Religion Instinct?!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi ekim,

(1)Maybe, but if he can provide a method for another person to experience within themselves what he terms "aura" and you can't produce a subjective experience of what you mean by "leprechaun" then he might have a privileged position.

Not really. It’s possible for example to induce a religious experience in someone else, either mechanically or by suggestion (Derren Brown did it to someone in one of his programmes). Of course the gods the subjects think they’ve experienced are always the gods with which they happen to be most familiar, but notwithstanding even if I could be made to “experience” what Sriram experiences about auras etc (or vice versa re my experience of leprechauns) that would tell you nothing about whether there actually were auras (or leprechauns) because our interpretation of the experience could be equally at fault.
 
Leaving that aside though, he can’t do that in any case. All he can do is to assert certain claims to be true because well, he really thinks they are true. The problem with that though is that anyone can to that about any “experience” they think they truly have too. 

(2)That depends upon whose category you are using.  I believe that the Indian schools of philosophy would see that term in its original meaning i.e. love of wisdom, rather than as a study of fundamentals or a sytem of thought.  As I see it, to them, wisdom is more about clarity of inner vision or subject consciousness rather than the subjective/objective auras, biofields and other concepts. These tend to be related more to harmonising the body and mind so that they function well and don't distract from the prime goal.

No it doesn’t, and you’ve missed the point in any case. Philosophical systems aren’t concerned with establishing claims of objective facts about the world. No matter how much philosophising I may do, that does not tell me whether auras, leprechauns or anything else exist “out there” in the objectively verifiable world. 

To be frank though there’s little point in discussing it. No matter how frequent or egregious his mistakes, every time they are explained to him he just ignores the rebuttals and carries on as if nothing had happened. It’s deeply dishonest behaviour, but he shows no sign of doing otherwise. 

[Sriram]

The problem with subjective experiences is they tend to be personal and are difficult to communicate to others (especially verbally) in a way that they can be shared.  They are also open to be viewed by others as delusional or invented.  Bluehillside's latest post to me sums it up like this "I’m not arguing that the scientific method is the only one he should use, but I am saying that he has to have a method of some kind to distinguish his claims from mindless assertion."  Much, if not most, of Hindu philosophy is subjective in nature and uses a subjective based language which I don't think it is wise to confuse with objective scientific language.  You say 'it takes a personal way of sensing it' and there are a variety of 'ways' or methods within, say, Vedanta which can, if practised, throw some light on the subjective language used.  Whether these methods would satisfy Bluehillside's point of view I don't know.

Yes...subjective experiences are personal. That is their nature. And that is why they cannot be shown or shared with others. 

But that does not mean they are merely baseless internal brain generated images entirely unconnected to external reality.

In fact, I have always pointed out that such experiences can be learnt and produced at will through certain practices and methods. The mind has many layers. Some layers are connected to the body and produce the mind-body effect.   Some layers are imaginary and produce illusionary images. Some layers are connected to higher levels of reality that give us insights into new realities.

Next argument will be....'ok then...prove that  the mind is connected to higher realities'...  This is silly because as already pointed out, these are subjective experiences and only people who take the trouble to undertake certain practices can understand it. Period!

Blind people cannot 'see' light unless certain things are done to enable eye sight. No other way!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I don’t suppose there’s much point in correcting you again as you’ll no doubt just ignore those corrections as you do all others. Nonetheless, for what it’s worth…

Yes...subjective experiences are personal. That is their nature. And that is why they cannot be shown or shared with others.

So why insist that your subjective “experience” of auras, a biofield etc are objectively real for others if only they had the magic brain wiring to see them? Confine yourself to, “X is true for me because it feels that way in my head” and no-one would have an issue. Insist that X is objectively true because you’re necessarily perceiving something external to you and you immediately run into trouble.   

But that does not mean they are merely baseless internal brain generated images entirely unconnected to external reality.

That’s called the fallacy of the straw man. No-one says otherwise – for all I know just as a matter of dumb luck your guesses about auras and a biofields might just happen to be correct, just as my guess about leprechauns might happen to be correct.

That doesn’t help you much though does it – that any guess might by pure chance turn out to be right gives you no basis whatever to assert that your particular guesses necessarily are right. 

In fact, I have always pointed out that such experiences can be learnt and produced at will through certain practices and methods.

