The Autistic "Rationale-dependant" thinking style; thoughts and personal experiences?

[tazz]

With regard to the rest of his video... He provides a great example of what I've just explained. He presents his hypothesis (his word) of morphic resonance. According to his hypothesis, rats that solve a maze or puzzle in one part of the world should make it easier for rats in the future in other parts of the world to solve the same puzzle. He says there is evidence to suggest that's what happens. If you look up the experiment it's very small, has not been replicated and is nowhere near sufficient quality to prompt the science community to take seriously. He says that's because the dogmatic science world makes too many assumptions. I say it's because it's only a small experiment that has not been replicated and it's simply not good enough. All he needs to do is gather more evidence, but alas, he does not.

No-one takes anyone seriously in the science community until they have enough evidence. The Nobel Prize winning physicist who discovered super-massive black holes Sir Roger Penrose came up with a wacky new idea about the origins of the universe but has yet to see anyone take it seriously because he hasn't been able to present enough evidence. He's presented some, but it's just not enough. Instead of crying foul and accusing the science community of being dogmatic, he is trying to gather more evidence. Until he does, he wouldn't expect anyone to take him seriously - that's the scientific method in action, it ensures that he can't make any false or incorrect claims. He's being held to a high standard is all.

 

[The Pandector]

But it seems framed to imply that those invested in finding truth of a spiritual nature have no data to support their paradigm.

Tazz: Well, firstly, that's not how it's framed. I would suggest you're thinking that because you see the world of science in this way:
the meaning of "physical truth" and "spiritual truth". How does either of them differ from something that is simply: true. I can believe anything I want, that doesn't make it true. Is that what you're referring to as a spiritual truth? Something that one believes but doesn't have any data to support it?

@tazz , you asked about the difference between physical and spiritual truth, then asked two framing questions that lead to your suggested answer. In my view, especially since you did not offer possible answers other than spiritual truth being 'whatever you want to believe' and which 'has no data to support it'. You may not have intended to frame your question thusly, but it is what you did. No worries; it's not like I'm offended, but facts are facts.

People of science would usually find it extremely disrespectful and ignorant to just ignore credible evidence. It goes against everything the world of science stands for - the core of it being the scientific method.

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, there aren't many people of science out there. Worse, many people who think they are scientifically minded are absolutely anything but. You speak as if you know a number of scientists, so you have me on that one. I, on the other hand, have known a great many Christians, with whom I have had a great number of insightful conversations. It almost sounds as if you would expect me to listen to you about how scientists, in general, approach truth, and then discount how all those thoughtful believers perceived the scientific approach, in general. But, I'm not going to do that.

Anyone who lived through the recent 'pandemic' and concludes that even a simple majority of the 'scientists' involved were acting according to scientific method... well, that's another thread. Let me offer you some ammunition. I believe in fossils, ice ages, etc., but I do not believe in evolution, meaning one species changing into another over time. Birds are not dinosaurs. Moreover, I suspect most scientists would agree that the current models of evolution are not tenable. They admitted this en masse a few decades ago and haven't - to my knowledge - offered a new-and-improved model they can stand by; evolution simply doesn't have time to occur in the geological timeframe, even with long ages of rapidly accelerated change. Nevertheless, they haven't abandoned the overall concept of evolution. What about the common dating techniques? It's not an unusual practice to continue to resubmit samples until an acceptable date is arrived at. What about recapitulation theory... it is now considered a quaint myth and yet it is still taught to children/future scientists. The scientific foundation to evolutionary theory has crumbled, but suggesting this to people of a 'scientific' mindset does not usually lead to a rational conversation. It's not polite to question people's assumptions (read, 'articles of faith').

@tazz said, 'go find out if it's true, publish your method and results.'
First, I'll point out that Christians - as well as those of other belief systems - do this on a very regular basis. Are you trying to say that the scientific community, in general, does not discount these reports as being subjective to the point of invalidity? If so, we do indeed live in different worlds. It is not just a common occurrence, but is the predictable response, to the point that (I can only speak from the Christian perspective) Christians who don't accept current scientific dogma learn to shut the he!! up.

