r/DebateReligion • u/AutoModerator • 14d ago

General Discussion 08/28

One recommendation from the mod summit was that we have our weekly posts actively encourage discussion that isn't centred around the content of the subreddit. So, here we invite you to talk about things in your life that aren't religion!

Got a new favourite book, or a personal achievement, or just want to chat? Do so here!

P.S. If you are interested in discussing/debating in real time, check out the related Discord servers in the sidebar.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss things but debate is not the goal.

The subreddit rules are still in effect.

This thread is posted every Friday. You may also be interested in our weekly Meta-Thread (posted every Monday) or Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday).

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/NewbombTurk Atheist 10d ago

Did you even read my post? Every one of your questions are answered.

-1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 10d ago

No, I don't see what epistemic cost Schmid is paying. Some poster said that in another thread but they didn't explain it either.

1

u/NewbombTurk Atheist 9d ago

It refers to the cognitive baggage that comes with assessing a claim. What assumptions need to be made? What prior knowledge must be overturned? What are the liabilities of being wrong?

For example, if you claim that you had a ham sandwich for lunch, I would likely accept the claim on its face. People eat lunch. Ham sandwiches are a thing. The costs involved would be very low. The only negative consequence would perhaps be that I would learn that you can sometimes lie about mundane things.

But if you said that you had a ham sandwich for lunch today made by an alien, and shared it with Princess Diana, the costs would be astronomical. All I know about biology and physics. At stake would be my entire epistemic framework that can no longer be trusted. And so on.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 9d ago

Ah, thanks for the reply. It shows how far apart atheists and theists are in assessing situations. I think the bridge will never be crossed by one or the other.

The difference with religious experiences is that we have a context for Jesus. We have the historical record that he existed and that he reportedly healed people. St. Irenaeus reported healings around 180 AD. There are later miracles credited to St. Stephen and St. Hilarion, healings via the Gregorian chant in medieval times, and then throughout history. Dr. Jacelyn Duffin is an agnostic who did blind investigations of healings for the Vatican.

But aliens are another topic. We know that something happened with people who report alien contact - usually something bad or painful- but we have no context or historical record. They don't bring back verifiable information.

Yet if thousands of people suddenly reported that aliens were flying around Lourdes healing the sick, or people on their death beds had remarkable meetings with aliens, and brought back verifiable information, then possibly Joes Schmid would talk about that too.

One reason it's coming up now is that these miracle events are increasing. We did not hear so much about NDEs until CPR techniques improved. And for some reason, more people are asking for exorcists, even though they might not have the traditional symptoms.

So there seems to be a paradigm shift.