doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I found this old exchange between Sunstone and I (one of my first at RF, edited slightly) and thought it might make for an interesting discussion topic:
Also, the "scientific" world view is often perceived as not having a place in its template for experiences that cannot be rationally shared by reference to objective (external) experiences (i.e. measurable experimentation and repeatability). Thus, adherents to a "scientific" world view tend to exclude the possibility that spiritual "things" - things that are experienced as real by a believer, are possibly indication of real experiences. And they assert this absence of place in their world view to believers to whom such experiences are quite real. This is emblematic of a total breakdown in communication between the two people, because scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the reality of purely subjective experiences.
Moreover, because the subjective experiences of the believer tend to be encapsulated for her in symbolic language (which does have an association with the believer's subjective experience), if the believer cannot separate the experience itself from the symbols used to denote the experience, it is very difficult to facilitate a communication about the nature of that subjective experience to a person who does not associate anything meaningful in their own experience with the symbolic language being used by the believer. This is also emblematic of a total breakdown in communication since conveying symbolic language to someone is not the same as sharing a subjective experience unless the other person already associates a similar subjective experience with those same symbols.
_________________________
I think sometimes an adherent to the literality of her respective religion perceives that people who approach the world with a "scientific" world view also adopt a vision of personal morality that competes with the "traditional" morality of religion for space in individuals' identities, i.e., it allows people to make "moral" choices not based upon the authority of the traditional religion and its leadership. That's a real threat to someone whose personal identity is wrapped up with their feelings of obligation to be obedient to the moral rules of a particular religious tradition.Sunstone said:Why are so many people obsessed with reading into the Theory Of Evolution more meaning than is actually there?
Also, the "scientific" world view is often perceived as not having a place in its template for experiences that cannot be rationally shared by reference to objective (external) experiences (i.e. measurable experimentation and repeatability). Thus, adherents to a "scientific" world view tend to exclude the possibility that spiritual "things" - things that are experienced as real by a believer, are possibly indication of real experiences. And they assert this absence of place in their world view to believers to whom such experiences are quite real. This is emblematic of a total breakdown in communication between the two people, because scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the reality of purely subjective experiences.
Moreover, because the subjective experiences of the believer tend to be encapsulated for her in symbolic language (which does have an association with the believer's subjective experience), if the believer cannot separate the experience itself from the symbols used to denote the experience, it is very difficult to facilitate a communication about the nature of that subjective experience to a person who does not associate anything meaningful in their own experience with the symbolic language being used by the believer. This is also emblematic of a total breakdown in communication since conveying symbolic language to someone is not the same as sharing a subjective experience unless the other person already associates a similar subjective experience with those same symbols.
_________________________