Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 16 of 55 (562769)
06-01-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-31-2010 3:45 PM


I promise I'll treat this topic seriously
1) What form do these experiences take? I am not asking anyone to reveal the intimate dealings that they have with their chosen deity. I am simply asking what the broad nature of these experiences consists of. Visions? Voices? Feelings of euphoria? Feelings of enlightenment? What?
As someone who doesn't believe in supernatural nonsense, I thought it might be interesting to relate that I did have the unnerving experience of hearing voices only a couple of weeks ago.
I was scuba diving at the time and as such it could almost certainly be attributed to some kind of hallucinations - a well-known symptom of narcosis that can affect divers. We were at a depth of about 25 metres and fighting against a very strong current and I really thought I heard someone in distress calling my name. The voice sounded crystal clear and I heard my name called several times. I was really convinced someone was calling me and actually looked around to see where it was coming from. For a moment I was very anxious (another symptom of narcosis) but I soon came out of this state. I emphasise that we had absolutely no equipment to enable voice communication - there is no way I could have heard a real voice.
I just submit this to demonstrate how real and convincing such voices can sound. It's easy to see how people could conclude there must be some supernatural cause if they don't know of any other explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2010 3:45 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 55 (562772)
06-01-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Modulous
06-01-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Evidence of aGod
Modulous writes:
I don't think it is *merely* a question of degree, though that is definitely in play.
Certainly, our minds are much too complex and interdependent to have an emotion or sensation cranked to extremes without interacting with other elements of our psyche. What I was getting at is that classes of these various intense emotional phenomenon may be directly related to particular abnormal activity in specific areas of the brain. While the regular tingle of being watched hardly compares to all-consuming paranoia, the root of both might be the malfunction of the same area of the brain.
The fact that a stronger manifestation of this abnormality results in stronger involvement from other areas of the psyche shouldn't lend some metaphysical weight to the event.
Modulous writes:
Maybe, but I think giving them a sub-name is just as useful as anything.
Certainly. Having different terms for red and blue is important, but it shouldn't distract from them both being colors. The problem I see us encountering is that some consider red = religious experience and blue = normal experience, with no clear dividing line where the spectrum turns supernatural (or accompanying explanation why).
Modulous writes:
Not much more we can do here.
Unfortunately agreed, but if impracticality has a place it is in philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2010 12:23 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 18 of 55 (562783)
06-01-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phage0070
06-01-2010 2:01 AM


Re: Four from the archives.
Phage writes:
1) You looked for your gloves for miles down the road. You were having doubts about your ability to find them, likely even before 5 miles into the search. Every empty stretch of road wasn't evidence against God existing; even were you to never find those gloves (like the many things I am sure you have lost across the years) you wouldn't take it as proof of God not existing. When you spot the gloves, which are marked with reflective labels precisely to increase your ability to do just that, you retroactively interpret your pressing on in the face of doubt as a supernatural voice in your head.
The task at hand isn't to rewrite what was written but to address the story as received. In the story as received, a voice that is considered distinctly different to my own voice is heard prior to my finding my gloves. That's the sequence.
Now, if I'd not found my gloves I might have a puzzlement about why this other voice occurred - it in itself would be an unusual thing to experience.
I'm not suggesting you believe - just that you deal with the story as described.
-
2) PaulK never runs out of gas even without a meter (apparently). First of all, if you have no meter you are going to be much more careful about regularly picking up gasoline. If you drive for a while you will go to fill up again, so your chances of hitting empty are rather slim due to your natural reaction to prevent it.
But lets suppose he did run out of gasoline several times, and sometimes he was close to a station and sometimes not. Would he have concluded that God didn't exist because he wasn't saved from running out of gas? I somehow doubt it, and he would be claiming divine intervention in how he never seemed to get an empty ketchup bottle in the local diner.
Again, you seem to have missed the thrust of the story. Let's forget about what PaulK would or wouldn't do and deal with the story to hand. 7 times (lets' say) running out of petrol yet each time rolling onto a forecourt. It's a simply matter of calculating odds. And those odds are stacked against such a thing happening.
But it could of course be chance. Anything can happen once the odds aren't infinitely against it happening.
-
3) Your mother's friend was looking for a sign; any sign which would back up her preconceptions. "One day, not so long after..." is not a particularly definite period of time; it could have been weeks after her conversion. During this span she is looking for any type of coincidence that she judges as having a low enough probability to carry supernatural meaning. She finally finds it in litter from a mass-produced product easily and often scattered over the local area.
It is like saying "This person I know accidentally dropped their half-finished Coke bottle off the bridge, and then when we came home that evening we saw an empty Coke bottle along our curb! *GASP*, its GOD!" Not only is it not particularly astonishing that that exact type of balloon was similarly lost, but there is also a wide area in which it could be found. It didn't even have to be that day; any time during that week she could have found the balloon, perhaps at her parking place at work, or her child's school.