In fact you’ve always been corrected on that and just ignored the corrections. Certain mental states no doubt can be learned – through meditation, yoga etc. That tells you nothing at all though about the claims of fact about objects in the world these practices may lead to. If I try really, really hard – burn some shamrock leaves, play Irish music, maybe dance a jig at full moon etc – I may well come up with the explanatory narrative for my mental state that leprechauns are paying me a visit. Would that mean that leprechauns are paying me a visit though, or just that I’d reached for an explanation with no logic or evidence of any kind to support it but that satisfied me nonetheless provided I didn’t think too hard about it? 

The mind has many layers. Some layers are connected to the body and produce the mind-body effect.   Some layers are imaginary and produce illusionary images. Some layers are connected to higher levels of reality that give us insights into new realities.

And you know that last remarkable, entirely reason- and evidence-free piece of woo to be true how exactly?

Next argument will be....'ok then...prove that  the mind is connected to higher realities'...

Well, as it was you assertion it’s not unreasonable to ask you to justify it is it?

Or like everything else you assert, are we just supposed to accept that because you, Sriram, have said something to be so then it must indeed be so? 

This is silly because as already pointed out, these are subjective experiences and only people who take the trouble to undertake certain practices can understand it. Period!

And the stupidity and dishonesty continue. You just said: “Some layers are connected to higher levels of reality that give us insights into new realities”.

That’s a statement of fact – first that there are “higher levels of reality”, and second that some “layers” of our minds are “connected” to them. Whatever these supposed “higher levels” are, when you make statements of fact that there are "connections" then absolutely it’s your job to validate the claim if you want it to be taken seriously.

If I were say that, say, by wrapping tin foil round my head during a lunar eclipse and chanting backwards the songs of Kylie Minogue (oh High Priestess of the Galaxial Council!) I could connect telepathically to the aliens on Alpha Centauri, but when you said “prove it” I answered, “This is silly because as already pointed out, these are subjective experiences and only people who take the trouble to undertake certain practices can understand it. Period!” would you see anything wrong with that answer? 

Anything at all?

Just a tiny bit of stupidity perhaps?

Blind people cannot 'see' light unless certain things are done to enable eye sight. No other way!

And once again you finish with the repeated logical fallacy of assuming your premise. Is there any point in correcting you yet again on this only for you to repeat the same mistake later on?

Try at least to focus here: THE ANALOGY ONLY WORKS IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH FIRST THE FACT “LIGHT”.

If not, I may as well argue that non-Alpha Centaurian telepathists cannot see them unless certain things are done to enable their telepathic abilities.

Surely even you, lost in your world of arrogant ignorance, can see that there’s a problem with your thinking here can't you?

Can’t you?

[ekim]

Hi ekim,

(1)  Not really. It’s possible for example to induce a religious experience in someone else, either mechanically or by suggestion (Derren Brown did it to someone in one of his programmes). Of course the gods the subjects think they’ve experienced are always the gods with which they happen to be most familiar, but notwithstanding even if I could be made to “experience” what Sriram experiences about auras etc (or vice versa re my experience of leprechauns) that would tell you nothing about whether there actually were auras (or leprechauns) because our interpretation of the experience could be equally at fault.
 
Leaving that aside though, he can’t do that in any case. All he can do is to assert certain claims to be true because well, he really thinks they are true. The problem with that though is that anyone can to that about any “experience” they think they truly have too. 

(2) No it doesn’t, and you’ve missed the point in any case. Philosophical systems aren’t concerned with establishing claims of objective facts about the world. No matter how much philosophising I may do, that does not tell me whether auras, leprechauns or anything else exist “out there” in the objectively verifiable world. 

To be frank though there’s little point in discussing it. No matter how frequent or egregious his mistakes, every time they are explained to him he just ignores the rebuttals and carries on as if nothing had happened. It’s deeply dishonest behaviour, but he shows no sign of doing otherwise.

(1)  I'm probably not explaining myself well enough, but to comment on what you say, yes, it is possible to employ suggestion and other methods to induce an illusion but if you know that possibility then you can guard against it and not jump to conclusions.  Many of the Eastern methods are about inner stillness rather than mental agitation.  As regards 'aura' (a western word not Hindu, Sriram would have done better to use prana) it can be demonstrated to yourself by holding your hands about two inches apart and very slowly moving them towards each other and back again several times and you will feel a kind of sponginess appear between your hands, this has been labelled by some as 'aura'.  I will now implant the suggestion in your mind that you will not be able to sense it and then you can label it woo.  Now it's your turn to tell me where I can go and see a leprechaun.

