh, but they are not supernatural, but you probably already knew that.

I am definitely not pushing the belief of any nature spirits, gods or mythical creatures on anyone. I was addressing the lack of understanding about this topic presented only. I really don't care if you think they are real or not that is your decision. I certainly do not want to put fear or shame on you. But there is no hide and seek going on. It is all about establishing a relationship with them if one desires, otherwise they do not exist.

 

[ppp]

Thank you for your knowledge of these beings. I did not know you were that familiar with them. Oh, but they are not supernatural, but you probably already knew that.

I do not know what this means. I am talking about the nature of human claims about these beings. Humans, such as yourself. Assuming that you are a human....

I am definitely not pushing the belief of any nature spirits, gods or mythical creatures on anyone.

There is no functional difference from my POV.

I certainly do not want to put fear or shame on you. But there is no hide and seek going on. It is all about establishing a relationship with them if one desires, otherwise they do not exist.

There is nothing else with which I need to "establish a relationship" to determine that it exists.

 

[Bear Wild]

I do not know what this means. I am talking about the nature of human claims about these beings. Humans, such as yourself. Assuming that you are a human....

It means they are immanent in our world and not in a supernatural place. As for me I am certain I am an animal.

 

[ppp]

It means they are immanent in our world and not in a supernatural place.

So you claim.

As for me I am certain I am an animal.

If you are a eukaryotic, multicellular, heterotroph capable of movement then you are an animal. Yep. Not sure of the relevance.

 

[Bear Wild]

So you claim.

If you are a eukaryotic, multicellular, heterotroph capable of movement then you are an animal. Yep. Not sure of the relevance.

That was an unclear reference I made and should have read I am becoming animal as a reference to a book by David Abrams, Becoming Animal. I need to be clearer next time.

 

[ppp]

That was an unclear reference I made and should have read I am becoming animal as a reference to a book by David Abrams, Becoming Animal. I need to be clearer next time.

Yep