A fair enough application of skeptism.
-
4) Your sisters are going through everything your father had in his house, for several weeks. They are consistently emotional and particularly prone toward religious or spiritual interpretations of experiences. At some point, after searching through the entire house for several days, one of your sisters finds your father's will.
Was every stack of papers or box of belongings they searched proof that God didn't exist? Is it truly that astonishing that they would have found the will at some point? If they hadn't ever found a will, would they have concluded God didn't exist... or just that your father didn't write a will?
Again, you seem to be adjusting the story to suit your position (in a flowerly embellished sort of way). You need to deal with what she says occured as if it occurred as she says it. The house hadn't by any means been turned upside down in the search for a will at that point. There were simply stacks of rolls of unexamined paper one of which she felt her hand guided to.
-
The most telling thing from all these experiences is that they are utterly devoid of any actual indication of supernatural origin. Their occurrence does not in any was indicate that a god exists, or that a god was necessarily required for such things to happen. Even were these things extraordinarily unlikely to occur, being unlikely does not imply that it was caused supernaturally.
The aim wasn't to demonstrate supernatural origin, the aim was that these stories lasted longer than a snowball in hell. Given your reliance on re-writing them to suit your position, it seems I've had some success.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phage0070, posted 06-01-2010 2:01 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phage0070, posted 06-02-2010 12:25 AM iano has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 55 (562815)
06-02-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by iano
06-01-2010 3:32 PM


Re: Four from the archives.
iano writes:
The task at hand isn't to rewrite what was written but to address the story as received. In the story as received, a voice that is considered distinctly different to my own voice is heard prior to my finding my gloves. That's the sequence.
So when someone tells me that they were abducted by grey-skinned aliens do I have to sit there with my thumb up my rear and go "Well they said they were abducted by Greys, thats the sequence. I have to accept it,"?
iano writes:
The aim wasn't to demonstrate supernatural origin, the aim was that these stories lasted longer than a snowball in hell. Given your reliance on re-writing them to suit your position, it seems I've had some success.
Congratulations, you have managed to waste a non-trivial amount of time. I'm glad you have achieved your desired contribution to this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 06-01-2010 3:32 PM iano has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 20 of 55 (562912)
06-02-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
06-01-2010 4:10 AM


Re: nullius in verba
Hey Mod
In the absence of any who are genuinely advocating religious experiences as evidence of the supernatural this thread I'll aim my interrogation at you if that is OK ((Iano's post sounds more like a quick dropin)
Visuals, voices (though often the voices aren't normal they are 'impressions of emotions or desires in a pseudo vocal fashion'). Feelings of euphoria, 'oneness', dissociation, egolessness, feelings of enlightenment, expansion of the centre of perception to a general objective 'observer' just about covers the generals
Interesting stuff. And that is the most forthcoming answer to that question I have had here at EvC. When you were a "believer" were you equally as forthcoming about the nature of such experiences or were you more reticent in describing them to others? Why do you think those who do believe are so coy about describing the nature of their experiences (if indeed you agree that they are)?
I can voluntarily invoke a religious experience.
Cool! How do you do that? Can anyone do it? Is it like self hypnosis or something?
One of the things that has been mentioned here at EvC regarding religious experiences in the context of faith is the lack of choice one has in believing. It has been implied that such experiences leave one so convinced that rationalising away such experiences or dismissing them as unreal is just not an option. One is presumably simply compelled to believe (and then apparently compelled to assert the evidential validity of such experiences as well)
Have you experienced this? If so how did you break out of it? If not do you think those who do cite such things would consider your religious experiences as incomparable and "inferior" to theirs?
(I've seen things that are both, I thought they were auras and I spent several years studying them to become a 'psychic healer'...*sigh*)
Good grief!! I didn't know that. You truly have straddled both sides of this stuff. Again - How did you break the cycle of belief? Was it sudden or gradual? What was the tipping point if there was one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2010 4:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 06-02-2010 1:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 21 of 55 (562931)
06-02-2010 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
06-02-2010 12:27 PM


Re: nullius in verba
In the absence of any who are genuinely advocating religious experiences as evidence of the supernatural this thread I'll aim my interrogation at you if that is OK ((Iano's post sounds more like a quick dropin)
Go right ahead. For the record (obviously not for your benefit but for the lurkers who don't know us) I'm an atheist.
When you were a "believer" were you equally as forthcoming about the nature of such experiences or were you more reticent in describing them to others?
Not at all...to those that I thought would be responsive to such things (which turned out to be teenage girls with obsessions with dolphins and yin-yang symbols. Which was fine because I was a teenage boy).
