DDD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2012
- Messages
- 12,351
- Reaction score
- 1,918
- Location
- Republic of Dardania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And yet history is practically nothing but anecdotal evidence.
Wrong, they may be supported from actual empirical evidence. Usually archeology is involved in supporting history on it's claims.
Lincoln's assassination, Washington crossing the Delaware, Edison's words when the first telephone worked, etc. Individual events are unique and singular.
Further, unlike religion, history does not claims that what happened then is still happening now. Lincoln is no longer being assassinated. Washington no longer crosses the Delaware. Edison is no longer having his first words on the telephone.
What religion does is use anecdotal evidence and claim "God intervened back then. Thereby it exists now also." Just because people say it happened the statement is no longer supported from with actual empirical evidence. There was none back then neither.
They are not repeatable, at least not in the sense that they can be duplicated scientifically. A walk in the woods by yourself and spotting a buck with a unheard of number of tines (is that the correct word?). How do you repeat that? You can never guarantee that such an event can be repeated and yet that buck's existence is reality.
That the woods and walking exists can be repeated. We can have such an experience and provide actual empirical evidence of their existence. The buck's existence can also be supported by actual empirical data. People can take pictures or capture the buck and invite others to see it's existence there and then.
Wish God would do the same? But where is it? Huh? Where!? In same anecdotal evidence written some 2000 years ago and no more?
What seems to be hinted though is that life cannot be duplicated. Life is experienced phenomenologically and as the ancient philosophers said: Cannot cross the same river twice.
Now anecdotal evidence and history does not helps support the religious cause. The latest area for the religious to grab and exploit possible ways to push their purpose for charity and political benefits may be the next scientific and philosophical theory of phenomenology.
If so, I suggest to keep the non existent God concept within people's phenomenological area and stop shoving the concept to other people's throats. Furthermore if placed there then phenomenology is an individualistic matter, there would be no need for others to preach and benefit from other people's phenomenological statements that are unsupported from actual empirical data.