(2) I think you have misunderstood what I have said in answer to you comment 'category error'.  The Oxford English dictionary categorises philosophy as : "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.  A particular system of philosophical thought."   I just provided an alternative category for Indian philosophy which differs from the western version .... probably another reason for not using western terminology in a discussion with Hindu connotations.

[ekim]

Next argument will be....'ok then...prove that  the mind is connected to higher realities'...  This is silly because as already pointed out, these are subjective experiences and only people who take the trouble to undertake certain practices can understand it. Period!

OK but I think part of bluehillside's point was unless you disclose the 'certain practices' that he can use then he has only got your word for it and you could be biased or delusional.

[Sriram]

OK but I think part of bluehillside's point was unless you disclose the 'certain practices' that he can use then he has only got your word for it and you could be biased or delusional.

But I have already pointed out many times that serious Yogis and meditative practices are required.  Again and again asking the same 'objective' measurable proof for 'subjective' phenomena is silly.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi ekim,

(1)  I'm probably not explaining myself well enough, but to comment on what you say, yes, it is possible to employ suggestion and other methods to induce an illusion but if you know that possibility then you can guard against it and not jump to conclusions.

No, that’s the point – the person Derren Brown induced into a religious experience knew full well what DB was about; the subjects in the experiments in which religious experiences were induced artificially also knew what the experimenters were trying to achieve. When these procedures cause an overwhelming but involuntary sense of transcendence, “oneness” etc then the temptation is to reach for the mystical deities culturally most proximate to you – Neptune the christian god, Allah, whatever – for the cause.

Many of the Eastern methods are about inner stillness rather than mental agitation.

No doubt, but practice these things as you might they will still tell you nothing about the existence or otherwise of objective, "out there" objects in the universe.

As regards 'aura' (a western word not Hindu, Sriram would have done better to use prana) it can be demonstrated to yourself by holding your hands about two inches apart and very slowly moving them towards each other and back again several times and you will feel a kind of sponginess appear between your hands, this has been labelled by some as 'aura'.

And if you stand in a doorway with your arms down, push your hands as hard as you can against the door frame for 30 seconds, then step away you’ll find that your arms raise themselves without your conscious control.

Should we conclude that this is due to the presence of the mystical force we gurus call “spudulika”, of that’s it’s just a physiological response?

That’s your problem here – not that you “feel” a sponginess between your hands, but rather that you reach for an explanatory narrative for it (aura/prana) with no evidence for it whatsoever, and with no attempt to investigate the physical, material, common-or-garden (but perhaps less thrilling) explanation that may be the actual cause.   

I will now implant the suggestion in your mind that you will not be able to sense it and then you can label it woo.  Now it's your turn to tell me where I can go and see a leprechaun.

You’re missing it still. The leprechaun analogy applies because Sriram seems to think that his just “experiencing” something means that the logic- and evidence-free explanation he reaches for to explain it must be true, only not all of us have the same magic brain wiring he has to see it. And the problem with that is that I can say exactly the same about the logic-and evidence-free explanation “leprechauns” I reach for to explain my experience of hearing Irish jigs in my head.

And that’s why the label “woo” applies – either both are woo or neither are: you can’t arbitrarily separate them because one suits you and the other doesn’t.   

(2) I think you have misunderstood what I have said in answer to you comment 'category error'.  The Oxford English dictionary categorises philosophy as : "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.  A particular system of philosophical thought."   I just provided an alternative category for Indian philosophy which differs from the western version .... probably another reason for not using western terminology in a discussion with Hindu connotations.

Again though, while even at its broadest level philosophy will consider questions like whether the world is “out there” or mind-created (see Bishop Berkeley) you can no more philosophise your way to a specific claim of an objective fact about the world (“aura” etc) than you can to another claim about there being aliens on Alpha Centauri.   

