Religion Instinct?!

[Stranger]

You don't have to believe me.  Blind people are free not to believe in the existence of Light. Just don't keep demanding that I should prove the existence of light through your ears. That is all. That can't be done.

Why do you persist in making such a fool of yourself with this mindless nonsense?

It is perfectly possible to provide plentiful evidence (not proof - nobody is asking for proof) of light to a blind person. That's how most people get to believe in things like X-rays and infrared.

[Stranger]

A stubborn blind man could easily dismiss the existence of light as a 'belief'....just because he is unable to see it.

Only if he's also too stupid to accept (say) the existence of radio-waves.

Also, the blind man has no way of knowing that the meter is actually measuring light. He has to accept it on faith finally.

Drivel. Accepting objective evidence is not faith. There are endless experiments that could be carried out that would confirm light - just as there are for microwaves and gamma rays.

Experience of the aura is also experience of an external reality.

This is a baseless assertion. How do you know?

Knowledge of the aura is not a belief. It is an experience similar to vision. One should be able to perceive it, that is all.

Where is even the smallest trace of a hint of a smidgen of objective evidence that this experience corresponds to something in external reality?

[torridon]

A stubborn blind man could easily dismiss the existence of light as a 'belief'....just because he is unable to see it.  Also, the blind man has no way of knowing that the meter is actually measuring light. He has to accept it on faith finally.

Such a person is defined by his 'stubbornness' in that case.  You can't establish sound principles on the basis of stupidity.  In the real world, blind people do accept that light exists, not everyone who is blind is also stupid.

[torridon]

Experience of the aura is also experience of an external reality. Only problem is that no one has yet developed a meter to measure it. Knowledge of the aura is not a belief. It is an experience similar to vision. One should be able to perceive it, that is all.

Subjective experience alone does not justify objective reality.  You are just expressing a faith position in the above.  When we have some instrumental measurement of an 'aura' or a 'biofield', then, like with light, we would have justification to accept it as a real phenomenon rather than just a product of mind.  This is a sound principle, and avoiding such principles lets in gods and ghosts and spooks and alien abductions and all manner of fantastical unhinged nonsense.  Serious enquiry, as suitable for grown ups, requires better mental discipline than that.

[Spud]

Spud,

There is when the claims it makes are material in nature - like there being someone who was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again.

That is the outcome when a person has committed no sin.

[Sriram]

Such a person is defined by his 'stubbornness' in that case.  You can't establish sound principles on the basis of stupidity.  In the real world, blind people do accept that light exists, not everyone who is blind is also stupid.

Yes...but the acceptance is on faith. In an isolated village of only blind people they could live for generations without being aware of anything like light.

[SusanDoris]

Hi Susan,
I climbed up a very high tree today because I was in a wood to keep cool, and I felt in need of some exercise.
At the top, I started taking pictures to pu on facebook, but afterwards thought, why did I keep taking pictures. Just so I can show off that I climbed a tree. Then I knew what sin is and why I sun.

What utter, meaningless drivel!!!  Unless of course you can explain why that explains why you think I am a sinner!

Hi Susan,

It's because a book he's decided must be correct tells him so. Only he doesn't care much about some of these "sins" (wearing mixed fibres, gathering kindling on the sabbath, eating shellfish etc) so he's not so fussed about those. Other of these "sins" that play to his preferences and prejudices on the other hand he cares about quite a bit, so he'll judge you harshly if you do them.

And yes there really are people like that still in the 21st century. Extraordinary isn't it?

Yes, it is extraordinary, and really sad. Here they are, in a real world, with real evolved people and Nature, with all its modern benefits, vastly outweighing its faults, with just this one chance to experience it, and they can't seem to face it.

