Experiencing God's Presence

[Taraz]

I know this has been touched on before, but I don't remember reading a satisfactory answer.

Can any theist explain to me how they got from experiencing God or having a conversation with God to believing in all that their religion tells them? I understand spiritual experiences and the impact that they can have. What I don't understand is how any of these experiences lead one to believe in the inerrancy of holy texts, that Jesus is our savior, that suicide bombing is acceptable, etc.

I know the atheist/agnostic/moderate position is to say that after having such an experience you just assume that it is from the God that you have heard the most about. In other words, your community has told you all about a specific conception of God, you have this "special" experience, therefore this specific God must have spoken to you. I find that rather weak and I'm hoping that there are some theists that have a better answer for me.

[PairTheBoard]

I think what happens for most people is that they are given lessons on a religion and then have a spiritual experience with the concepts of the religion in mind.

However, regardless of prior experience with religious teachings, people naturaly wonder about things like, where did we come from, why are we here, is there a purpose to my life? etc. Out of meditation on these issues people have subjective experiences.

I've heard a lot of people when asked if they believe in God say, "Well, I believe there's something". They have had a subjective experience that's brought them to some state of conviction about these eternal issues. They may seek out others and compare notes so to speak. Thereby gravitating toward one Religious interpretation or another. Sometimes they even invent a new Religion themselves. If Religions were somehow abolished I think you would see more of this.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

I believe that many people have these subjective experiences and I even believe that they can be very meaningful and valuable. However I have yet to hear of anyone whose subjective experiences have told them anything close to all that many theists believe.

I will grant you that people talk about these experiences, compare notes, gravitate toward one another and toward a religion, etc. But I don't see how this gives them any conviction of certainty about a majority of their religious views.

So let's say I'm given lessons on a religion or I am meditating on a specific teaching/principle. How does the resulting spiritual experience have to do with anything other than that specific teaching/principle? I dunno, I'm just curious as to what kind of experiences people have had.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that many people have these subjective experiences and I even believe that they can be very meaningful and valuable. However I have yet to hear of anyone whose subjective experiences have told them anything close to all that many theists believe.

I will grant you that people talk about these experiences, compare notes, gravitate toward one another and toward a religion, etc. But I don't see how this gives them any conviction of certainty about a majority of their religious views.

So let's say I'm given lessons on a religion or I am meditating on a specific teaching/principle. How does the resulting spiritual experience have to do with anything other than that specific teaching/principle? I dunno, I'm just curious as to what kind of experiences people have had.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that being persuaded by other people is a big part of the experience as far as accepting specific doctrines.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think that being persuaded by other people is a big part of the experience as far as accepting specific doctrines.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if I follow you here. The experience is tempered by what they have heard previously? I definitely believe that. But then is it the case that people don't realize this? Because it seems like people take these experiences to reveal truth that comes from a divine source, not from what they heard last week.

I'm just trying to understand religious conviction. I don't understand how anyone can have a high level of confidence in their faith, be it theistic, deistic, or atheistic.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to understand religious conviction. I don't understand how anyone can have a high level of confidence in their faith, be it theistic, deistic, or atheistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's that their experiences closely or perfectly match those described in their holy texts.
It's even more compelling when you experience something you haven't read in the text but find it there later. This way you know that you weren't manifesting something because you read it and wanted it to be true - which would be the typical skeptics line of questioning.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to understand religious conviction. I don't understand how anyone can have a high level of confidence in their faith, be it theistic, deistic, or atheistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's that their experiences closely or perfectly match those described in their holy texts.
It's even more compelling when you experience something you haven't read in the text but find it there later. This way you know that you weren't manifesting something because you read it and wanted it to be true - which would be the typical skeptics line of questioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind elaborating on this? With a specific example perhaps. You can PM me if you would rather not post a personal story on a public forum.

I really can't see how I could be sure, or confident even, that my spiritual experience was not a result of what I had heard/read previously. What reason is there to believe that I am not interpreting this experience through the lens of what I have heard previously? And even if some of what was written in a holy text matches my spiritual experience, why does that lend any credence to the rest of the holy text or one specific interpretation of that text?