But to a potentially 'hostile' group? Not in person. I was on the internet with these beliefs, but I found talking about them quite frustrating. I figured some people just couldn't 'get it'.
Why do you think those who do believe are so coy about describing the nature of their experiences (if indeed you agree that they are)?
When an element of one's self identity is tied up on something failing to get that extraordinarily - ground breakingly important - facet of information across doesn't go as planned at first...it can be a knock the confidence.
From a gambling perspective the answer should be obvious why one might be coy in this regard:
1. There is very little to gain by telling the story.
2. There is everything to lose (or at least it feels that important).
Who in their right might would take that gamble?
From another perspective: You know that what you experienced was absolutely and trivially real. That isn't a question. I knew a God (sometimes: universal mind and others) existed just as passionately and vociferously as iano professes now. But you know that convincing somebody of that is going to be bloody difficult. The most likely outcome is someone will attempt to find a hole in the tale, an alternative explanation. If/When an argument breaks out, both parties lose respect for one another.
So even if you don't end up disbelieving and have no fear (conscious or otherwise) of being out-argued or proven wrong...you could still look like a fool and lose social status/respect.
The only mileage in sharing the story are amongst those that are likewise invested in creating a community of non-criticism. Like a church (as long as the experience can be interpreted in a suitably orthodox way) or spiritual circle or whatever.
Besides which: the symptoms are quite close to the symptoms of mental illness. It's better to be thought of as crazy than to speak out and remove all doubt to paraphrase some guy.
Cool! How do you do that? Can anyone do it? Is it like self hypnosis or something?
Yeah pretty much. I'm not sure it's something I can really teach and it is possible that it is not universally possible. Lots of meditation practice drawing bits of ideas from one place and another and just...experimenting for hours and hours is all I can really suggest. It works for Monks - and they really are the experts and achieving these things so try and take some rational wisdom from their ideas and see how it goes...though be prepared for potentially years of fruitless searching: I had the advantage of starting quite young (I assume its an advantage).
You know how some people can make themselves vomit merely by thinking about the smell of dog poo? And how if you feel a bit nauseaus even thinking about it can bring on the urge?
There's a bit of that in there: I know the kinds of triggers that can set me off.
One of the things that has been mentioned here at EvC regarding religious experiences in the context of faith is the lack of choice one has in believing. It has been implied that such experiences leave one so convinced that rationalising away such experiences or dismissing them as unreal is just not an option. One is presumably simply compelled to believe (and then apparently compelled to assert the evidential validity of such experiences as well)
Have you experienced this?
God yes! It's like someone dropping a bowling bowl on your foot. You are compelled to feel pain even though you know that it's just an electrical signal turned into an electro-biochemical pathway thing.
Or better: A dream that seems really real.
Or an optical illusion that you fall for even if you rationally know it's a trick.
If so how did you break out of it?
You can't.
I have never done so.
My religious experiences today are as mindblowingly powerful today as they were once in the past (though as I mentioned earlier I have to correct this somewhat due to potential memory embellishments), but whenever I've had one it has quite literally changed everything (for a moment).
However:- what I was convinced was absolutely true varied depending on the biases I went in with. Last one I had I was convinced I had finally understood consciousness perfectly...I saw a beautifully complex deterministic system of signals and I knew exactly how it came together to produce the effect.
But then, I was considering going to study neuroscience at Uni at that stage in my life (about a year or so ago I think it was).
If not do you think those who do cite such things would consider your religious experiences as incomparable and "inferior" to theirs?
They'd be wrong. Mine are obviously more powerful and life changing than theirs.
Good grief!! I didn't know that. You truly have straddled both sides of this stuff. Again - How did you break the cycle of belief? Was it sudden or gradual? What was the tipping point if there was one?
If there is a flavour of woo out there - there is a reasonable chance I've dabbled in it or a cousin of it. I've still got a ludicrous amount of books by Rajneesh Chandra Mohan - a cult leader I posthumously followed until very recently (the link goes to an article I wrote while I was still somewhat sympathetic, though the world wide web had started to expand (and I was starting to be able to afford long term internet access permanently) so that searching for his name had brought up pages that were critical of him and not just sycophants.)
Osho:
quote:
Prayer has nothing to do with religion, prayer is basically the approach of the artist. Prayer is an aesthetic phenomenon, not a religious one. But if you start feeling grateful and thankful towards existence, slowly slowly you are surprised that a presence starts surrounding you which you had never felt before. It is only a thankful heart that starts feeling a vibe. That vibe is God. God only comes at a later stage, but then it comes as an experience. Then God is a liberartion, then God is nirvana.