[Sriram]

Subjective experience alone does not justify objective reality.  You are just expressing a faith position in the above.  When we have some instrumental measurement of an 'aura' or a 'biofield', then, like with light, we would have justification to accept it as a real phenomenon rather than just a product of mind.  This is a sound principle, and avoiding such principles lets in gods and ghosts and spooks and alien abductions and all manner of fantastical unhinged nonsense.  Serious enquiry, as suitable for grown ups, requires better mental discipline than that.

You are not getting the point. People do actually perceive the aura and even work with it. It is not based on faith or belief as you keep asserting. And others can also be trained to perceive it. 

[Stranger]

You are not getting the point. People do actually perceive the aura and even work with it. It is not based on faith or belief as you keep asserting. And others can also be trained to perceive it.

It's you who is missing the point. This is just another statement of your blind faith. Where is the evidence that this experience that people can be trained to have (let's accept that this is possible, for the sake of argument) corresponds to anything outside of their own minds?

[Gordon]

You are not getting the point. People do actually perceive the aura and even work with it. It is not based on faith or belief as you keep asserting. And others can also be trained to perceive it.

How are they trained: what methods are used, and how are the risks of the biases of the trainee managed?

Presumably there must be some objective standard for detecting an 'aura' in the first place, else how could anyone put together a training method or establish that those so trained really could detect this 'aura' - both these aspects presume that there is such a thing and an 'aura', hence the need for an objective standard of some sort.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

A stubborn blind man could easily dismiss the existence of light as a 'belief'....just because he is unable to see it.  Also, the blind man has no way of knowing that the meter is actually measuring light. He has to accept it on faith finally.

I corrected you (again) on this stupidity a few posts ago. Why then have you just repeated it?

The analogy fails because you just assume your premise (“aura”) and claim it to be the fault of potential perceivers of it that they can’t perceive it. Auras though aren’t analogous to light at all – leprechauns are. If I said “a stubborn leprechaun non-perceiver could easily dismiss the existence of leprechauns as just a “belief”” then we’d have an analogy.

It’s not my job to stop you making a fool of yourself, but you’re doing yourself no favours at all when you keep doing it.         

Experience of the aura is also experience of an external reality.

So you assert. As you have no evidence whatever for the claim though, why should anyone take it more seriously than my assertion, “experience of leprechauns is also experience of an external reality”?   

Only problem is that no one has yet developed a meter to measure it.

No, that’s not the only problem at all. The actual problem is that not only is there no meter to detect it, nor is there anything else.

Knowledge of the aura is not a belief.

Nor is it knowledge. It’s just very poor reasoning.

It is an experience similar to vision. One should be able to perceive it, that is all

No it isn’t. It’s an explanatory narrative for the cause an experience, but there’s nothing whatever to validate that claim. 

[ekim]

Sriram,

I corrected you (again) on this stupidity a few posts ago. Why then have you just repeated it?

The analogy fails because you just assume your premise (“aura”) and claim it to be the fault of potential perceivers of it that they can’t perceive it. Auras though aren’t analogous to light at all – leprechauns are. If I said “a stubborn leprechaun non-perceiver could easily dismiss the existence of leprechauns as just a “belief”” then we’d have an analogy.

It’s not my job to stop you making a fool of yourself, but you’re doing yourself no favours at all when you keep doing it.         

This site has a history of repeated discussions which is probably one reason why it is falling into disuse.
Perhaps you could convince Sriram by demonstrating to him how one could share the experience of, say, a rainbow, with a group of congenitally blind people so that they experience its beauty and colours also.  Once Sriram has been driven off the site, you'll be at peace to discuss crosswords and politics, and religion can be deleted from the title.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

This site has a history of repeated discussions which is probably one reason why it is falling into disuse.
Perhaps you could convince Sriram by demonstrating to him how one could share the experience of, say, a rainbow, with a group of congenitally blind people so that they experience its beauty and colours also.

Again, you miss the point entirely. In fact you’ve repeated Sriram’s mistake here. Essentially he takes something that’s agreed to be real (ie, light/rainbows) and then attempts the argument that some people not seeing these things doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Well that’s right, it doesn’t.

