GASLIGHTING - WHEN SOMETHING IS PUT OUTSIDE THE REALM OF TESTING AND VERIFICATION ---
A claim that cannot be tested is no good for it can be denied or ignored as
easily as it can be endorsed! Unless a theory tells you what it takes to
refute it, it is not a theory but a doctrine. Religion goes on as if no
evil can show God cannot exist or cannot love us so God does not deserve to be
dignified as a belief never mind a theory. It is not exactly a lie but
still dishonest.
The claimants are trying to take advantage of others because nobody has the right to say a claim is the truth or to be taken seriously just because they say so regardless of what evidence is there or not.
What cannot be tested to see if it is true or probably true is no good. Such a test implies you are testing to see if it is false or probably false. To test to see if something is true is also to test to see if it is false.
To assert there is a God means you have to admit there is
a way that God can be refuted. Those who claim to have faith in God or religion
end up with a faith that cannot be shown to be false. For example, they would
say God is good even if all creatures were in Hell forever. This is not about
faith or evidence but prejudice and obstinacy. On the ethical side, it is simply
bad to argue that nothing that happens to another is bad enough to disprove a
loving God. You have no right to do that when you are not going to be one
of those creatures in Hell. The best beliefs and the best people are open
to being shown to be wrong. Putting a belief outside the reach of the truth and
the evidence is a sign that you are insincere and not a servant of truth.
Hypothetically, if the person might be sincere you cannot be expected to know or
think that they are. You have to address what looks like prejudice and bigotry.
When say a Muslim commits terrible atrocities in the name of religion, the
believer and his enablers might say that no true Muslim does such things. And
they will say it again if worse atrocities are committed by another Muslim. They
are putting the dark side of religion outside the realm of testability and
identification. They do not care about the consequences - they just want to seem
too nice to see the bad in any religionist.
Making something unfalsifiable is a necessary ingredient if you intend to engage
in a terrible form of abuse and manipulation called gaslighting. This is where
you influence others so that their perception of reality is impaired. For
example, if you want to get society to respect and endorse someone evil, you may
spread confusion about morality among them so that they become more susceptible
to your influence. This form of abuse tends to keep the gaslighter safe for he
or she is looked up to and his or her schemes are hard to uncover.
Gaslighting is when you stop a person trusting in reality. It is the ultimate
form of abuse for it has the biggest chance of putting the person permanently in
a haze. The person becomes a thing to be used by the gaslighter and is unable to
see how to help themselves or that they should help themselves. Gaslighting
tends to make the victim feel good enough and happy enough which in fact further
enables the manipulation and makes recovery from gaslighting even harder. And
gaslighting to be successful has to start off small and gradually come between
the person and his or her place in reality. The victim is out of touch with
reality and to the degree that he or she is out of touch, there is a risk of
depression. Depression can be caused by instilling a sense of helplessness in
the person.
Religion is fond of gaslighting. It encourages children and the vulnerable to
believe what it wants. When they believe, all the evidence they see is seen
through that psychological filter. They do not see evidence and truth as they
really are. The Catholic Eucharist depends on non falsification. The blessed
wafer is supposed to be a living thing, a living man, Jesus. When it seems no
different from any other wafer that is not blessed, excuses are made. Namely,
its inner reality is changed but what appears to the senses remains the same.
With such a doctrine you can sell lead and say it is really gold. That even
Catholics would not tolerate you saying that you have faith that the lead has
been turned into gold shows they are into religion out of habit more than
anything else. Surely if they can say a wafer is a man you can believe another
version of that and have lead being gold. Stating doctrines so that nothing can
disprove them is a form of gaslighting - indeed its ultimate form!
The gaslighter gives you doctrines and principles in such a way that you will
feel that questioning them or doubting them is pointless. The gaslighter tells
you the emperor is wearing fabric so fine that you cannot see or touch or sense
it. And the truth is that the emperor is wearing nothing.
If somebody creates a theory in such a way that it cannot be tested then it is
useless. For example, if you pray to God to be able to live a perfect life and
it does not happen, God did not help you. But religion will say he did - he
helped you by not helping you. They say he has a mysterious purpose that we
cannot fathom. God if he exists should be more to us than a theory but he should
be a force that is active in our lives. If there is no evidence for that force,
if we have to invent excuses for why we are not better people than what we are
despite asking God to make us good, then instead of believing that God exists,
we simply guess that he does.