@tazz said,
"The world of science never says "we are the authority, we get to tell you what the truth is, and only we can discern the truth, and no-one else should even question us."
Dr. Anthony Fauci, when his science was questioned, famously answered, "I AM the science."


This could go on, but I'll try to get back to the earlier topic.
@tazz said,
"Using the phrase spiritual truth in this way stretches the usual meaning of the word truth beyond breaking point. I think we need to use a more appropriate phrase in that case. Spiritual truth is misleading."

Beyond your breaking point, maybe, but that's subjective. You take exception to the way I use the phrases scientific truth and spiritual truth. Yeah, words are only an artform, after all. I did not imply the mutual exclusivity you inferred; both spiritual and physical truth are subsets of 'truth'. On my own, I see little need to differentiate between set and subset, except in conversations like this one, where we're discussing who is able to accept which data points.

Except where human failing prevails, actual science is not in conflict with spiritual truth. I believe that God set us about the mission of science, to 'subdue' the world. If one believes that spiritual truth and science are compatible, they can use either one to discipline the other. When science discards spiritual truth (yes, I'm thinking specifically of the Bible) then it veers off to please man rather than find truth. This is amply demonstrated in today's 'scientific' community by the way research grants are divvied out; let some fool scientist say he doesn't believe in human-caused global warming (oops; 'warming' failed, right, so now it's 'climate change'), and then ask the government or big universities to fund his research. Good. Freaking. Luck. And those grants are divvied out by 'scientists'.

Many of the great early scientists and inventors praised God for their findings of the wonders of nature. Nowadays, being openly guided by both scientific and spiritual beliefs is a recipe for unemployment because, of course, your 'scientific objectivity' has been compromised. You speak of a science that relies on the scientific method. I've witnessed in my short decades the absolute decline of the scientific method; like Christianity for many, it's simply an old idol that still gets a little attention - mostly in wordplay, but not so much in daily practice.

It seems to me, @tazz , that you are arguing very effectively for the consistent use of the scientific method. But then you seem to assume that the scientific method is being utilized on a regular basis. I can't follow you there. Again, as with Christianity, sitting in the pews ain't proof of nuthin.

 

[tazz]

Umm... I appreciate the full response.

@tazz said, 'go find out if it's true, publish your method and results.'
First, I'll point out that Christians - as well as those of other belief systems - do this on a very regular basis. Are you trying to say that the scientific community, in general, does not discount these reports as being subjective to the point of invalidity?

Which reports? Sorry I don't understand the question.

It seems to me, @tazz , that you are arguing very effectively for the consistent use of the scientific method.

Thank you. I hoped I was arguing effectively.

But then you seem to assume that the scientific method is being utilized on a regular basis.

No, not assume. It's my actual experience.

 

[The Pandector]

Really, they're just talking to people who require a much higher standard of evidence

Let me riff off of this. Wish I had read @Neri's post before my most recent post, because it seems to make the same point with less pain. You seem willing to acknowledge that a great deal of what is known as science is simply poorly done. Adding to that, a point I'm making is that the 'science' that filters down into the daily lives of real people is predominantly the product of bad science.

But I grabbed this because I want to use your phrase 'higher standard of evidence'. In the context of my earlier comments, this could be seen as offensively biased and arrogant, but I can easily resolve that offense. Simply change it to, 'a different standard of evidence'. This is what differentiates spiritual from physical truth; the standards required of and appropriate to physical truth are simply responsive to the nature of that data type, but inappropriate to the evaluation of spiritual data.

I guarantee that the standards I use to evaluate spiritual propositions are every bit as rigorous as anyone's scientific method. Silly as I am, still not silly enough to try using the scientific method to understand spiritual truths. Because the scientific method does not answer to the data type. Logic and reason, yes; the scientific method, no.

As much as I appreciate the trilobite pictured by our forum mate, he would have been a fool to allow me to mount that beauty; it simply isn't within my skillset. As the Bible points out, it takes experience to know how to compare spiritual things with spiritual things... so maybe I shouldn't be turning to a paleontologist or astrophysicist to evaluate spiritual truth claims. You see, I can accept their credentials in their field without the ability to actually issue those credentials. Your protestations aside, most scientists will to some degree discount my credentials in spiritual discernment, on grounds such as it not being a scientific field of study.