But start by prayer, never start by God, because that God will be false. And if you are believing in a false God, then your prayer is false. First make your prayer as deep as possible, as heartfelt as possible, and the God comes of his own accord.
He was a monist - which maybe helped my de conversion.
It was both sudden and gradual. Christianity was quite sudden actually. I read Genesis when I was about 11 or 12. Then I read a book about Buddhism. Then I thought: Buddhism sounds more up my street. Though I was also into Law, and didn't publically declare that I wasn't a Christian until the day the law said I was capable of making the choice. My 16th birthday (I had probably completely abandoned Christianity by 13 or 14). I told my mother I would no longer celebrate Christmas. She told me off: Christmas isn't just about religion, but its mostly about family. I just didn't want to be a hypocrite.
Then I bounced between that post-colonial new agey Buddhism to attempting ascetic forms of Zen and stuff. Someone I knew (and still do, but things have changed since then) claimed to by a cyber-pagan capable of astral projection. I had been attempting to pull off full astral projection for years (along with the Buddhist and new age stuff I was becoming adept at meditation and began to get the 'knack' for reaching the 'sweet spot' quicker and quicker) and all I had managed to do was commune with my pet rabbit in my garden.
This cyber-pagan started telling stories of great battles he had on the astral plane, and his friend started agreeing with the accounts. But as the anecdotes poured in, I noticed they weren't consistent. Two different people would be saying completely different things had happened, but with rather obvious attempts to mutually patch up inconsistencies. I kind of laughed how sad they were: They had to make up the spiritual realm because they couldn't really get there even a bit -they had no idea how it worked and they didn't have the casual knowledge that an astral projector surely would.
After that things started getting watered down as I tried to rid myself of the stuff that that could withstand the scrutiny I put others under (I was sure that it wouldn't be much). It was a little more than I had guessed: I started seeing that other people's ideas were so clearly at odds with my own personal experience. Eventually it went from a Monis reincarnationist Zen thing with a Nirvana afterlife to going towards became spiritual pantheism and then pantheism (how I described myself when I first came to this board) and then someone pointed out that pantheism is really just atheism for people afraid of calling themselves atheist. This is all simplified for the purposes of narrative - there was a Islamic hiccup in the middle of all that after I fell for the slick propaganda of my local Imam.
I have every sympathy for those that read Genesis and didn't see what I saw. They are surrounded by millions of people reinforcing their ideas which must make it almost impossible to shake the idea.
There isn't a great deal of stuff on the net with me being religious, but I told a similar (though probably inconsistent in some ways) story when I hadn't stepped into atheism over at Message 13, which is possibly of interest.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 12:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 8:28 PM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 22 of 55 (563005)
06-02-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
06-02-2010 1:41 PM


Re: nullius in verba
Go right ahead.
Cool.
I figured some people just couldn't 'get it'.
The cynical part of me thinks that those who advocate such things realise how silly they sound (even to themselves) when they spell it out. Is there any of that involved in the coyness?
Who in their right might would take that gamble?
But people here do. For all our disagreements I cannot fault CS for his relative openness and willingness to try and advocate his position and refute mine. To some extent all believers here who genuinely engage in discussion on these topics put themselves on the line to a degree.
I must be honest that it never properly occurred to me that anyone was doing anything but seeking to test their own beliefs by participating here. Yes - People may not actually be open to the challenges when they get a bit too close for comfort. But why even post here if avoiding any challenge at all? This oversight on my part may well explain some of the reactions I get!!!
There's a bit of that in there: I know the kinds of triggers that can set me off.
Yeah that makes a sense. But I would love to have one of these darned experiences. Just so I can know what the frig RAZD and others are ambiguously alluding to.
Or an optical illusion that you fall for even if you rationally know it's a trick.
OK. But that is temporary. A few moments of reflection (or maybe longer in the case of genuine experinces of the type under discussion) and here you and I are rationalising away. No?
If so how did you break out of it?
You can't.
But you have! The difference between you and CS (for example) seems to be the temporalness of the conviction.
How do we account for that?
There isn't a great deal of stuff on the net with me being religious, but I told a similar (though probably inconsistent in some ways) story when I hadn't stepped into atheism over at Message 13, which is possibly of interest.
I will look this up - and can I just say - Fucking hell you have had a journey and a half!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 06-02-2010 1:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2010 7:01 AM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 55 (563074)
06-03-2010 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Straggler
06-02-2010 8:28 PM


My God - it's full of stars!
The cynical part of me thinks that those who advocate such things realise how silly they sound (even to themselves) when they spell it out. Is there any of that involved in the coyness?
