Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?

There are two arguments that are repeatedly cited by believers of all flavours here at EvC. These are: "You cannot disprove the existence of god" and "Many have had subjective experiences that cannot be explained by science alone". In this thread I want to ask three questions.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?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?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).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?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hey ModIn 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) 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)? 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? 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?

Cool. 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? 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!!! 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. 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 you have! The difference between you and CS (for example) seems to be the temporalness of the conviction.How do we account for that? I will look this up - and can I just say - Fucking hell you have had a journey and a half!!

Yes. Both fair points. I guess I am referring indirectly to those who cite religious experiences as the basis of their beliefs. Oni - Please noooooo. Leave London behind? But but but.... What does that even mean? Where else is there? Manchester ....? 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. 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. 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. Good turkish delight apparently. But that isn't really my thing Even as a doorstop..Nah.

That is why I said "more likely to be correct". I wouldn't put a figure on it as such but nobody here is claiming absolute certainty.So would you agree that it is unlikely that religious experiences are caused by gods? Or not?

Thanks. I suspect that it will take some practise to ever really get this. But I can give it a go. I don't exactly have a deadline or timetable so I may as well take it one step at a time. The closest (non-drug related) I have ever come to this sort of thing occurred many years ago when I (for whatever reason) lay on the grass looking up at the clouds one afternoon, really concentrated and absorbed by their almost imperceptibly slow swirling movement. I had a very brief sensation of floating up towards them before "coming to" back to normality. I put it down to dozing off and dreaming but I am fairly sure I never did actually fall asleep.Anyway - As insignificant and paltry as that may sound, that is my starting point. So I will try to duplicate something like that to begin with. I see what you are getting at but I still think the conviction issue is the stumbling block for me here. I may go to my grave certain that an optical illusion appears to be something it isn't. But the very fact that I accept it as an optical illusion, that we accept that the brain can do these things and that this may well be the cause of my perceptual experience makes it different from the sort of attitudes I find amongst believers here.They seem to find offensive even the suggestion that such experiences might just be due to the internal workings of the brain. Never mind the suggestion that this explanation is better evidenced and thus more deserving of consideration than the supernatural alternative. Cries of "pseudoskeptic" and demands for proof ensue. Even otherwise highly scientifically literate proponents will talk themselves into advocating the most ridiculous positions regarding blatantly made-up concepts in order to outright deny the idea that their own undisprovable beliefs can be better explained by something other than thel existence of their chosen deity. That degree of conviction is something I just don't think I will ever experience and here I think the comparison with optical illusions falls down. That level of conviction (it seems to me) requires personal investment in the object of belief. Yes. And it is this degree of conviction in such experiences that I am finding it hard to even imagine.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How are the alternative evidence based conclusions reliant on faith? If one explanation is evidenced and the other not they are not both faith based are they? No.

I have no idea who you are quoting and if you have a case that isn't just declaring faith to be wondrous and lovely then feel free to present it. If your form of evidence or chosen method of acquiring knowledge is unable to demonstrate itself as ever having led to conclusions that are superior to biased guesses then I am afraid it isn't evidence.