What defines proof for you and how do you apply it to your religion?

a reply to: Ghost147

I do not apply proof ( eídein (intellectual knowledge)) to my faith. It is a matter of faith (gnosis (spiritual knowledge)).

This is why Science (based on intellectual knowledge) and religion (based on spiritual knowledge aka gut feeling) are not the same.

Thus when someone tries to apply (say) faith to science. I will demand the facts. IF someone demands scientific facts for an obviously faith based thing, I demand gnosis Its only fair. Use the right tools for the job.

Identifying opposites in nature is a start. Then you can decide what else to investigate.

The man, big brother, illuminati, gmasons, whatever you identify them as: They are pro-religion, and anti-theism. Why?


Well for one you can find truth in theism.

Theism, a dirty, dirty word to moneygrubbers

Sorry for such a late reply. been a busy week.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Surely the same repeated testing and cross-confirmation can equally apply to subjective experience.

Sure, but do we get as concrete of a conclusion? Furthermore, it could be said that a particular external influence could be profound enough to sway the minds of several people, or a population.

For instance, lets say there was a particular chemical additive to a villages water supply that lead to audible hallucinations. Collectively they may experience these audible hallucinations and conclude that the forests around the town are haunted, when in actuality it is just this chemical causing all this issue.

Another example could be a particular, and natural, neurological factor, which could affect a particular percentage of people globally. This factor may lead them to be more susceptible to 'spiritual feelings'. Even though it's just the brain releasing a sort of euphoric-inducing chemical, subjectively, these people believe they are experiencing a spiritual event.

I'm aware of a test using magnetic waves to affect the brain which triggers such feelings, you can directly start and stop the brains activity (for this particular section) at will. I can see if I can find the test for you. What's funny, and quite interesting, is that Richard Dawkins was asked to take the same test, and he didn't experience anything at all. From that perspective, religious feelings could be due to neuro-activity, and some people may simply not be able to experience it at all.

originally posted by: chr0naut
At least with totally subjective evidence we have assurance about the trustworthiness of the transmission of the observation, a factor absent from most objective 3rd party observations. Consider concerns over scientific fraud as attestation to that.

But that's the great thing about objective observation, it can be repeated to weed out that fraud. In many cases, with subjective observation, it is not so easy, or even possible, to recreate that observation.

originally posted by: chr0naut
When we begin to extend the evidentiary chain, as we do in the case of scientific observation and reportage, we actually introduce more points of failure and greater weakness alongside a few external cross checks.

such as?

originally posted by: chr0naut
If we really had such doubts about what we directly observe then we could simply and repetitively re-test. There is no constraint that prevents us from doing so.

Right, which is why objective observation is more reliable.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The fact that most people never doubt their senses in most situations is a reflection of their confidence in subjective observations.

It is also the downfall of subjective observation. We cannot simply ignore the possibility of an external influence simply because we're confident.

originally posted by: chr0naut
There is also an issue of interpretation of data that is entirely overlooked in many such discussions. The data that one may see as proving out a theory may be misinterpreted.

Certainly. It is the very reason why nothing should be taken at face value. However, if we had data from multiple sources, using multiple techniques, through multiple tests and all of them point to the same answer, would that not mean that the interpretation of all of those collectively by separate individuals educated in their particular fields is far more valuable and likely to be true?

originally posted by: chr0naut
I believe that many 'ghost experiences' are quite likely to be the replay of events in the past. A spiritual interpretation is a misinterpretation of the evidence.

As you are probably aware I am a fairly traditional Christian but I don't exclusively seek a spiritual explanation of things observed in the material world. In the case of ghosts, they seem to be largely unaware of their present surroundings and rarely interact. So suggesting that they are malevolent (devils), or messengers from God (angels) does not fit the observations.

Other Christians may disagree but their beliefs are personal and not the universal "Christian" view.

Precisely! I also agree that your point could be highly probable. But again, we're really left with pure speculation