Have been in a lot of debates, studies and so on, on all kinds of subjects "spiritual" and temporal. Many times people will keep arguing a point even when the objective, factual evidence says "Not so." This can be very frustrating, and I have ascribed it to lack of reasoning (ability or desire).
What if, instead, I begin judging an idea by its results? Back about Christmas 2009, at Starbuck's here in San Marco, I realized that ideas have no value unless they do something. In other words, ideas are not good unless they have good results. I think it's time to resurrect the Starbuck's realization.
There is so much "evidence" for reincarnation and other afterlife ideas, that it would take forever to examine all of it. What if someone then comes with new "evidence"? I should study evidence forever! My life is more important than that.
Therefore I will examine carefully how those who believe strongly in an afterlife implement their belief.
- If afterlife belief causes civilized behavior, which would not occur based on nonbelief, or
- if nonbelievers (atheists, Brights, etc) appear to be less ethical (valuable to civilization) than afterlife believers, then
- afterlife is true.
However, I must have clear evidence. Right now I see no evidence other than a few questionable "past life regressions" and children's "past life memories", every one of which could have been cryptomnesia or other natural phenomena. A "regression" of my own would prove nothing, any more than being "cured" by a Voodoo healer would prove Voodoo.
But there is all that nagging "evidence". There are also very many other questions, such as "Is Islam a religion of peace?" and "Is there an Intelligent Designer?" and "Should I live in Boston or stay in the South?"
Therefore I propose a new standard for judging these personal and practical questions: the behavior produced by these ideas, compared to the behavior produced by the opposing idea. I propose to judge ideas by their fruits.
The old standard looks like this:
Abstract Evidence/ Statistical Data -> Proof
The "Starbuck's" standard goes like this:
Practical Evidence/ Behavioral Data -> Proof
Once again, religion works opposite science:
Idea (commandment, dogma) <- Evidence
Data (evidence, facts) -> Idea (theory)
This indicates that religion will always wage war against reason.
Using the Starbuck's standard:
For example, if I have a question about whether Heaven's Gate is a good religion, I would look at the lives of people who actually live that way, as opposed to anti-Heaven's Gaters. If I have a question about whether I should eat a lot of meat or mostly vegetables, I would look at the Okinawans and compare them to non-vegetarians (or Okinawans who have adopted a high-protein diet).
No further question is needed. We can argue all day about whether statistically gun ownership reduces crime or not, but I have read copious armed citizen reports, I have studied what happens to people who cannot defend themselves:
24 Aug 2007, ST. PAUL, Minn. — A security video from an apartment hallway shows at least 10 witnesses ignored a woman's cries for help for more than an hour as a man beat and sexually assaulted her, prosecutors in Minnesota said.
The surveillance video clearly showed men and women looking out their apartment doors or starting to walk down the hallway before retreating as the woman was assaulted for nearly 90 minutes, police spokesman Tom Walsh said.
Police said they responded to a call of drunken behavior and found Somali immigrant Rage Ibrahim, 25, and a woman lying unconscious in the hallway early Tuesday. The woman's clothing had been pulled up and she had fresh scratches on her face and blood on her thigh, according to the criminal complaint.
Therefore I bought a handgun, and a Concealed Weapons License.
By the way, that news story answers a question. They are doing it here now, too. "Yallah habibi."
No comments:
Post a Comment