His epic (and repeated) mistake though is to insinuate that somehow light/rainbows are analogous to “auras” for this purpose. They’re not analogous at all though for the reasons I keep explaining and he keeps ignoring. On the other hand, auras and leprechauns would be analogous because there’s absolutely no evidence for either, but again he just ignores that too.   

Once Sriram has been driven off the site, you'll be at peace to discuss crosswords and politics, and religion can be deleted from the title.

Nope. No-one wants to drive anyone from this site. Rather what some of us at least hope for is a little honesty – ie, when someone makes a bad argument and has explained to him why it’s a bad argument, then he should at least have the decency to address the rebuttal. Instead Sriram just pretends it hasn’t been explained to him, then repeats exactly the same mistake of assuming the premise he's trying to argue for over and over again.

What then do you suggest I should do instead – just agree that his mindless nonsense is fine and dandy or something?

[torridon]

You are not getting the point. People do actually perceive the aura and even work with it. It is not based on faith or belief as you keep asserting. And others can also be trained to perceive it.

People perceive an aura if they are trained to perceive it.  Right.  Let's go back to fundamentals of perception yet again.

The experience of perception is inherently subjective and we cannot derive objectivity from singular personal experience alone.  We need some form of independent verification to be able to discriminate between externalities that have some real existence outwith human mind, and externalities which are only apparent, ie they are artefects of human mind.  We can do this with light, we know it actually exists because we can measure it with a simple light meter. If the alleged external phenomenon cannot be detected with any instrument, then our presumption would be it is an artefact of mind.

All perception is construction of mind, 100%; our minds make a best guess about what is 'out there' based on past experience and expectation and our higher cognitive beliefs feed into that expectation.  Since perception is derived from a best-guess approach, it sometimes gets things wrong, and there are many well known optical illusions such as the Ebbinghaus illusion, that demonstrate this simply and powerfully. 

So, if I cannot perceive auras but someone who has been 'trained' to see them can, in the absence of any instrumental validation for auras, the presumption would be that it is the mind training that is at work, it is the mind training that is giving rise to the perception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbinghaus_illusion

[Sriram]

People perceive an aura if they are trained to perceive it.  Right.  Let's go back to fundamentals of perception yet again.

The experience of perception is inherently subjective and we cannot derive objectivity from singular personal experience alone.  We need some form of independent verification to be able to discriminate between externalities that have some real existence outwith human mind, and externalities which are only apparent, ie they are artefects of human mind.  We can do this with light, we know it actually exists because we can measure it with a simple light meter. If the alleged external phenomenon cannot be detected with any instrument, then our presumption would be it is an artefact of mind.

All perception is construction of mind, 100%; our minds make a best guess about what is 'out there' based on past experience and expectation and our higher cognitive beliefs feed into that expectation.  Since perception is derived from a best-guess approach, it sometimes gets things wrong, and there are many well known optical illusions such as the Ebbinghaus illusion, that demonstrate this simply and powerfully. 

So, if I cannot perceive auras but someone who has been 'trained' to see them can, in the absence of any instrumental validation for auras, the presumption would be that it is the mind training that is at work, it is the mind training that is giving rise to the perception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbinghaus_illusion

You just don't want to accept it....that is all.  Why don't you join some Yoga class and then  see what you 'see'....     You guys want to stay on the periphery and keep shouting out your abuses...!   

Get into the water and see what it is all about for yourself.

[Sriram]

This site has a history of repeated discussions which is probably one reason why it is falling into disuse.
Perhaps you could convince Sriram by demonstrating to him how one could share the experience of, say, a rainbow, with a group of congenitally blind people so that they experience its beauty and colours also.  Once Sriram has been driven off the site, you'll be at peace to discuss crosswords and politics, and religion can be deleted from the title.

Well....it'll take much more than this bunch to drive me out of anywhere.     It's fun to see them all rushing out, tumbling over one another, to make their point. Never mind that they are only repeating over and over again what they have been asserting for years...! 