See what I mean about you saying that science has a higher standard of evidence? I disagree. I'm not tops in my field but I'll stack the rigor of my approach with that of any scientist. Do you continue to insist that scientists in general don't feel their realm is superior and must be given deference over spiritual models? That any spiritual person that sees science in that light is simply ill informed and purveyor of unfair stereotyping? Hmmm. Back to your 'higher' standards of evidence.

 

[tazz]

Do you continue to insist that scientists in general don't feel their realm is superior and must be given deference over spiritual models?

Oh I see what you mean now. I guess I wasn't very clear.

I think the record will show that when I wrote "a higher standard of evidence" it was in the context of someone presenting evidence to the scientific community for comparison against the scientific community's standards. Higher in that context meaning - by our standards, that's not good enough. This says nothing about how the same evidence might be judged by some other standard. That same evidence may well be judged to be very high quality compared to some other standard that assesses things differently - as you've rightly pointed out. It'd be like someone submitting a sculpture for a math exam and being told it's not up to standard, we're not giving you a math grade based on that. But take it to a sculpture exhibition - it might win first prize. That's sort of what I'm getting at.

I wasn't suggesting that the scientific community's standards are superior to everyone else's. Apologies if it came across that way.

 

[The Pandector]

@tazz said, 'go find out if it's true, publish your method and results.'
First, I'll point out that Christians - as well as those of other belief systems - do this on a very regular basis. Are you trying to say that the scientific community, in general, does not discount these reports as being subjective to the point of invalidity?

Which reports? Sorry I don't understand the question.

I'm referring to the millions of testimonies from rational people who have had life changing experiences, which testimonies are relegated to the 'self help' and 'religion' areas of the public book store, so to speak.

Example, shared before:
My wife was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer, was given 12 months to live, maybe 18 months. Her only hope was radical surgery combined with chemo and radiation, which improved her prognosis to a 20% chance of living five more years. She said 'pass'. She cut out stress and changed her diet; but her real tool was prayer and faith. She lived nine years without any real intervention.

I told the story so I could comment on what was by far the most common response from the many doctors we visited. Early on, they were generally indignant that their approaches were rejected by this uncooperative patient, making it clear that she was following a foolish path of destruction.

Five years later, the tone had changed, but not the mindset. By then, they were asking in subtly awed tones just what she was doing to fight the cancer. "I pray." "Yes, yes; medical science has discovered that prayer is generally good for your health. But, what are you DOING to fight the cancer?" We heard endless variations of this until her immune system finally gave in and she passed. Unavoidable conclusion: VERY few practicing medical professionals will accept that God has anything to do with healing.

There. I just re-published my method and results. My method was to speak with dozens of medical professionals over almost a decade concerning an immediate life-and-death issue. Nope; no scientifically validated questionnaires with controls and peer review. Just me and my wife, comparing notes after yet another interview with a doctor. (Neither of us was upset by it; Christians grow accustomed to being dismissed. It became an amusement to watch as they tried to sidestep the obvious realities of the situation.) Of course, this is all so very unscientific that it can never be used by any self-respecting scientist. For the extra eight very healthy and active years, I'm very glad that we followed the spiritual course, and not the 'scientific' one.

I was referring to that type of report.

BTW - I really appreciate your comment about conversations like this coming off as more strident or inflexible when done via text. I hope you'll understand that my own style suffers greatly from this, and to me this is a healthy and productive conversation.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Most science will not accept anecdotal evidence, but once you have had an out- of-body experience due to a stroke as an individual this goes out the window as it is now personal and private nothing to prove to others.

 

[The Pandector]

Oh I see what you mean now. I guess I wasn't very clear.

I think the record will show that when I wrote "a higher standard of evidence" it was in the context of someone presenting evidence to the scientific community for comparison against the scientific community's standards. Higher in that context meaning - by our standards, that's not good enough. This says nothing about how the same evidence might be judged by some other standard. That same evidence may well be judged to be very high quality compared to some other standard that assesses things differently - as you've rightly pointed out. It'd be like someone submitting a sculpture for a math exam and being told it's not up to standard, we're not giving you a math grade based on that. But take it to a sculpture exhibition - it might win first prize. That's sort of what I'm getting at.