To simply assume that God has a purpose for the bad things that happen to you,
is flippant. If you truly respect a person, you will not even think there is a
purpose unless you are reasonably sure.
It is said that the atheists can play the falsification game too. They can
dismiss miracles and all the evidence for God (we are assuming such evidence
really exists). If an atheist sees a statue of Jesus coming to life that talks
to him and has tea with him for a few hours, he will reason that it was some
trick of the mind or a temporary mental illness that caused the experience.
Nothing will make him think that the experience was real. It is made
unfalsifiable.
Christians who believe the Bible, claim that the universe is only about 6,000
years old and that the devil planted all the evidence to the contrary. By
blaming Satan's supernatural power, they put their claim outside of the reach of
evidence and reason. Their doctrine is really a guess not a belief. Evidence is
good for nothing at all if Satan can tamper with it. Belief needs evidence - you
cannot believe in anything unless you believe that evidence helps in the search
for truth. An atheist can just be as bad. He might say the world is 6,000 years
old as the evidence that it is astronomically more than that is fake. He may not
say the fakery is supernatural but down to some undiscovered scientific reason.
The Christians and the atheists who stop admitting that evidence and truth are
valuable and useful will soon lose motivation for seeking truth and adopting
beliefs that are in harmony with reason and evidence. They are the enemies of
progress.
Making the non-supernatural unfalsifiable is not in the same league as making
the supernatural falsifiable.
One reason is if you make the non-supernatural unfalsifiable, there are risks
and problems and the chance of erring is huge - that is bad enough. Don't make
it worse by assuming there is a supernatural. There is too much as it is to make
unfalsifiable without doing that. If we are going to deflect falsification to
make assumptions then at least we should try to use the explanations that seem
the most mundane and the simplest and avoid guessing that some hidden or
supernatural powers exist.
Another reason is that you cannot test the supernatural with sense experience
the way you can the non-supernatural.
* Non-supernatural scenario - the gaslighter tells you to drink poison for it
will do you good not harm period. If you drink the poison and get very ill, the
gaslighter will be proven wrong.
* Supernatural scenario - the gaslighter tells you to drink poison for it will
do you good not harm as long as you believe enough. If you drink poison and get
very ill, the gaslighter will say you did not believe enough. Thus he makes you
see the proof that he was a liar as something else - a proof that you need to
believe enough for it to work. He does this by implying that belief has the
magical power or supernatural power to make the poison affect you favourably
like a vitamin tonic would. Nothing can really prove he is a liar. But for
practical reasons, we judge him as a liar. We assume the supernatural is
nonsense and behave and think accordingly. We know what kind of world would
result if people believed or tolerated all supernatural claims. We know the risk
of gaslighting has to be considered, so we simply refuse to enable that risk. We
refuse by dropping the supernatural as a possible explanation. Even if it is, we
do not want to think about that. And we shouldn't.
If something cannot be falsified then the inability to falsify is a necessary
evil. If you cannot prove something wrong, there is a danger that you may think
it is right when it is not right. This risks error and error harms truth and
risks your wellbeing and that of those who are inspired by you. Error makes
people spend money and time and suffer to fix it down the line.
Ideas and beliefs or assumptions that cannot be disproven or at least shown
improbable are necessary evils which means you keep them to the lowest minimum
possible if it is not possible to avoid them completely. Also, try to stick to
the ones that are minor. Major ones need to be avoided if possible.
God is the major assumption. Belief in God is an unnecessary evil. You cannot
say God is right to let people suffer so terribly when belief in God is an
unnecessary evil.
To assume the existence of an all-perfect and
all-powerful God and evil are not necessarily contradictory is to assume no evil
is great enough or bad enough to prove only an evil God could allow it to
happen. But it is up to evidence to tell you that. You cannot just
assume it. People really suffer. It is as insulting to assume as it
is to assume that nobody really suffers much but only acts as if they do.
It evil to declare a question that demands evidence to be satisfied with an
assumption.
We conclude that if God or the supernatural cannot be disproven, that is
actually a reason not to believe in them. Occam's Razor warns you that if
theory a is the most straightforward way to account for the evidence then use it
and not theory b which is good but is a bit more difficult. The Razor is
what tells you that you really are active in the real world now. It says it is
not a demon putting dreams in your head. It is not schizophrenia making you
think you are in the real world. There is no reason to accept any possibility
than that your life and world are real because saying otherwise is
unfalsifiable. Focus on unfalsifiable.