The closest perhaps that you can get to that is an argument from necessity – eg, the Higgs-Boson was potentially at least necessary to explain the observable facts before the evidence for it was in – but that’s a different matter. There’s no argument from necessity for “aura”, “biofield” etc because there’s no requirement in the first place to explain observable phenomena.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

OK but I think part of bluehillside's point was unless you disclose the 'certain practices' that he can use then he has only got your word for it and you could be biased or delusional.

Not quite. You can disclose certain practices all you like. The Grand Canyon-sized problem Sriram has given himself though is to find a logical path from those practices to their conclusions of objective facts – auras and leprechauns alike – being true.

That’s the bit he always runs away from, and I don’t expect him to have a sudden fit of honesty and to address the problem any time soon.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

But I have already pointed out many times that serious Yogis and meditative practices are required.  Again and again asking the same 'objective' measurable proof for 'subjective' phenomena is silly.

I've already told you why it isn't silly at all. Why are you so dishonest about this?

[Stranger]

But I have already pointed out many times that serious Yogis and meditative practices are required.  Again and again asking the same 'objective' measurable proof for 'subjective' phenomena is silly.

Except nobody is asking for 'proof' of subjective experiences (or proof of anything - it's a measure of your stubborn ignorance that you still witter on about 'proof'), what is needed is any hint of a reason to take these experiences seriously as indications of anything that is objectively real.

Even if certain practices lead to certain subjective experiences, that does not mean that said subjective experiences correspond to anything that is objectively real outside of the minds of the people who follow those practices.

[Spud]

Just to say that back in my days as an Osteopath I met someone who claimed to be able to heal someone by treating their aura. He was an osteopath and a tutor at the college I attended (which didn't teach auras generally).

I didn't talk to him about it, I just recall watching him do some normal osteopathic technique on a patient.

Whilst a student I did however try to palpate the so-called 'cranial rhythm', which is the movement of the cerebrospinal fluid around the body, it being secreted in the ventricles of the brain and surrounding the whole of the central and peripheral nervous system. As far as I can make out from google it has been detected and measured using certain equipment, but not many people can palpate it because it is so faint.

So I would not be surprised if there was such a thing as a biofield/aura that was detectable using instruments.

I've also been watching a video by Derren Brown in which he traveled to the US and met up with certain people who make a lot pf money through stuff like Dream therapy, writing about alien abduction, and contacting the dead. He pretended to be able to do the same stuff and fooled them into thinking he could do it. The idea was to expose them as fakes, I think, but he seemed to be 'doing the impossible', which confused me. I will have to read up on him in more detail.

My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity. It is simple: everybody is a sinner and needs forgiveness. Repentance and faith in Jesus leads to peace with God, which will be manifested in the physiology and anatomy. The biblical accounts contain enough information for a firm foundation for Christian faith (although this information would originally have been and can still be transmitted orally).

[Stranger]

My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity. It is simple: everybody is a sinner and needs forgiveness.

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. 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...

[ekim]

Hi ekim,

(1)  No, that’s the point – the person Derren Brown induced into a religious experience knew full well what DB was about; the subjects in the experiments in which religious experiences were induced artificially also knew what the experimenters were trying to achieve. When these procedures cause an overwhelming but involuntary sense of transcendence, “oneness” etc then the temptation is to reach for the mystical deities culturally most proximate to you – Neptune the christian god, Allah, whatever – for the cause.

(2) No doubt, but practice these things as you might they will still tell you nothing about the existence or otherwise of of objective objects in the universe.

(3)  And if you stand in a doorway with your arms down, push your hands as hard as you can against the door frame for 30 seconds, then step away you’ll find that your arms raise themselves without your conscious control.

Should we conclude that this is due to the presence of the mystical force we gurus call “spudulika”, of that’s it’s just a physiological response?

That’s your problem here – not that you “feel” a sponginess between your hands, but rather that you reach for an explanatory narrative for it (aura/prana) with no evidence for it whatsoever, and with no attempt to investigate the physical, material, common-or-garden (but perhaps less thrilling) explanation that may be the actual cause.   

(4)  You’re missing it still. The leprechaun analogy applies because Sriram seems to think that his just “experiencing” something means that the logic- and evidence-free explanation he reaches for to explain it must be true, only not all of us have the same magic brain wiring he has to see it. And the problem with that is that I can say exactly the same about the logic-and evidence-free explanation “leprechauns” I reach for to explain my experience of hearing Irish jugs in my head.
And that’s why the label “woo” applies – either both are woo or neither are: you can’t arbitrarily separate them because one suits you and the other doesn’t.   