I wasn't suggesting that the scientific community's standards are superior to everyone else's. Apologies if it came across that way.

Oops. My most recent post was started before you laid this out. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Which reports? Sorry I don't understand the question.

I'm referring to the millions of testimonies from rational people who have had life changing experiences, which testimonies are relegated to the 'self help' and 'religion' areas of the public book store, so to speak.

Example, shared before:
My wife was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer, was given 12 months to live, maybe 18 months. Her only hope was radical surgery combined with chemo and radiation, which improved her prognosis to a 20% chance of living five more years. She said 'pass'. She cut out stress and changed her diet; but her real tool was prayer and faith. She lived nine years without any real intervention.

I told the story so I could comment on what was by far the most common response from the many doctors we visited. Early on, they were generally indignant that their approaches were rejected by this uncooperative patient, making it clear that she was following a foolish path of destruction.

Five years later, the tone had changed, but not the mindset. By then, they were asking in subtly awed tones just what she was doing to fight the cancer. "I pray." "Yes, yes; medical science has discovered that prayer is generally good for your health. But, what are you DOING to fight the cancer?" We heard endless variations of this until her immune system finally gave in and she passed. Unavoidable conclusion: VERY few practicing medical professionals will accept that God has anything to do with healing.

There. I just re-published my method and results. My method was to speak with dozens of medical professionals over almost a decade concerning an immediate life-and-death issue. Nope; no scientifically validated questionnaires with controls and peer review. Just me and my wife, comparing notes after yet another interview with a doctor. (Neither of us was upset by it; Christians grow accustomed to being dismissed. It became an amusement to watch as they tried to sidestep the obvious realities of the situation.) Of course, this is all so very unscientific that it can never be used by any self-respecting scientist. For the extra eight very healthy and active years, I'm very glad that we followed the spiritual course, and not the 'scientific' one.

I was referring to that type of report.

BTW - I really appreciate your comment about conversations like this coming off as more strident or inflexible when done via text. I hope you'll understand that my own style suffers greatly from this, and to me this is a healthy and productive conversation.

Weird we typed our responses concurrently I saw yours just as I finished. Fit like hand and glove.

 

[tazz]

There. I just re-published my method and results. My method was to speak with dozens of medical professionals over almost a decade concerning an immediate life-and-death issue. Nope; no scientifically validated questionnaires with controls and peer review. Just me and my wife, comparing notes after yet another interview with a doctor. (Neither of us was upset by it; Christians grow accustomed to being dismissed. It became an amusement to watch as they tried to sidestep the obvious realities of the situation.) Of course, this is all so very unscientific that it can never be used by any self-respecting scientist. For the extra eight very healthy and active years, I'm very glad that we followed the spiritual course, and not the 'scientific' one.

EDIT: sorry, please be aware this post has been fairly heavily edited since I originally wrote it.

ok, so I think this is a good example. You may be correct that prayer had a big impact. But you'd need to collect a lot more evidence before anyone in the scientific community is going to take it seriously. That's not meant at all to be dismissive. The scientific community has its standards. By those standards this is very weak evidence. You say "There. I just re-published my method and results." but you haven't really published a method and results. There's no scientific method or results here, not even close. Even considering that the doctors did loads of tests. That's not sufficient either. It was presumably a rigorous piece of work, testing everything they could think of. But not rigorous in the sense of a scientific study. None of this (by scientific standards) suggests that you can conclude prayer made a difference.

Now bringing in @Ronald Zeeman's comment... personal and private nothing to prove to others. That's fine for you. But I'm trying to make sense of the world, because... I also have an incurable cancer. So this stuff matters. Your experience matters. @The Pandector's experience matters. Because it might influence what I do.