With regard to finding something in a text after a spiritual experience, how can you be sure that you hadn't just forgotten what you had read or heard?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to understand religious conviction. I don't understand how anyone can have a high level of confidence in their faith, be it theistic, deistic, or atheistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's that their experiences closely or perfectly match those described in their holy texts.
It's even more compelling when you experience something you haven't read in the text but find it there later. This way you know that you weren't manifesting something because you read it and wanted it to be true - which would be the typical skeptics line of questioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind elaborating on this? With a specific example perhaps. You can PM me if you would rather not post a personal story on a public forum.

I really can't see how I could be sure, or confident even, that my spiritual experience was not a result of what I had heard/read previously. What reason is there to believe that I am not interpreting this experience through the lens of what I have heard previously? And even if some of what was written in a holy text matches my spiritual experience, why does that lend any credence to the rest of the holy text or one specific interpretation of that text?

With regard to finding something in a text after a spiritual experience, how can you be sure that you hadn't just forgotten what you had read or heard?

[/ QUOTE ]

The connection between the hypothetical experience and the holy text need not be close in an absolute sense for interpretation and loose correlation to make it proof positive to an individual.

There is sufficiently varied text and enough wiggle room to satisfy anyone who wants to believe in something. It doesn't have to be a desire to believe in any specific thing at all, just a Mulder-like desire to believe.

[PairTheBoard]

I think if you look at the doctrines as being more along the lines of organizing metaphors you would do better in understanding what's going on. Take the organizing metaphors of science for example. We call them scientific models. We call a photon of light a "particle". Is it really truly in reality a "particle"? What would that even mean? The metaphor "particle" organizes data for experiments in which photons act "like" particles. Then we do experiments where light acts more "like" a wave. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Well, it's neither. What it IS is a photon of light. That doesn't mean the metaphors of "particle" or "wave" are without value. They serve to "point to" whatever it is that a photon really is. Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, personally, am not ignoring your insight, ptb. In fact I agreed with it before you even mentioned it. Of course the most rapidly religion drops its "god" metaphor and just accept that the world simply is, that the god metaphor for what we don't know, doesn't help at all, in fact is full of dangerous contradictions and delusions, the better off we we all be and, the sooner greater progress in civilization will be made. The universe simply is, duh!

Thanks for your insightful posts.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you look at the doctrines as being more along the lines of organizing metaphors you would do better in understanding what's going on. Take the organizing metaphors of science for example. We call them scientific models. We call a photon of light a "particle". Is it really truly in reality a "particle"? What would that even mean? The metaphor "particle" organizes data for experiments in which photons act "like" particles. Then we do experiments where light acts more "like" a wave. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Well, it's neither. What it IS is a photon of light. That doesn't mean the metaphors of "particle" or "wave" are without value. They serve to "point to" whatever it is that a photon really is. Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually whole-heartedly agree with what you are saying here. That's why I normally agree with the posts you make. In my view, religion is simply one of the ways that humanity makes sense of the world. It is in large part the language we use to describe spiritual experiences.

What I am trying to understand, however, is why people still believe in "metaphors" that have lost their usefulness. Why is it necessary to believe them? How do you get from having an experience that justifies some of it to accepting all of it without question? How do you go from feeling a oneness with the universe to believing in transubstantiation?

(I realize that some may ask who gets to decide on which metaphors have lost their usefulness, but I will just hope that we don't have to have that discussion in this thread. Instead perhaps consider why you have faith in a specific church/religion/book/pastor/etc to decide this for you.)

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The connection between the hypothetical experience and the holy text need not be close in an absolute sense for interpretation and loose correlation to make it proof positive to an individual.

There is sufficiently varied text and enough wiggle room to satisfy anyone who wants to believe in something. It doesn't have to be a desire to believe in any specific thing at all, just a Mulder-like desire to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that may be correct, I'm sure believers feel differently. They surely believe that they have good reason for believing.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the most rapidly religion drops its "god" metaphor and just accept that the world simply is, that the god metaphor for what we don't know, doesn't help at all, in fact is full of dangerous contradictions and delusions, the better off we we all be and, the sooner greater progress in civilization will be made.