Maybe, but to be honest I couldn't say with certainty. If a person does have a thought about how silly something sounds, I'd be very surprised if that inner voice was particularly loud compared with the others. If it was - they'd be an atheist or something
But yes - it is my opinion that everyone has some voice of doubt. Socially competent people are often asking themselves 'Am I making a fool of myself?'
Who in their right might would take that gamble?
But people here do.
But generally only ambiguously at best (which is presumably why you asked why people aren't all that forthcoming with their experiences).
For all our disagreements I cannot fault CS for his relative openness and willingness to try and advocate his position and refute mine.
Well, if you are going to point out the exceptional people...
To some extent all believers here who genuinely engage in discussion on these topics put themselves on the line to a degree.
Absolutely - but then they know they are right so there's no danger there (yes, a grotesque characterisation). But if they base their beliefs on a profound religious experience or two, I'd be surprised if they were to give enough details of that so that the scientists here could de-construct it and come up with a purely neurological account.
Think of the offence that people like LindaLou/kitsune had when people suggested that maybe it wasn't a ghost that moved a certain object and that maybe a person's memory of the event or perception of it is flawed. We might be saying "There is a perfectly normal, human explanation for this thing. We humans aren't the perfect perceivers we strongly believe we are." and they hear "You are delusional." (though in fairness, that's probably because some people were saying she was delusional)
I must be honest that it never properly occurred to me that anyone was doing anything but seeking to test their own beliefs by participating here. Yes - People may not actually be open to the challenges when they get a bit too close for comfort. But why even post here if avoiding any challenge at all? This oversight on my part may well explain some of the reactions I get!!!
I was specifically talking about religious experiences: not just beliefs, ideas and the like.
A religious experience is necessarily personal. You might as well ask people around here for details of their own masturbation habits. You'd probably only find onifre and the like willing to give you details since taboo is taboo to him
Yeah that makes a sense. But I would love to have one of these darned experiences. Just so I can know what the frig RAZD and others are ambiguously alluding to.
You can get a hint, but you need to leave London behind. Look out into the cosmos and try to truly comprehend what you are looking at. First break the illusion that you are living under a dome (it's so damned strong that even if you know its not true, it kind of still seems like it is). You are looking at the biggest drop in the universe and it's only the weakest force in the universe that's preventing you from being consumed by it.
Just try to really drive home the bigness of it all, that should trigger 'awe'. Continue piling up the 'awe' factor. Realize that planet is a lump of rock accelerating towards a sun. That you are just a bunch of atoms working together to avoid not being a bunch of atoms. Whatever floats your boat.
I used this kind of technique inadvertently while I was observing Shoemaker-Levy 9 and I got a 'flash'.
Or you can wait to get 'lucky'. Communal experiences can often help. Dancing/singing as a group can help produce the 'egolessness' sensation. So try going to church or a Hare Krsna meeting. These people might have weird ideas about what's going on - but they are the ones having these experiences so they've got something right, yes?
You could try looking at some of the techniques that Osho pushed: but doing them had some negative mental implications for me, so I won't actually recommend them. There are lots of ideas out there, but it's probably analogous to playing a piano, sometimes you have to get out of the theory and start practicing.
OK. But that is temporary. A few moments of reflection (or maybe longer in the case of genuine experinces of the type under discussion) and here you and I are rationalising away. No?
But when you look back at an optical illusion, you still fall for it. Even when you look at it and reflect at the same time. The face looks like it is popping out even though it is sunk inwards, for example. It's impossible to see it otherwise. That's the kind of helplessness I'm talking about here.
Imagine if you had an inward pointing mask, you brought someone in and then escorted them out. They'd swear the mask pointed outwards, and they may believe that all their life...even if you explained how the illusion works.
But you have! The difference between you and CS (for example) seems to be the temporalness of the conviction.
How do we account for that?
Well 'temporary' for me was probably about ten years. While you experience them, you are a slave to them. Afterwards, it's down to your epistemology. If you think your asshole don't stink (most people) - then you quite reasonably think you were touched by the divine and that's that.
I have had the 'advantage' of taking powerful psychotropics, and of having actual delusional experiences. I know how compelling unreal things can actually seem. I have the personal experience that my mental asshole stinks as much as (if not more) than others.
Maybe that's it?
I will look this up - and can I just say - Fucking hell you have had a journey and a half!!
Yeah - it's been fun and a bit scary (and comparatively tame since I stepped out of the wardrobe, I can see why people might prefer Narnia). Incidentally I've got like three copies of Supernature if anyone wants a doorstop?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2010 8:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 6:30 PM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 24 of 55 (563186)
06-03-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
06-03-2010 7:01 AM


Re: My God - it's full of stars!
Mod writes:
But generally only ambiguously at best (which is presumably why you asked why people aren't all that forthcoming with their experiences).
Mod writes:
Well, if you are going to point out the exceptional people...