What I've got so far is the doctors telling me that millions of people in the trials lived longer with chemo vs you saying prayer helped and millions of others say the same. How do I know which is useful? Note: I'm not asking which one is correct. I'm just asking how do I make use of this information when I'm deciding what treatment I should go for? My feeling is that this is where the scientific method gives me something more concrete to work with. It attempts to connect length of survival with some specific actions, and it tries to rule out other causes. Whereas the results you're presenting me with weren't so rigorously produced and there's not such a strong connection between action and result.

BTW - I really appreciate your comment about conversations like this coming off as more strident or inflexible when done via text. I hope you'll understand that my own style suffers greatly from this, and to me this is a healthy and productive conversation.

Yeah it does - I thought you were getting quite angry for a moment. But yeah, I had to remind myself of my own advice.

 

[The Pandector]

Sincere apologies.

BTW - I really appreciate your comment about conversations like this coming off as more strident or inflexible when done via text. I hope you'll understand that my own style suffers greatly from this, and to me this is a healthy and productive conversation.

Yeah it does - I thought you were getting quite angry for a moment. But yeah, I had to remind myself of my own advice.

Never had an angry or even perturbed thought. I'm aware that I express myself in a strident manner, but when I want to be specific, that's the way it turns out. I'm learning better in person, but in writing I suck. A flaw I expect to die with.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

The strangest thing that has happened to me so far is a friend had an aneurism near his heart heavy smoker knew his life was very limited we chatted told him about my views on general relativity and quantum mechanics and how both supported life after death in different ways. agreed after he passed, he would try to let me know if it was true passed a week later, So far now message. it was a joke at the time we both had a good laugh. in other word lets not get to
serious.

 

[The Pandector]

ok, so this is a good example. There's no way at all that what you're describing is sufficiently detailed to make the scientific community put a huge amount of effort into studying prayer. You may be correct that it had a big impact. But you'd need to collect a lot more evidence before anyone's going to take it seriously. Getting anecdotes from another 5000 people who all say the same or similar thing would help - sure. But it's still 5000 examples of unsupported anecdotes. Unfortunately, that's still nowhere near rigorous enough to be taken seriously. You'd also need to have some context such as how many people prayed and didn't survive. How many people didn't take the medical treatment, didn't pray and did survive. And for each group you'd need controlled environments so that cause could be established. And so much more. That's not meant at all to be dismissive. The scientific community has its standards. By those standards this is very weak evidence. You say "There. I just re-published my method and results." which I take as a comparison to what I was saying about the scientific method. But you haven't really published a method and results. There's no scientific method or results here, not even close. Even considering that the doctors did loads of tests. That's not sufficient either. It was presumably a rigorous piece of work, testing everything they could think of. But not rigorous in the sense of a scientific study. None of this (by scientific standards) suggests that you can conclude prayer made a difference. None of that suggests that the scientific world is being unreasonably dogmatic or dismissing what you're saying unfairly.

Now bringing in @Ronald Zeeman's comment... personal and private nothing to prove to others. That's fine for you. But I'm trying to make sense of the world, because... I also have an incurable cancer. So this stuff matters. Your experience matters. @The Pandector's experience matters. Because it might influence what I do. That's why evidence that can be communicated to others matters. Saying it's personal isn't useful to me. Saying that you personally have an understanding that God did whatever, isn't useful to me. That's why the scientific method was invented. So we could come up with useful theories (not necessarily correct ones) and share the information. Useful in this context meaning: if we do this, then we'll get that result. If I pray I'll live longer.

Someone else could tell me "don't pray, it'll shorten your life, that's what happened to my wife". How do I figure out which person is telling me something useful?


Yeah it does - I thought you were getting quite angry for a moment. But yeah, I had to remind myself of my own advice.

Sorry to hear of your personal situation, @tazz . I would have picked another example had I known. But now I know you understand the immediacy of that situation.

I agree with your assessment of the scientific value of my story. It's a prime example of the scientific method (and its progeny) failing to accept pertinent data. Not meaning scientifically pertinent, which it isn't; rather, pertinent to life.

But let me address this other thing. Our conversation lacks the context of the spiritual life (which is not to judge whether or not you personally are spiritual, which I wouldn't know; our conversation here hasn't mentioned it.) So I'll continue to use my previous example for discussion's sake.