(5)  Again though, while even at its broadest level philosophy will consider questions like whether the world is “out there” or mind-created (see Bishop Berkeley) you can no more philosophise your way to a specific claim of an objective fact about the world (“aura” etc) than you can to another claim about there being aliens on Alpha Centauri.   

The closest perhaps that you can get to that is an argument from necessity – eg, the Higgs-Boson was potentially at least necessary to explain the observable facts before the evidence for it was in – but that’s a different matter. There’s argument from necessity for “aura”, “biofield” etc because there’s requirement in the first place to explain observable phenomena.

(1) In which case it appears that the experience of the individual is what he would call 'transcendence, oneness' which is a 'real' experience but he has not learnt to resist the temptation to extend that experience to mystical deities.  You are also making the assumption that every human being would react in exactly the same way.  Would you?

(2) They are not meant to as this would be not much different to the mental agitation I mentioned in my last post.

(3) That's something of a straw man by adding the word 'mystical'.  As regard 'spudulike', you can call it what you like especially if you come from the land of Spudula.  You might want to choose a best fit English expression for the physiological response if communicating to an English person.  Similarly 'aura' is just an ancient name for a particular inner experience rather than an explanation of cause.

(4) No, I don't think I am missing it.  What you are not doing is explaining the method you use to experience Irish jugs in your head so that others who might be interested can try it out and witness it for themselves.

(5) Yes, and that is why I would be reluctant to use the word 'philosophy' to describe what is at the basis of certain eastern religions.  However I would concede that there are a variety of schools of thought associated with those religions but my view is that, at their base, they are more about experience resulting from inner stillness practices rather than explanations. Here are two quotes which are variations of this.  One is by Tilopa a 10th Century Indian Buddhist " Do not imagine, do not think, do not analyse; Do not meditate, do not reflect: Keep consciousness in its natural state. " and the other by the Greek philosopher Socrates  "Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning.   Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being."

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity.

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

(1) In which case it appears that the experience of the individual is what he would call 'transcendence, oneness' which is a 'real' experience but he has not learnt to resist the temptation to extend that experience to mystical deities.  You are also making the assumption that every human being would react in exactly the same way.  Would you?

Actually I’m not making that assumption at all. To the contrary: person A might say “that was god”; person B might say, “I’ll take some tests to see whether I had a transient mental episode of some kind”; and Person C might even have the self-awareness to test the reasoning that led to his belief about his initial explanation for the cause of his experience. And yes, of course the experience is “real” – ie, the subject genuinely felt a profound sense of something. The problem though is in the leap many such people make to their various explanations for the causes of experiences, which is where Sriram falls off a cliff.

(2) They are not meant to as this would be not much different to the mental agitation I mentioned in my last post.

You may think they are not meant to, but Sriram has no difficulty at all it seems having an experience and then ascribing to it a cause with no connecting logic or evidence of any kind.

(3) That's something of a straw man by adding the word 'mystical'.  As regard 'spudulike', you can call it what you like especially if you come from the land of Spudula.  You might want to choose a best fit English expression for the physiological response if communicating to an English person.  Similarly 'aura' is just an ancient name for a particular inner experience rather than an explanation of cause.

No - I was just saying that there are physiological responses that require no “out there”, “mystical”, “non-material”, call it what you will etc explanation (like “aura” of “biofield”), and moreover that you have no reason to suppose that your sponginess between the hands isn’t just as much one of them as your arms raising unbidden after pushing the door frame is one. 

(4) No, I don't think I am missing it.  What you are not doing is explaining the method you use to experience Irish jugs in your head so that others who might be interested can try it out and witness it for themselves.

Again, yes I am. Let’s say that whenever I burn a bunch of four-leaf clovers I hear Irish jigs in my head. So far, so good – that’s basically what Sriram does for his practices when he has a different "experience".

What he does next though is his big problem – he asserts that his practices must then actually be connecting him to the supposed level of reality “auras”, just as I might assert that my practices are connecting me to the level of reality “leprechauns”. And that’s the huge gap in his thinking – finding some way to validate the narrative explanation he gives himself, albeit that he has no interest ever in addressing his problem. 

