[crgt]

"> So, in the sense that you "allow for the possibility of the reality" of karma, do you similarly "allow for the possibility of the reality" of unicorns? Yes? No? Care to answer that? Although I technically permit the possibility of either, in the sense that I recognize the limitations of knowledge, I nevertheless reject both in practice. Do you? Are they on equal footing? A rational adult rejects childish fairytale creatures, and a rational adult similarly rejects karma."

I thought I covered your Y/N on unicorns with my answer about Planet Leprechaun. But, sure, Planet Unicorn is equally plausible.

Incidentally, the millions of Buddhists in the world would be amused to know that none of them are "rational".

As an aside, I'd argue that there's more evidence for karma than there is for unicorns or leprechauns. At its core, karma is the idea of cause and effect. Actions have consequences. This is entirely consistent with much of what we think we know about the world.

[jlgreco]

If karma exists, then it can be measured. It has not been measured.

> I thought I covered your Y/N on unicorns with my answer about Planet Leprechaun. But, sure, Planet Unicorn is equally plausible.

> Incidentally, the millions of Buddhists in the world would be amused to know that none of them are "rational".

I submit that where this a discussion about Saint Patrick's Day, and somebody described the origin of Leprechauns and in the process offhandedly referred to them as a fiction, you would not object. You would not even think of objecting. Objecting would never cross your mind.

You are only objecting here because you become uncomfortable when religion enters the picture. Millions of adults believe in karma and call it religion so you are willing to be obnoxious about epistemology, but in conversations where religion is not hinted at, you would not even consider objecting.

[crgt]

"If it exists, it can be measured."

So the new tarantula they discovered yesterday didn't exist until it had been measured?

Regarding the rest of your claim - I certainly do not become uncomfortable when religion enters the picture - I was a philosophy major, have experimented with the practice of a variety of religions, etc.

I seek truth, for myself and others. A prematurely closed mind strikes me as an obstacle to this endeavor. So I spoke up. Perhaps that was a mistake?

Regardless, I think we understand each other - you believe you know that karma is no more plausibly real than unicorns or leprechauns. I believe that this claim is unfounded. You think that this makes me insane/irrational. Have I got it right?

[eurleif]

>So the new tarantula they discovered yesterday didn't exist until it had been measured?

"Can be measured", not "has been". But if someone had claimed to know of the existence of a tarantula with the specific characteristics that species has, and it had not yet been observed (not even by the person claiming to know about it), that person would be crazy. That they were right would be a coincidence.

What leads you to believe that karma is more plausible than unicorns and leprechauns?

[crgt]

jlgreco noted above that karma has not been measured, and implied that this meant that it didn't exist. The tarantula example was intended as a response to that claim.

Regarding your supposed coincidence - how does predicting karma differ from predicting the Higgs? Until recently, the Higgs previously had never been directly measured, and now it seems that it has been. It's a coincidence that they found what they were looking for? That stretches credulity. I wonder why the prediction of karma would be any different than any of the predictions made by Western science.

As for why I believe karma is more plausible than unicorns, well, to answer that question I do think it is important to be clear what we mean by karma, in order to get at what I find plausible. There are many different specific definitions for karma with more nuance than we likely want to dig into here, but the core idea, as I said above, is the idea of cause and effect. Perhaps the biggest difference between the karmic notion of cause and effect and our Western ideas of cause and effect is the idea that our intentions matter in determining the consequences of our actions. Why does this seem plausible to me? Well, it has been my experience that intentions do matter, and can often result in real world effects. How specifically does this happen? I'm not sure. But magnetism worked before we understood why. As did gravity. So it's plausible to me that karma (insofar as it is understood as the intentions of our actions having real consequences) could operate before we understand (or can measure) why. Is this certain? As I've said, no. But it certainly seems plausible that intent matters.

On the other hand, if by karma you mean the idea that our actions and intentions will result in a specific kind of rebirth, well, that's perhaps less plausible to me than the more generalized notion. But I'm certainly not willing to declare it Not The Case.

[jlgreco]

> how does predicting karma differ from predicting the Higgs?

With which model have you predicted the existence of karma? What rigorous experiments have supported the assumptions and prior predictions of this model? Is there a "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the 'Eastern Sciences'" I can look to?

> Well, it has been my experience

Human experience, without very careful treatment, is as near to worthless as you can get. You should know that. Seriously dude, this is elementary.

> But magnetism worked before we understood why. As did gravity.

The effects of gravity and magnetism can be observed. They were conclusively observed well before they were explained. Karma however has never been explained NOR observed. The effects of karma exist only in the fevered imaginations of lunatics and the delusionally religious. If it objectively exists in reality then it, like magnetism or gravity, could be independently measured in an empirical fashion, even if explanation escapes us.

> "you believe you know that karma is no more plausibly real than unicorns or leprechauns. I believe that this claim is unfounded. You think that this makes me insane/irrational. Have I got it right?"

Yeah, it seems like you have that about right. I feel like I am talking to losethos here or something. What evidence have you for justifying your assessment of the plausibility of karma? Your "feels" do not count; if you want karma to be taken seriously alongside proper science, then do the fucking legwork. Otherwise just admit that it is your own wishful thinking and delusion.

> "but the core idea, as I said above, is the idea of cause and effect."

Bullshit. The core idea is a self-leveling system of cause and effects governed by some universal system of ethics. I deny no pedestrian cause and effect reality, only apparently supernatural systems governed by some system of ethics.

> "have experimented with the practice of a variety of religions"

For reasons that should be obvious to all, this does not inspire the confidence that you seem to think it should. Furthermore, you have entirely misinterpreted what I have said. I am not accusing you of being uncomfortable around religion, but rather being uncomfortable around criticism of religion in its entirety. You are "white knight"ing religion. You ascribe it importance without justification.

[crgt]

-- The model is called Buddhism.

-- Here you say human experience is as worthless as it gets. Earlier you said that our sensory experience is the foundation of all reality. Which is it?

-- The question I was asked was why do I consider karma plausible. My feelings do in fact count on that score.

Beyond that, I get the sense that you're just trolling me at this point, so I'm done now. Like I said, I think we understand each other. Good luck.

[eurleif]

>At its core, karma is the idea of cause and effect. Actions have consequences. This is entirely consistent with much of what we think we know about the world.

At its core, a unicorn is a mammal. A warm-blooded animal which nurses its young. This is entirely consistent with much of what we think we know about the world.

[laureny]

> Incidentally, the millions of Buddhists in the world would be amused to know that none of them are "rational".

Why stop at Budhists? Billions of religious people would probably be amused to know that none of them are rational.

It's still a fact: religious people are not rational: they have faith, which is by definition, a belief that is not supported by reason nor evidence.