My wife and I agreed in general concerning medical intervention in general. But when she was diagnosed I stayed outside of her deliberations except as invited in particular. I supported her in prayer but didn't lead her in prayer, which was her decision-making process. When she quit her job and started spending our savings on juicing (pretty expensive, especially if you only use all-natural produce), I was alarmed but still supportive. Because my assumption was that God was answering our prayers that he give her guidance, and that was the Lord's answer to her. Good and bad scientific reports came and went, but she stayed the course. This was not our first faith rodeo.

Trying to look at it from an objective spiritual perspective...
A spiritual woman was left alone to reason through her response to the diagnosis. Her key tools were her prayer and my supportive prayer, which prayer is enlightened by the spiritual truths found in the Bible. She arrived at a course of action and presented it to me. I admit to having financial concerns, but never doubted she was on the right path. This amounts to two Christians in complete agreement, even though the plan was entirely outside what science demanded. I am asserting here that, when two mature Christians are involved, this is a very important data point. A separate data point is that neither of us ever wavered through the years. Another set of data points was her unflagging vitality until near the end. These things mean nothing to a scientist, but are critical to the spiritual person.

(Not a separate story...)
When my wife was early in her first pregnancy, she became very concerned about it being born with spina bifida. The Lord told her to pray that the baby would be healed, and pray she did. Thinking myself a man of faith, I nevertheless pointed out to her that she had no reason whatsoever to expect or fear such a thing, a point supported by multiple scientists/doctors we spoke with. Beyond prayer, she began collecting information on spina bifida and what it means to have a child with it. I didn't suggest she shouldn't pray as directed, but felt no call to pray that way on my own. When the baby was born, he was inspected and pronounced healthy. Upon hearing that, my wife asked anyway... did the baby have spina bifida? One nurse said no, but the doctor took the baby and turned him over. There was a quarter-sized dimple at the base of his spine, barely covered with the thinnest layer of skin. That deep dimple exists to this day. Doctor asked why she would even ask the question, and she told him the Lord had warned her, which he shook his head at but pronounced the child healthy.

If these were the only two examples of spiritual guidance in our lives, it might be enough for me. But I could go on for many pages. These two examples are related because the first one was a lesson to me about listening to spiritual truth. When she was diagnosed with cancer, faith in health issues was a long-settled matter... not because of blind faith or because of belief, but because a lifetime of experience had proven it effective. Maybe I could have cut this short by saying that pursuit of spiritual truth is a learned skill. Just as you could follow a voice in a pitch-dark room, you can learn to follow a spiritual trail.

Anyway, I just wanted to provide a context. While it looks to the scientist as though there are no reliable signs, the spiritual traveler recognizes them and knows to rely on them.

 

[Hypnalis]

I agree with your assessment of the scientific value of my story. It's a prime example of the scientific method (and its progeny) failing to accept pertinent data. Not meaning scientifically pertinent, which it isn't; rather, pertinent to life.

I don't think this is consistent with post #66.

My reading of your earlier post was that they looked for any indication of a measurable and testable "cause and effect" mechanism they could apply the "scientific method" to, and couldn't find one.

At that point a normal hospital should stop.

That isn't disproof of course - but to apply the scientific method you need not only a hypothesis, but also a means to test it.

You could probably tease out some useful information from a huge trial looking at many thousands of participants and measuring for many different things, including prayer, but you could buy a medium-sized modern hospital with the kind of money such a trial would cost.

NB: you see a lot of new information these days that comes from re-analyzing multiple old, originally independent studies. i.e. the techniques (IT and statistical) are already available. But you need the right kind of raw data - not easy with e.g. prayer, but not impossible if there's enough data.

So I'm not saying it has to be difficult and expensive. But if it had to be started from scratch it would be expensive and take many years.

 

[The Pandector]

I don't think this is consistent with post #66.

My reading of your earlier post was that they looked for any indication of a measurable and testable "cause and effect" mechanism they could apply the "scientific method" to, and couldn't find one.

At that point a normal hospital should stop.

That isn't disproof of course - but to apply the "scientific method" you need not only a hypothesis, but also a means to test it.

