LIVED EXPERIENCE AND GOD AND YOUR RIGHT TO DEFINE YOU
Today we talk about lived experience. This is the concept of standpoint epistemology.
With lived experience it is held that,
-Natural justice
-Compassion
-Empathy
-The evidence given by others about you
counts for very little or even nothing.
Only you gets to decide if what somebody says to you or does to you is abuse. So you are likely to find anybody disagreeing with you to be guilty of hate. The hate may be seen as a hate crime or a crime in some other sense.
Now nobody can convey exactly who they are to another. Even someone looking into your thoughts for a day still does not know much. Those who say they know you are exaggerating. Society cannot function without pretending we know others well. In fact, we make assumptions and deductions that seem to be shown true enough of the time. That does not amount to really knowing.
Also, if you throw a dice for a thousand years and it keeps giving you six, that does not mean the next time you throw it that it will be a six or even probably a six. Get your head around that.
Standpoint epistemology does make one act like a solipsist. It means the justice system cannot punish you fairly. Why? Because even if Tom, Dick and Harriet saw you kill Josephine they are not the punishers. Logically only those who know you committed the crime can do that but that is not what happens. The bad terrifying and chaotic results of endorsing standpoint epistemology on a wide scale have nothing to do with invalidating it. The world will burn up one day. You don't want to think that but that does not make it any less true.
Thus standpoint epistemology is irrefutable and valid. It is of extreme importance to the self-aware atheist. Lived experience can develop your atheism and your right to own only you.
See what happens when I reread the above and bring God into it. Now we are talking about justice as God has supposedly set it up and his compassion and his empathy. And his assessment or judgement of you.
With lived experience it is held that,
-Natural justice
-Compassion
-Empathy
-The evidence given by God about you
counts for very little or even nothing.
It clearly supposes that a God should be defied or that there is none. Or that I matter and either way God does not have any value. Those promoting God to me are violating me.
Only you gets to decide if what God says to you or does to you is abuse. So you are likely to find his disagreeing with you to be hate. The hate may be seen as a hate crime or a crime in some other sense.
If you have concerns about standpoint epistemology, and even if you think it is stupid, what of God? It is definitely valid then.
If you have to waive individualism for the sake of society you do not have to do this for a God. God by definition needs nothing from you. He has no right.
That is God so what of those who speak for a God and who think he has authorised them? Don't need them. Throw the Bible out.
Should we consider this to be advocating the experiential fallacy? Well some say we are no better than those who say that teachers should not mention Mount Everest in class unless they have been on the mountain. We could be told we should say nothing about the dead man who climbed it for it is only he who can talk about it?
Hmmm! So unless you are God you cannot talk about God. So unless you are Jesus you cannot talk about his suffering etc.
In fact, with God the fallacy is not a fallacy.
