2 ms·

> It's also probably not even going to be seeing a ghost or something that makes you drop an atheistic, nonspiritual worldview. I have seen testimonies from mo

> It's also probably not even going to be seeing a ghost or something that makes you drop an atheistic, nonspiritual worldview. I have seen testimonies from more than one skeptic / atheist who witnessed something they "have no explanation for" but who remain atheist. I think it goes back to that almost-religious commitment to only believing the reproducible. Or, perhaps in some cases, to confirmation bias and a desire to believe there is nothing beyond matter.

bowsamic 4y ago
Well it's very easy to explain it using the same idea that for me is a very spiritual idea: your senses lie to you about the state of the world. But, they also do not think to extend that to their sober perception of physical reality. There is an assumption that our sober perception is completely accurate.
- NateEag 4y ago
  My impression has been that such people are precisely assuming that their sober perception is not reliable, and that's how they discount all reports and even personal experiences of the supernatural. As one who's had a few encounters with what I'd historically call God and is currently unsure what exactly happened in those situations, I can empathize with their perspective, even if it's not the explanation I'm leaning towards.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    If they think their sober perception is not reliable then why do they trust science or that they even exist?
    - NateEag 4y ago
      I think that they have no other option than to assume that human observations are at least reliable enough to work with, even if sometimes they go a little crazy. I think that's actually why they focus on reproducibility - that's their tool for reaching something approximating a consensus reality in the face of experiential subjectivity, human unreliability, and the strong limits on individual human knowledge. Me, I think that reproducibility is really useful, but I'm not so willing to say that if it's not reliably reproducible it must be coincidence or delusion.

bowsamic 4y ago

Well it's very easy to explain it using the same idea that for me is a very spiritual idea: your senses lie to you about the state of the world. But, they also do not think to extend that to their sober perception of physical reality. There is an assumption that our sober perception is completely accurate.

NateEag 4y ago
My impression has been that such people are precisely assuming that their sober perception is not reliable, and that's how they discount all reports and even personal experiences of the supernatural. As one who's had a few encounters with what I'd historically call God and is currently unsure what exactly happened in those situations, I can empathize with their perspective, even if it's not the explanation I'm leaning towards.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  If they think their sober perception is not reliable then why do they trust science or that they even exist?
  - NateEag 4y ago
    I think that they have no other option than to assume that human observations are at least reliable enough to work with, even if sometimes they go a little crazy. I think that's actually why they focus on reproducibility - that's their tool for reaching something approximating a consensus reality in the face of experiential subjectivity, human unreliability, and the strong limits on individual human knowledge. Me, I think that reproducibility is really useful, but I'm not so willing to say that if it's not reliably reproducible it must be coincidence or delusion.