reply to post by wintermarches
I don't see why this is a bad thing for people to check their gut.
It's not a bad thing to listen to your intuitions, or your gut instincts. The problem is that "Gut instincts" are not a form of objective evidence
or proof - and therefore should not be a deciding factor in whether or not you accept a particular story, event, whatever. It should be heeded,
though, as a compass to direct your actions and search for the truth.
Gut instincts can help lead an investigator to evidence which will help solve a crime, but cannot hold up as evidence in and of itself in a court of
law. That's a very important distinction IMO. So we do agree on this point, I would extend this principal into my personal life and my beliefs. In
the courtroom of conflicting opinions in my mind, I tend to side with that which has evidence or a solid line of reasoning - even if it goes against
my gut instinct. The same reasons it cannot be used in a court of law, I think, are the same reasons it should not be the litmus test for what I
accept as truth.
I see that you also admitted that there is some truth to the alien phenomena
Careful with the wording. You make it sound as though the "Alien Phenomena" has already been proven - just not acknowledged. It's my belief though
reasoning that the Alien Phenomena is very likely to be real on at least some level - but my opinion on the matter is pretty much the same as the
hardcore skeptics. Until there is proof that it is real, then I cannot make a definitive statement or belief in them. Even then, if you can prove that
the alien phenomena is real - at least on some level - that doesn't prove any of the other claims which have been put forth. It only proves that to
which the evidence can provide.
I just wanted to urge caution in discounting everyone's intuition.
I would urge caution in accepting or believing anyone's intuition (including your own) unless they can provide a solid line of reasoning, some form
of evidence to back them up, or can gain your trust through virtue of being accurate enough (and enough of the time) to where you can feel comfortable
enough to differ your judgment.
This last point is why I trust scientists more than spiritualists. Science works.
I have read about that study that says there is a part of the brain that produces religious experience.
You're referring to the "God Spot". It's been suggested that our brains are wired for religious experiences. Not specifically wired, mind you, as
it's more of a coincidence. A short circuit, or a byproduct of different parts of the brain working together in tandem, would be a more accurate
description. And it's not just a "spot", but more like a part of the network. However, some "trigger" points have been known to exist. For
example, I believe that religious experiences have been linked to frontal lobe epilepsy. However, attempts to induce religious experiences using
outside stimulation have met with mixed results.
This is sort of what I'm talking about when I mention "Kernels of Truth" in the Alien Phenomena. It is true that those who believe in god do feel
"in the spirit" and transposed... enraptured... and in spiritual connection and awe. To them, this is all that's needed for proof. The kernel of
truth is that it is a real and measurable phenomena that's occurring in our brains. Our interpretations of it... however... those are subjective.
That is where culture and imagination combine to create the myriad of different gods and pantheons. So take note also, that when I mention that
there's a kernel of truth to something, it doesn't necessarily mean I support the basic hypothesis which is being presented. Even if I find it
likely that intelligent alien life exists out there, and even if I find it plausible that this alien life has visited us, and even if I accept that
there is some kernel of truth to the alien phenomena - that does not sum up to me believing that actual aliens are behind the alien phenomena that
some people claim to have experienced.
Some might say, "what is real? This could all be someone else's dream.
It's always bugged me when people veer a conversation in this direction. It usually happens when someone is cornered or has run out of ideas. They
divert the conversation away from reality and into the realm of philosophy where anything is possible and can be argued for. The problem is, though,
that this really accomplishes nothing and is just a way spinning wheels while going nowhere trying to get your opponent to wear out and concede or
otherwise withdraw from the discussion.
There's a reason why majoring in philosophy is a poor career move, excepting in the case of professional arguers like politicians or lawyers.
In my opinion, the extraterrestrial belief is more realistic than the god belief because if there are other planets out there than it is logical to
surmise that some of them are inhabited by life as this one is
You could make a similar argument in the case of god though. It's often said that god/gods are the creators of the universe. We create universes all
the time with our imaginations. Some of them are put into computer simulations. Would a simulated intelligence in a sufficiently simulated environment
intrinsically know that it was a simulation? If not, then at some point that AI would have accepted the simulation as reality, meaning there would be
a point of discovery where old ideas on the nature of the simulation were shattered.
Dawkins has stated that it is far easier for him to imagine us coming into contact with beings who are so technologically advanced that they seem to
be gods to us... but they wouldn't be gods, because they exist within the universe. Given what we can simulate now, what kind of simulations do you
think "god like beings" could produce? Would AI's in their simulations be able to recognize it as such? Would not the god-like beings actually BE
gods to the AI's, as they are the creators of their universe and exist outside of it?
If the diversity and perseverance of life to flourish on Earth, as well as the enormity of the heavens can lend logical creedence to the idea of
aliens visiting the Earth, then does not the above scenario also lend a bit of logical creedence to the existence of a god/gods?