Nobody here wants to discuss religion or spirituality. They are here just to convince themselves again and again that their fondly held beliefs on atheism and materialism are still valid.  Their inability to integrate information is amazing! 

A site full of 'blind' people insisting stubbornly that 'Light' does not exist!  What can one do?!! Tut! Tut!   

[torridon]

You just don't want to accept it....that is all.  Why don't you join some Yoga class and then  see what you 'see'....     You guys want to stay on the periphery and keep shouting out your abuses...!   

Get into the water and see what it is all about for yourself.

I'd sooner keep a clear head, thanks 

[Sriram]

I'd sooner keep a clear head, thanks 

    And that reluctance for new information and new experiences, is the problem..!   How can you understand even a word of what I am saying?    Your are looking out of one window and don't even want to look out of the window on the other side to see the other side of reality.

[Stranger]

Never mind that they are only repeating over and over again what they have been asserting for years...! 

Sounds a lot like you...

They are here just to convince themselves again and again that their fondly held beliefs on atheism and materialism are still valid.  Their inability to integrate information is amazing! 

A site full of 'blind' people insisting stubbornly that 'Light' does not exist!  What can one do?!! Tut! Tut!   

It seems the attempts to ridicule and belittle is all you have. People have made substantive points that you have simply ignored in favour of just repeating over and over again what you have been asserting for years.

We can test the idea that light is an objective aspect of the world by, for example, sending a series of coloured flashes and asking people who cannot confer, but can both see the source, to record what they see. Where is there any similar tests for the stuff you keep on wanting everybody to accept?

[ekim]

ekim,

(1)  Again, you miss the point entirely. In fact you’ve repeated Sriram’s mistake here. Essentially he takes something that’s agreed to be real (ie, light/rainbows) and then attempts the argument that some people not seeing these things doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Well that’s right, it doesn’t.

His epic (and repeated) mistake though is to insinuate that somehow light/rainbows are analogous to “auras” for this purpose. They’re not analogous at all though for the reasons I keep explaining and he keeps ignoring. On the other hand, auras and leprechauns would be analogous because there’s absolutely no evidence for either, but again he just ignores that too.   

(2) Nope. No-one wants to drive anyone from this site. Rather what some of us at least hope for is a little honesty – ie, when someone makes a bad argument and has explained to him why it’s a bad argument, then he should at least have the decency to address the rebuttal. Instead Sriram just pretends it hasn’t been explained to him, then repeats exactly the same mistake of assuming the premise he's trying to argue for over and over again.

What then do you suggest I should do instead – just agree that his mindless nonsense is fine and dandy or something?

(1) I may be mistaken over what Sriram means but I see what he is saying differently.  I think he is using the analogy to compare the faculties that one human may have that others do not and how difficult it is to demonstrate this objectively rather than comparing the validity of auras against light or leprechauns.  I am quite happy to accept the possibility that some people may have sensory abilities I do not have.  If a blind person told me that they could hear the song of a distant bird which I could not,  I would not accuse them of woo but accept the possibility that their hearing may have been honed to a higher level than mine and maybe they could tell me how to achieve the same.  Similarly, if I was so inclined, I would ask how I could detect an aura.  Like so many topics, nobody has stated what they mean by aura.

(2)  Well,  I have disagreed with Sriram on occasions but have not found him lacking in decency and honesty.  Perhaps I don't have sufficient emotional investment in winning an argument,  I'm just interested in other people's experiences and their opinions about them.  I'm quite happy to agree to disagree if I come to an impasse.  Sometimes it seems like a childhood game where there is one Indian and a group of cowboys trying to shoot him down.  Still, judging by his comments he seems to enjoy it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You just don't want to accept it....that is all.

Of course he doesn't - why would he given that you've provided nothing at all to indicate that there's anything to accept? 

You don't want to accept my personal experience of leprechauns either. What's the difference?

