Unrealistic and inconsistent requirements

Hello all.

... give me one piece of objective evidence to support the fact that we are all "one" as you say. It seems to me that this entire theory is demonstrable only internally... but don't you see the fallacy of this? Such subjective "feelings", however powerful, do not constitute evidence.

I am pulling this quote by Jim from an older thread. Not trying to single you out or pick on you Jim, but this seems to be a recurring theme. The rejection of any religious, spiritual, or supernatural reality based on lack of objective findings. The subjective experiences and observations are rejected as irrational fallacies.

I submit that there are many things that are accepted as "true" based only on the subjective or from secondary observations by most if not all. I will elaborate 2 specific examples:

1. Pain is a completely subjective experience. I doubt that anyone will deny the reality of pain because it is only subjective. I also suspect that even the most "rational" among us would not be happy with the physician who refused to give pain relief simply because there was no "objective" evidence of your pain. If, as a physician, I were to be as stringent in my demands for objective evidence of pain as many of you are in your demands objective evidence of anything beyond the directly observable, there would be a lot of unhappy people in pain.

2. The related issue of directly observable is along the same lines. For example, I will assume our common interest in astronomy, the group accepts the existence of Black Holes. By definition, a Black Hole is NOT observable. Their existence and nature is inferred from the effects they produce (eg gravitational lensing). A Black hole cannot now, or ever be directly observed without changing the definition. So by the arguments usually presented in opposition to religion, spirituality, or the supernatural, a black hole is unknowable and therefore cannot exist.

My point is as follows. Subjective experiences and indirect observations are regularly accepted as "evidence" for a whole variety of things and experiences. So why are religious/spiritual/supernatural things held to a different standard.

John Theodossy

Neither of these sorts of experiences or evidence is really a comparable situation.

Pain: a subjective experience to be sure. But this subjective experience is easy for people to accept as 'real' because everyone feels pain. Not so the case with religious experiences, visions, divine revelations, etc. If only a few people in the world had ever felt pain, there would certainly be reason among others to doubt that this thing called "pain" really existed. And of course if people from different cultures experienced very different kinds of 'pain' it would make things harder still.

Black holes, by contrast, are theoretically deduced structures based on what our understanding of physics 'should' result in given a certain set of initial conditions. That is physics, theory and deductive reasoning, which is a very different thing than subjective reasoning.

Hi Bill,

I agree with your point that if a demand is being made by the religious folks that others must accept their beliefs, the standard of evidence should be higher. What I perceive here in the group, however seems different to me. The opinions of the religious folks are solicited. A question is posed and people give their views and experiences. These views are often then discounted as "invalid" because they are subjective in nature.

As to the pain of a kidney stone, I did not mean to give the impression that I thought pain was not real just because it is subjective, quite the contrary. But what you describe is empathy. When you see your friend experiencing the pain you experience empathy (also a subjective event), but you do not actually feel the pain sensation of your friend. Both your friends pain and your empathy are subjective events, experienced only you and your friend. They cannot be measured objectively by an outside observer. Again, I am not presenting this as my belief that pain is not real just because it is subjective. I meant it as an analogy to show that everyone accepts "subjective evidence" in some circumstances, so it is a double standard to then say religion/spirituality/supernatural is invalid simply because it is subjective.

John Theodossy