Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CovenOfLovin t1_j2mkaqc wrote

The article mostly boils down to the old hat idea that religion helps some people's mental health. Therefore, it should not be clowned on. Just because a thing is helpful to some people doesn't shield it from criticism.

"Instead he considered himself a “radical empiricist,” and he defined this as accepting all observations of reality, including conscious experiences from a first-person perspective."

Not this any of what I am about to say disproves relgion's potential or supposed benefits, but James' "radical empiricist" claim is a bit silly here. If you want to be empirical in regard to subjective reality, you must come to the realization that not everyone's perception can be weighed equally. An example of an opinion that should be given less credence in this context would be someone suffering hallucinations. I may believe that a person experceived/percieved an event, but that doesn't mean it truly happened. There are also situations in which one should be weary of less honest relayed experiences. In this context, a religious bias in interpreting events is relevant.

9

NewPackage3269 OP t1_j2mmc0f wrote

Radical empiricism doesn't mean subjectivity always triumphs over objectivity. It's saying subjective experience is a part of a broader reality.

4

zaceno t1_j2or9o6 wrote

If a person experiences something, it happened. You may disagree on the precise nature of what it was, but something happened.

1

CovenOfLovin t1_j2ovjbl wrote

Did I claim otherwise?

2

zaceno t1_j2p6fom wrote

You said “… that doesn’t mean it truly happened”. I’m saying if someone has an experience they had an experience. They may not interpret the event according to objective truth but objective truth is elusive anyway.

4

CovenOfLovin t1_j2pdb2b wrote

You are misunderstanding me, somehow. if someone hallucinates something, they experienced it, but it didn't happen. Something happened, but not the thing they perceived.

2

zaceno t1_j2petzl wrote

I understand that’s what you meant but that is a reductive way of filtering what you consider “true” events.

Say you and me both are sitting in a couch. Suddenly you have a full on vision of Krishna radiant with power and love. You break down crying. Your life is transformed. All the suffering you’ve endured suddenly has meaning. You have regained your will to carry on. You feel a new purpose to help the less fortunate around you.

… and I’m like: “nah, didn’t happen because I couldn’t see it”

For you it was obviously a very real experience. That doesn’t mean you literally had a visit from Krishna, or that Krishna is even real or any othe God for that matter. There are all sorts of interpretations of what happened. Neither of us will ever know objectively what exactly went down. But it doesn’t matter because something real happened to you.

5