Gabriella,
Nope - he is saying there is a gap in the explanations that science has provided and he fills it with his evangelism. Whether he gets taken seriously or not is not his problem - his evangelism requires him to pass on the message and that is what he is doing.
Wrong again. He thinks his dismissals of science
are factually correct – which he’s entitled to believe of course but assertion and
a priori bias means that “what he’s saying” is actually white noise.
That sounds like you are agreeing there are gaps in the explanations provided by science.
There are gaps in everything science explains. That’s why people keep doing it.
Science has not identified everything the brain interacts with and how it interacts with them to produce conscious awareness, selective perceptions, abstract concepts. My point was that these gaps are where AB introduces his evangelism, so his evangelism isn't torpedoed. Since some people may have a preference for the particular evangelical abstract thoughts that his brain produces to explain the gaps, his evangelism continues.
Wrong again. It’s precisely “torpedoed” when science tells us answer A, and AB tells us that it’s answer B instead. Why? Because A is investigable, tested and verified by inter-subjective experience, whereas B is just words.
It is helpful to him because his evangelism isn't torpedoed - you can continue to assert that it is if you want, but I think his evangelism will appeal to some people, even if it doesn't appeal to you, so for him it's apparently worth his while continuing.
Wrong again (see above), and if you think epistemic equivalence between pixies and “god”, “soul” etc is helpful to the person trying to demonstrate the latter then all bets are off.
I think he thinks there is a possibility his assertions for the gaps in science's explanations will be persuasive to some people, hence he continues to evangelise.
He may think there’s a possibility of that, but the point is that he has no grounds for it if those people are possessed of functioning intellects.
I don't think it's a big problem for him.
Clearly. But that he doesn’t realise it’s a problem is itself a problem.
He is on here to evangelise, and that is what he is doing, so he meets some of his objectives….
In which case he should be in the faith sharing area and not in a discussion area.
Of course he would prefer it if people were persuaded, but even if they aren't he has an objective to bear witness about his particular abstract supernatural concepts and he has met that objective, repeatedly.
If by “bear witness” you mean something like, “keep asserting personal explanatory narratives while ignoring or misrepresenting the reasoning and evidence that undoes them” you’re probably right.
We've had this argument before. "Objectively true" means that there is objective evidence for it i.e. there is a method to investigate and test it. He has presented no objective evidence so what is your evidence that he thinks he has objective as opposed to subjective evidence such as personal testimony about his perceptions of his experiences? What he thinks without objective evidence is the same as saying he believes it based on faith. I see AB as someone who wants to persuade people to accept his testimony.
My evidence that he thinks he has evidence is that he keeps telling us he has evidence! Blimey girl.
I didn't imply that religious belief is unalloyed good. I don't even think that it is. I just made a comment about AB's preference for a narrative that a sincerely believing Muslim was deluded. As usual, you are reading your own interpretation into other people's words and getting it wrong.
Yes you did – that’s why you posited one side of the story while ignoring the other side. Did you know that Thalidomide has some positive therapeutic uses? So there you go then.