[/ QUOTE ]

Although this is fodder for a different thread, I would like to suggest that you realize that the God metaphor will be with us for quite some time. I think you have to realize that this idea, in fact, actually does help many. In my opinion it is a much better strategy to update this metaphor so that it doesn't carry all of these "contradictions and delusions". Revising God is the way to go!

[Cumulonimbus]

Haven't read the thread, but I'm sure your answer lies here...

This is Your Brain on God. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you look at the doctrines as being more along the lines of organizing metaphors you would do better in understanding what's going on. Take the organizing metaphors of science for example. We call them scientific models. We call a photon of light a "particle". Is it really truly in reality a "particle"? What would that even mean? The metaphor "particle" organizes data for experiments in which photons act "like" particles. Then we do experiments where light acts more "like" a wave. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Well, it's neither. What it IS is a photon of light. That doesn't mean the metaphors of "particle" or "wave" are without value. They serve to "point to" whatever it is that a photon really is. Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I've definitely not ignored it. You haven't yet won me over, however. It may just be that I am broken, and that I simply do not experience these life-changing subjective epiphianies like the rest of you do, not really sure. I definitely experience joy and wonder and amazement, but I have never once experienced anything I would call spiritual. Perhaps my definition of spiritual experience requires tweaking. I read most of what you post on this topic with an intent to understand a perspective that is VERY foreign to me, so I think its only natural that I will disagree with you and be somewhat contentious. That doesn't mean I'm not listening.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The connection between the hypothetical experience and the holy text need not be close in an absolute sense for interpretation and loose correlation to make it proof positive to an individual.

There is sufficiently varied text and enough wiggle room to satisfy anyone who wants to believe in something. It doesn't have to be a desire to believe in any specific thing at all, just a Mulder-like desire to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that may be correct, I'm sure believers feel differently. They surely believe that they have good reason for believing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same with rushes and lucky sweaters, to steal a line from DS. Does that mean we need accomodate these attribution errors?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, personally, am not ignoring your insight, ptb. In fact I agreed with it before you even mentioned it. Of course the most rapidly religion drops its "god" metaphor and just accept that the world simply is, that the god metaphor for what we don't know, doesn't help at all, in fact is full of dangerous contradictions and delusions, the better off we we all be and, the sooner greater progress in civilization will be made. The universe simply is, duh!

Thanks for your insightful posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't think you're getting the analogy. We don't call a photon of light a "particle" to represent that which we Don't know about Light. We use it to organize that which we believe we Do know about it. Similiarly the word "god" is used to convey that which we Believe to be the Way existence is. I realize that when you, MidGe, look at the Way existence is you see raw Nature with the undeniable suffering that happens. So you need no "god" word to describe your view. Others see something More in the Way existence is. The word "god" is useful to them for their view.

You are like someone who has only done experiments on light for which "particle" is the best organizing metaphor. You can't understand why everyone doesn't just call light a "particle". Others have done experiments which you have no experience with and which you cannot understand and which you cannot relate to whereby "wave" is the best organizing metaphor for light. It's not that they are using "wave" to describe what they do not know about light. They are using "wave" to describe what You do not know about light and which they believe according to the experiments they have performed.

Of course in the case of Light the experiments are objective and really can be explained and conveyed to you. For Spiritual issues the "experiments" are subjective and not so easily conveyed.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, personally, am not ignoring your insight, ptb. In fact I agreed with it before you even mentioned it. Of course the most rapidly religion drops its "god" metaphor and just accept that the world simply is, that the god metaphor for what we don't know, doesn't help at all, in fact is full of dangerous contradictions and delusions, the better off we we all be and, the sooner greater progress in civilization will be made. The universe simply is, duh!

Thanks for your insightful posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't think you're getting the analogy. We don't call a photon of light a "particle" to represent that which we Don't know about Light. We use it to organize that which we believe we Do know about it. Similiarly the word "god" is used to convey that which we Believe to be the Way existence is. I realize that when you, MidGe, look at the Way existence is you see raw Nature with the undeniable suffering that happens. So you need no "god" word to describe your view. Others see something More in the Way existence is. The word "god" is useful to them for their view.

You are like someone who has only done experiments on light for which "particle" is the best organizing metaphor. You can't understand why everyone doesn't just call light a "particle". Others have done experiments which you have no experience with and which you cannot understand and which you cannot relate to whereby "wave" is the best organizing metaphor for light. It's not that they are using "wave" to describe what they do not know about light. They are using "wave" to describe what You do not know about light and which they believe according to the experiments they have performed.