(5) Yes, and that is why I would be reluctant to use the word 'philosophy' to describe what is at the basis of certain eastern religions.  However I would concede that there are a variety of schools of thought associated with those religions but my view is that, at their base, they are more about experience resulting from inner stillness practices rather than explanations. Here are two quotes which are variations of this.  One is by Tilopa a 10th Century Indian Buddhist " Do not imagine, do not think, do not analyse; Do not meditate, do not reflect: Keep consciousness in its natural state. " and the other by the Greek philosopher Socrates  "Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning.   Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being."

Very nice too, but that takes you not one step of a smidgin of an iota toward this philosophy reliably identifying objectively true objects in the universe. I can do all that until I’m blue in the face, but it still won’t tell me what’s on the dark side of the moon, how photosynthesis works or what the cure for cancer will be. Philosophy is about ways of thinking, but no amount of it will identify auras or biofields.

Or leprechauns.

[SusanDoris]

Spud

Explain to me, if you think  you can,  why I am a sinner!

[jeremyp]

But I have already pointed out many times that serious Yogis and meditative practices are required.  Again and again asking the same 'objective' measurable proof for 'subjective' phenomena is silly.

 

We don't care about your excuses. Just stop expecting us to believe you. And stop claiming that we are somehow lesser beings because we don't believe you.

What you claim here is indistinguishable from bullshit. Unless you provide us with a satisfactory methods for distinguishing what you believe from bullshit, there's no reason to suppose it isn't.

[jeremyp]

I've also been watching a video by Derren Brown in which he traveled to the US and met up with certain people who make a lot pf money through stuff like Dream therapy, writing about alien abduction, and contacting the dead. He pretended to be able to do the same stuff and fooled them into thinking he could do it. The idea was to expose them as fakes, I think, but he seemed to be 'doing the impossible', which confused me. I will have to read up on him in more detail.

He's a stage magician. Stage magicians often seem to be able to do impossible things, but it's all tricks. If he could do the things that those snake oil salesmen could do, then it's not because he's got any kind of magical abilities, it's because he knows the tricks they use.

My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity. It is simple: everybody is a sinner and needs forgiveness. Repentance and faith in Jesus leads to peace with God, which will be manifested in the physiology and anatomy. The biblical accounts contain enough information for a firm foundation for Christian faith (although this information would originally have been and can still be transmitted orally).

Can you think of a way to falsify the above? If not, then Christianity is unscientific.

[Spud]

Spud

Explain to me, if you think  you can,  why I am a sinner!

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

Explain to me, if you think  you can,  why I am a sinner!

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?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

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.

So that's a "no" then - you can't explain to Susan why she's a "sinner".

No worries though - I've got this one for you and have just explained it to her.

[Sriram]

We don't care about your excuses. Just stop expecting us to believe you. And stop claiming that we are somehow lesser beings because we don't believe you.

What you claim here is indistinguishable from bullshit. Unless you provide us with a satisfactory methods for distinguishing what you believe from bullshit, there's no reason to suppose it isn't.

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.

[torridon]

My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity. It is simple: everybody is a sinner and needs forgiveness.

You managed to shoot yourself in the foot in minimum time here.  There is nothing scientific about 'sin' or about 'forgiveness'.

[torridon]

As far as mind related phenomena are concerned such physical methods with external measurements, are unsuitable. We have to depend  on subjective methods only. Problem with this is that subjective reality is normally assumed (by scientist folk) as brain generated having no connection with objective reality. Personal experiences are taken as entirely of internal origin not related to external reality.  This is a mistake.

The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds. 

In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality. They can and do merge. But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.

The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective  observation. It has not moved into the objective area.  But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.

Vision is a subjective experience of an external reality.  We know that light exists, a blind person can easily measure it with a light meter.  If there is no equivalent instrument for measuring 'biofields' then how can we claim that it has an external reality.  Just because lots of people believe in it does not count as justification, people believe in all sorts of unevidenced nonsense.

[Sriram]

Vision is a subjective experience of an external reality.  We know that light exists, a blind person can easily measure it with a light meter.  If there is no equivalent instrument for measuring 'biofields' then how can claim that it has an external reality.  Just because lots of people believe in it does not count as justification, people believe in all sorts of unevidenced nonsense.

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.

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.