Yes. Both fair points.
I was specifically talking about religious experiences: not just beliefs, ideas and the like.
I guess I am referring indirectly to those who cite religious experiences as the basis of their beliefs.
You might as well ask people around here for details of their own masturbation habits. You'd probably only find onifre and the like willing to give you details since taboo is taboo to him
Oni - Please noooooo.
You can get a hint, but you need to leave London behind.
Leave London behind? But but but.... What does that even mean? Where else is there? Manchester ....?
I used this kind of technique inadvertently while I was observing Shoemaker-Levy 9 and I got a 'flash'.
Seriously I am gonna try it. I tried some yoga meditation type stuff and got nowhere with that. Some acid and ecstacy experiences are probably the closest I can cite to the sort of expereinces under discussion. But there was no point where I was really convinced of much more than my own (or the substance's) ability to mess with reality. The expereince was ther but not the conviction I guess.
Imagine if you had an inward pointing mask, you brought someone in and then escorted them out. They'd swear the mask pointed outwards, and they may believe that all their life...even if you explained how the illusion works.
Yeaeeah. But still the utter conviction of it seems to be missing. I guess illusions and whether they are true or not do not demand the emotional and psychological investment that religious belief does. What somebody has to lose by admitting (to themselves) that their expereinces are not indicative of reality is probably a very key factor.
I have the personal experience that my mental asshole stinks as much as (if not more) than others.
Maybe that's it?
Maybe that is my problem without the added value of actually having been through the utter conviction phase? Although that sounds unconvincing even to me.
Yeah - it's been fun and a bit scary (and comparatively tame since I stepped out of the wardrobe, I can see why people might prefer Narnia).
Good turkish delight apparently. But that isn't really my thing
Incidentally I've got like three copies of Supernature if anyone wants a doorstop?
Even as a doorstop..Nah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2010 7:01 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2010 8:05 PM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 25 of 55 (563199)
06-03-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Straggler
06-03-2010 6:30 PM


Re: My God - it's full of stars!
Seriously I am gonna try it. I tried some yoga meditation type stuff and got nowhere with that.
Glad to hear it.
quote:
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Good luck - and maybe this article/paper, titled, Can an Atheist Have a Religious Experience? by Ian Robinson might be of use (it contains other descriptions of these experiences).
quote:
And, if we can get beyond their cultural accretions, the familiar and learnt images we usually dress the experiences in, and pay attention to their core significance, they may teach us a very important basic truth about ourselves, that is, that self is a mental construct. In a sense, an illusion. Perhaps a useful illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. And knowing the self is a mental construct can have profound beneficial effects on the way you lead your life. Organised religions have always had an uneasy relationship with mystics, at worst persecuting them and at best trying to shoe-horn their experiences into pre-existing sets of religious beliefs. But if such experiences are to become simply adjuncts to the creeds and rituals of entrenched religious hierarchies, what is the point or value in them? An atheist, approaching the mystical without this religious baggage, has perhaps a better chance of making it a life-enhancing and life-changing experience.
To radically misquote Karl Marx, religions have merely interpreted the mystical experience in terms of their various dogmas; the point is, to be changed by it.
But still the utter conviction of it seems to be missing. I guess illusions and whether they are true or not do not demand the emotional and psychological investment that religious belief does.
I see what you mean - but the point is that 'it seems to me' that the face is sticking out, that the lines are different lengths, that god is speaking to me. Obviously the consequences of believing the lines are different lengths (and some people will do so until the lines are actually measured) are quite different than the impact God speaking to you might have.
The point is, one can't choose but to visually experience the illusion, even if one intellectually knows it is not true. The difference is that you can measure the illusion and see the error. One cannot measure the subject in religious experiences.
OK, take a look at this picture. You might have seen it before, but take yourself back to when you first did. If I was to tell you that the tables not only had the same area but where the exact same shape with the same dimensions...you wouldn't be thought of as crazy if you didn't believe me.
So imagine a world where for some reason we couldn't manipulate those two tables or measure them or whatever. Imagine a guy comes along and says: Those are the same shape, it's just your brain interpreting them in a funky way. Here are some examples of brains behaving in funky ways to produce similar (but not the same) results.
You might be persuaded. But I'm sure you can see that many people would not. They can SEE the shapes themselves. They can tell with a casual inspection they are quite clearly different. Sure - there are some unusual effects, but that isn't evidence that in this case an unusual brain effect is occurring. Anybody who is denying those tables are different shapes is making a positive claim without any evidence to support it.
So it is with religious experiences. They are absolutely convincing. You can 'feel'/'see'/'hear'/'know' something. Without a way to 'dispel' the illusion it can easily take an exalted place in a person's memory.
