From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:02 AM
To: Brian Holtz
Subject: Re: Why the Intense Anger?

"Gurnemanz" <jim@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> wrote

> I imagine that it would be possible to
> argue that ghosts do exist ie such a belief does not
> seem irrational.
> [But] I have theological reasons for doubting the veracity
> of such reports.

And even better, we atheists have scientific and epistemological
reasons for doubting the veracity of reports of religious experiences:

* They make claims (about the efficacy of prayer, survival of
  the mind after death, etc.) that a) are inconsistent with the
  known laws of nature and b) have never been successfully
  verified.
* They consist of feelings (awe, superstition, etc.) that
  have more-parsimonious naturalistic psychological explanations.
* They fit a pattern of past failed supernatural explanations for
    * the daily cycle of the Sun; the motions of the Moon and planets;
    * the seasons; rivers, currents, winds, thunder, lightning,
      precipitation and drought;
    * the genesis, design, and diversity of life; success in
      farming and hunting;
    * the human mind; evil, misfortune, disease, pestilence, war,
      and death.

"Gurnemanz" <jim@nospamma.humph65.fsworld.co.uk> wrote elsewhere:

> there is no evidence that all of the very many
> millions of people who have had religious experiences
> are mentally ill
> [..]
> Its absurd to suggest that all religious experiences
> are 'hallucinations' or the result of hysteria.

Can you identify the experience or class of experience
that is least explicable as any of hallucination, delusion,
hysteria, intoxication, wishful thinking, misinterpretation,
misperception, misunderstanding, ignorance, gullibility,
or deception?

> I am definitely not claiming that all, or even most, religious
> reports should be believed.

Then give us what you think is the single most credible report
or set of reports. If those reports have naturalistic explanations,
why should we give any weight to the myriad of other
less-credible reports?

> Religion claims that those who resolutly reject the deity
> ie most atheists , will not receive any sort of revelation. When they
> make a genuine effort to seek out religion they can expect to receive
> guidance.

Many atheists (such as I) have described the empirical grounds
by which we would readily accept a deity. Any god could trivially
inscribe or authenticate its revealed message through supernatural
patterns (in cosmological or quantum phenomena) or ongoing miracles
(such as prophecy or communication with a spirit world). There is
no credible evidence that any such revelation has been competently
attempted by any god(s).

--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net