You could probably tease out some useful information from a huge trial looking at many thousands of participants and measuring for many different things, including prayer, but you could buy a medium-sized modern hospital with the kind of money such a trial would cost.

I think I see your point, but can't understand how my statements are inconsistent.

Maybe you take it that I was suggesting my little example was a substitute for the scientific method. Not at all. Rather, it was intended to show the limitations of the scientific method, which you point out that they were unable to apply because it falls outside their realm.

Not to dismiss your comment, I just don't see the inconsistency so can't respond.

 

[Hypnalis]

I actually I wrote a more direct version, but changed my approach, since I hadn't read the whole discussion.

But we probably agree about the limitations of the scientific method.
It's intrinsically limited to the "objective world". Of course there's a grey area which changes over time, but as a general rule the scientific method isn't very effective in the "subjective world".

But it's not intended to be.

I think when it was developed, people were a lot more comfortable with spirituality than they are today. And that they had no problem accepting that both existed side by side. I don't think that's as true these days as it was in the 1600's.

Naturally a certain amount of tension has always been there:
Galileo affair - Wikipedia ("And yet it moves" / "Eppur si muove" (apocryphal))
but mostly it happened when observable facts bumped into something that an organized religion had unwisely made up to suit themselves

FWIW (and speaking as an atheist myself), I don't see any value in "high temperature" disputes between science and religion. But it's always possible to find a way to get along through patience and negotiation. The patience can be a problem though /sigh. "O tempora, o mores!"

 

[tazz]

So what I take from that is that ultimately the basis of spiritual truth as you present it is god telling you stuff (or specifically in these examples telling things to your wife). All your data points are derived from that, one way or another. God said do this. You did it. There was an outcome. From what I can see, that's enough for you to make a causal link.

You're reassured that there's a causal connection because lots of other people also said they did what god said, and there was an outcome, and they made a causal connection. You call that a data point. I call it a somewhat circular argument.

You're also reassured that there's a causal connection because, well, you made the same assumption many times in the past. You call that another data point. I call it a self-fulfilling argument.

When I first went into remission, I was told to plan for 2 or 3 years of healthy life and then I'd need more treatment. The doc said sometimes it's a lot more although we don't know why. It turned out to be about 6 years. So, what caused the extended duration of remission? The doctors don't know. And I'm not bold enough to claim that I know.

I feel like this somehow needs to be brought back round to the original purpose of the thread: The Autistic "Rationale-dependant" thinking style. I'm struggling though. Maybe I would just reiterate what I wrote a little while back: if autistic brains think in black and white inflexible ways, a tendency towards the scientific method seems naturally compatible with such a brain, as does a tendency towards revealed truth. The grey area stretching between these modalities and others like them doesn't immediately strike me as a place that would be comfortable for autistic people. But I'm just guessing.

Overall I think this was an interesting digression and I'm pleased we were able to do such a deep dive without anyone falling out (notwithstanding this latest comment).

 

[tazz]

@The Pandector Sorry to hear about your wife. Sorry you had to go through that. I have no problems with you raising this as a topic - I'm quite ok about my cancer diagnosis. I mean it sucks, but I don't think I'm traumatised by it. I find it equal parts interesting and irritating.

 

[The Pandector]

@tazz said,
"All your data points are derived from that, one way or another."

Yeah, I saw that coming and tried but failed to respond. One or two spooky stories from someone you never laid eyes on has no impact. That's why I tried to supply some context. Similar stories from the very start and at the very end of a 40-year relationship. They are not a romantic voyage we lived one year, but rather serve as endcaps to a lifetime of such as that. Foolish to think I could sum that up with a few narratives.

But I think you undervalue the actual life impact (not saying the scientific validity) when you say that 'I'm satisfied with that'. As if it were a tidbit. I could wish on you such a tidbit, my friend. There is so much more to a life of faith than being obedient to an inner voice. We're gifted and given a job to do; how we go after that task is purely a matter of art, but the correct response will be consistent with the Scriptures. That's also a limited view, but from a better vantage point.

Dittos to your comments on the pleasant deep dive.

 

[tazz]

There is so much more to a life of faith than being obedient to an inner voice

Likewise - I saw that coming. Fair point.