There are magicians who have stood up, told an audience they are magicians, that they are not psychic, and then performed some illusion of some kind. It is not uncommon for some observers to report that
a) The magician has 'spooky powers'
b) The magician performed something which the magician (and a tape recording) will confirm never happened at all but is orders of magnitude more impressive than the original feat.
I saw this recently with Derren Brown. He told a woman he was about to con her, using clever tricks to appear psychic. He did just that. Reminded her that he was using well studied techniques and she still reported that she believed he had a 'bit of power'.
Though Derren was trying to convince us that psychics are charlatans, so she could have been a plant
Of course, there are many differences with the religious experience to optical illusions. Although there is 'joy' in optical illusions and magic tricks - it doesn't really compare with the elation of the religious experience. Though the comparison to magic tricks might hold when it comes to how we later interpret/remember and report those experiences...
Good turkish delight apparently
Pink snot...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 06-03-2010 6:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2010 8:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 26 of 55 (563232)
06-04-2010 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-31-2010 3:45 PM


Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
quote:
1) What form do these experiences take? I am not asking anyone to reveal the intimate dealings that they have with their chosen deity. I am simply asking what the broad nature of these experiences consists of. Visions? Voices? Feelings of euphoria? Feelings of enlightenment? What?
First I can't speak for others, speaking for others itself is faith-based. Second, you shouldn't explain what others have experienced, at least you should bear in mind that any attempt on explaining others experience is faith-based (not necessarily baseless though).
Third, men explanation power (could be statistic based) in the end is also faith-based, as everyone knows well that, say, pychological explanation cannot be applied with 100% accuracy. Actually, their accuracy itself can hardly be measured. It by no means says that pychology is useless, yet you should use with care and cautions, and bear in mind that it doesn't work 100%.
Now if it doesn't work 100%, say, it works only with 90% accuracy, then what the rest 10% will be?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there any truth happened within that 10%?! It's not about God of gap, it's about how humans dealing with the reality and how humans are to approach truth. We can't simply say under the condition that when we are only accurate in 90% then rule out other possiblities.
To simply put, even when psychology works right generally, still anything is possible. If you fail to admit this, you are religious in believing the opposite.
2) What causes these experiences? Are these experiences best explained by the existence and interaction with the supernatural? Or are there better evidenced explanations for this phenomenon?[/quote]
Again, either a 'for' or a 'against' is religious in nature. So to be more specific, your question is, "In your faith/belief (or even religion), what caused these experiences?
quote:
And my third question requires the following comparison:
Do I need to disprove the notion that the heat and light emitted by the light-bulb in my desk lamp is caused by a miniature ethereal salamander living inside the bulb before I can legitimately conclude that electrical resistance in a tungsten filament is a more likely cause? No. (let me know if this is too much of an assumption on my part)
Do I need to disprove the existence of god before I can legitimately conclude that aspects of human psychology and culture are more likely to be the cause of religious experiences than the existence of (and human interaction with) supernatural immaterial entities? Apparently so (based on numerous conversations in numerous other threads).
Whatever, as long as you realise that your attempts to explain is, more or less, a reflection of your own faith/belief. And sometimes, provided that the experiencers are also analytical enough, you won't be more accurate then they themselves who actually experienced. Say, I can't conclude that you are talking to void/ghost in forums because you will fail to submit any evidence that there is actually a person behind each post. You can't conclude that you are delusional. You should be more accurate in estimating the case.
quote:
My third and final question is - Why?
3) Why must I disprove the existence of god before I can conclude that other explanations for religious expereinces are better evidenced, superior and more likely to be correct?
That's similar to your previous questions. Your explanation will inevitably contains something as a reflection of your faith. When you have a tool of 90% accuracy, and you've drawn a conclusion, you faith is to neglect the 10% possiblity. Of course unless you admit that your conclusion is just a possiblity upto an accuracy of 90%.
That said. I tell you a little secret here, in order to know whether something is from God, there is a little trick or a pattern. It is summarized here as a sentence, which is,
Truth is somehow related to the future.
Your experience will be up to something if you understand what I mean here.
Humans are creatures of the present, they are futile of the future and they futile about the past. While God is used to make good use of the future to 'communicate' with men, in way which I speculate that it will cause much less effect onto human faith. Such that humans will need faith (but not evidence) to approach Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2010 3:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 2:25 AM Hawkins has replied
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2010 9:05 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 27 of 55 (563233)
06-04-2010 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 2:11 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
It is abit abstract here. So I will further illustrate this with 2 examples.
Anyway, humans' way of think is very plain and limited. Even when fabricate stories they can only be limited to the presence. They can hardly walk out of this limited mind of thinking. They can hardly grow their way of thinking into to future.