Why don't you join some Yoga class and then  see what you 'see'....

How would that help identify objects in the universe that aren't detectable by other means?

Why don't you join some four-leaf clover burning classes and see what you can "see"?

You guys want to stay on the periphery and keep shouting out your abuses...!   

Identifying your constant errors in thinking isn't shouting anything, and the only "abuse" here is your relentless dishonesty in never, ever addressing the problems your mistakes give you. 

Get into the water and see what it is all about for yourself.

Finally try least try to demonstrate that there is any "water" and we'll get into it.

Come dancing with the leprechauns and see what it is all about for yourself.

[ekim]

So, if I cannot perceive auras but someone who has been 'trained' to see them can, in the absence of any instrumental validation for auras, the presumption would be that it is the mind training that is at work, it is the mind training that is giving rise to the perception.

Not necessarily, it might mean that one individual has a sensory faculty which is dormant in others.  The training is to awaken that faculty.  The error might come in the interpretation of the resulting experience, especially if an expectation is suggested before the event.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

(1) I may be mistaken over what Sriram means but I see what he is saying differently.  I think he is using the analogy to compare the faculties that one human may have that others do not and how difficult it is to demonstrate this objectively rather than comparing the validity of auras against light or leprechauns.  I am quite happy to accept the possibility that some people may have sensory abilities I do not have.  If a blind person told me that they could hear the song of a distant bird which I could not,  I would not accuse them of woo but accept the possibility that their hearing may have been honed to a higher level than mine and maybe they could tell me how to achieve the same.  Similarly, if I was so inclined, I would ask how I could detect an aura.  Like so many topics, nobody has stated what they mean by aura.

Try reading what I said. Sriram is attempting an analogy that fails abjectly because light does not have to be assumed to be real a priori, whereas “aura” does.

Try to grasp this because you keep not getting it: if I were to argue that some people lack my leprechaun-perceiving abilities, therefore leprechauns are real would you think that to be a good argument for leprechauns?

If not, why not?

Got it yet? Good. That’s essentially what Sriram is doing for "auras" and a "biofield".

(2)  Well,  I have disagreed with Sriram on occasions but have not found him lacking in decency and honesty.

Attempting an argument, having it falsified, ignoring the falsification and then repeating the same mistake over and over again is dishonest.

Perhaps I don't have sufficient emotional investment in winning an argument,  I'm just interested in other people's experiences and their opinions about them.

So am I. The problem here though is that he just reifies his opinion into a supposed fact without the hard yards of reason or evidence in between.

I'm quite happy to agree to disagree if I come to an impasse.

An impasse happens when an argument can’t be taken any further. That’s not what Sriram does though – he just pretends that the arguments that undo him haven’t been made at all.

Sometimes it seems like a childhood game where there is one Indian and a group of cowboys trying to shoot him down.  Still, judging by his comments he seems to enjoy it.

Not “him”, his (appallingly bad attempts at) arguments.

They’re not the same thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Not necessarily, it might mean that one individual has a sensory faculty which is dormant in others.  The training is to awaken that faculty.  The error might come in the interpretation of the resulting experience, especially if an expectation is suggested before the event.

Yes it might, just as it might be that some people have dormant leprechaun-sensing faculties.

Sriram's huge error though is to jump straight from "might" to "is" without any connecting logic to validate the claim.

[Spud]

It's not science that is the problem with this, it's logical self-consistency. It's a basic contradiction with the other Christian doctrine of a just and fair god. If everybody is a sinner, then that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.

How do you know the tendency to sin is a design flaw rather than that everyone chooses to sin?

That would mean it was the creator's fault, not ours. That's even before we get to the utter nonsense of the idea of "free will" with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator god that would effectively control all of our nature and all of our nurture...

Being all powerful doesn't mean God would necessarily use his power to control us. And being all-knowing doesn't mean he wouldn't create us with free will.

So in that respect Christianity is logically consistent.