So all they can think of is somehow, visions, voices...things all related to the presence but not future.
Ok, I bragged too much, here comes the examples.
quote:
First truth is evidence independent. In stone age, there's no evidence for the presence of black holes, it's far from saying that black holes did not exist in stone age.
Evidence is just for a human brain to recognise a truth (or rather for a belief system to believe that it is the truth). Something is evident to one may not be evident enough to someone else, because they possess a diffferent belief systems (brains).
Science is abit special. Science is the discovery of natural rules which predicts precisely for our brain/belief system to reckon them as the truth. Say, water decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen, this chemical rule allows you to predict precisely that water everywhere behaves so. You can predict this result before every single experiment, and every single experience when set up correctly can hardly falsify your prediction by using the rule. The rule is thus reckoned by human brains/belief systems as the truth.
See that? The truth of science is somehow related to the future. It is regarded as the predicability of science.
quote:
You know people cast lots to help to make a decision. Some people can also cast lots then to say the it's God who decides through lot casting. But to the outsiders, they may be confused and clueless. How can a lot casting outcome be declared as God's decision?! Here the outsiders are applying the human common sense about what probability is. If it's lot casting then the outcome is by the rule of probability, how can you declare it's God's decision?!
Now to the lot-casters, they are quite sure that the outcome is from God. Assume that we have 2 log-casters here, A is a prophet, B is a witness. God can tell A that please cast lot with B to decide whether to go east or west, you will see the same lot outcome 10 times in a row (through visions or voice or any means, God just needs to make sure that A believes).
Next morning, A told B that God gave him a vision to cast lot to decide whether to go east or west, and God also said that we will see that the same lot outcome will appear in a 10 successive cast, which indicates that we should go east. So they cast lots and both are certain that God asks them to go east.
Now the witness B is writting to the journal/diary, "We cast lot and God told us to go east". 2000 years later, the atheist readers read the journal and will said, "It's BS! How come they cast lot and said that God asked them to go east".
Hope that you see now how God made use of the FUTURE in this example, to communicate with the prophet directly and the witness indirectly.
Moreover, if the prophet doubts if the vision, voice and such are truly from God. God will ask prophet A, "Please point your staff to the sea". Now guess what, the Red Sea departs!
Acts 14:3
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.
I should have made a better example, this is not good enough to explain the 'pattern' I mentioned in the last post. Yet I think at the moment it should be good enough to illustrate what I mean to say here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 2:11 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 2:38 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 28 of 55 (563234)
06-04-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 2:25 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
quote:
3) Why must I disprove the existence of god before I can conclude that other explanations for religious expereinces are better evidenced, superior and more likely to be correct?
Now get back to the question. No you don't need to disprove God to draw your own conclusion. But you can't (unable to ) evaluate what is better evidenced, superior. While 'the more likely to be correct' can turn out to be a false.
A truth stands a truth all the times. In the case one with a 90% chance to hit the truth while another with a 10%. The one with 90% is no where more legitimate as long as the truth is possibly belong to the one with a 10% chance. Similarly in table of betting, the one with a 90% chance of winning can't be considered as a winner, he's no where more legitimate than the one with the 10% chance. Only the one who wins out (hits the truth) will be the winner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 2:25 AM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 3:54 AM Hawkins has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 55 (563238)
06-04-2010 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 2:38 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
Hawkins writes:
A truth stands a truth all the times. In the case one with a 90% chance to hit the truth while another with a 10%. The one with 90% is no where more legitimate as long as the truth is possibly belong to the one with a 10% chance. Similarly in table of betting, the one with a 90% chance of winning can't be considered as a winner, he's no where more legitimate than the one with the 10% chance. Only the one who wins out (hits the truth) will be the winner.
Sure, but we don't have all the information. It is almost certain that we will never have universal knowledge. In these cases, we are guessing which is the correct answer, or the one that will be the most often correct even if imperfect. Do you go with the 90% right one, or the 10% right one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 2:38 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 4:56 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 30 of 55 (563244)
06-04-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phage0070
06-04-2010 3:54 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
quote:
Sure, but we don't have all the information. It is almost certain that we will never have universal knowledge. In these cases, we are guessing which is the correct answer, or the one that will be the most often correct even if imperfect. Do you go with the 90% right one, or the 10% right one?
That depends on what matters are you handling. For earthly matters, the Tree of Knowledge is ok. But for the Heavenly things, you may need the Tree of Life.
That is, you can use whatever you think is efficient to handle matters around us inside this reality. It makes sense, but to extend such a way into a realm which you don't know and have no past experience, you need to re-evaluate whether it is still 90% in accuracy.
Your 90% is subject to a scope for applying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 3:54 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 5:08 AM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 33 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 10:33 AM Hawkins has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024