Of course in the case of Light the experiments are objective and really can be explained and conveyed to you. For Spiritual issues the "experiments" are subjective and not so easily conveyed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Your last half of your last sentence here illustrates the entire problem. You claim they are not so easily conveyable....but we have no reason to think they are conveyable at all. And if they aren't, it makes no difference whether some people call it a particle or some a wave, neither description is meaningful in the least, from a practical standpoint.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Same with rushes and lucky sweaters, to steal a line from DS. Does that mean we need accomodate these attribution errors?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to accommodate anything really. I just want to understand how a believer thinks because it doesn't make sense to me. It must make some sort of sense to them, but I just don't see how.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I know the atheist/agnostic/moderate position is to say that after having such an experience you just assume that it is from the God that you have heard the most about. In other words, your community has told you all about a specific conception of God, you have this "special" experience, therefore this specific God must have spoken to you. I find that rather weak and I'm hoping that there are some theists that have a better answer for me

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're going to find a better answer because there isn't one. If there was you'd find Iranians becoming Christians and Texans becoming Muslims at the same rate. We are a product of our environment. It's the same reason kids in the USA who discover they love playing sports don't usually get into cricket or hurling.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know the atheist/agnostic/moderate position is to say that after having such an experience you just assume that it is from the God that you have heard the most about. In other words, your community has told you all about a specific conception of God, you have this "special" experience, therefore this specific God must have spoken to you. I find that rather weak and I'm hoping that there are some theists that have a better answer for me

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're going to find a better answer because there isn't one. If there was you'd find Iranians becoming Christians and Texans becoming Muslims at the same rate. We are a product of our environment. It's the same reason kids in the USA who discover they love playing sports don't usually get into cricket or hurling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't think it's the case that most theists will concede that they believe in Jesus because that is what they have heard the most about. When I said that it was "weak" I just meant that it wouldn't be satisfying to me if I was the believer. I would need more. I would question it. There must be some other way that the believer makes sense of these experiences if they think about it at all.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I don't think it's the case that most theists will concede that they believe in Jesus because that is what they have heard the most about. When I said that it was "weak" I just meant that it wouldn't be satisfying to me if I was the believer. I would need more. I would question it. There must be some other way that the believer makes sense of these experiences if they think about it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might not concede it, but that doesn't mean that's not the reason. If an American says, "I''m a Christian because Christianity meshes best with my personal subjective spiritual experience", does that make it true? I'm sure it's true *to them*, but there's a 99.9% chance that person would be a Muslim if he happened to be born in a different place.

[PairTheBoard]

Thanks to all of you who have expressed appreciation for my "insight". I have to admit a little pridefullness over it. I consider it to be deep, profound, and essential to what I think is the real spiritual "Jihad" struggle. Finding practical spiritual common ground for humanity.



[ QUOTE ]
Revising God is the way to go!

[/ QUOTE ]



I'm in complete agreement with you here. I'm also in agreement with the spirit of your questioning about why this is so hard to do in practice. Why are people so instransigent when it comes to doing this?

I think the difficult questions about the nature of spiritual experience and spiritual propositions are relatively easy compared to the analysis of the Religious Phenonmenon. The Religious landscape is a complicated terrain filled with all kinds of people in all kinds of stages and qualities of enlightenment. A religious institution has to be practical in how it treats this emmense diversity of people within it.

People have different spiritual needs according to their quality of enlightenment. Some may have a perceptual paradigm similiar to that of the Tribes of Israel that Moses dealt with. Others may have the enlightened views of a Hans Kung, or an Andrew Sullivan, or a Dalai Lama, or a Ghandi. It's not easy to manage a Religious Insitution that must provide spiritual sustenance and succor across such a diverse landscape.

This is why I'm not so quick to bash Religious Institutions. However, empathizing with their difficulties does not prevent me from looking to the Future. Old paradigms Will Not Do for providing spiritual sustenance and succor to modern humans evolving in Enlightenment. Yes, we must have concern for those to whom old paradigms still resonate. But we must also have concern for those to whom they don't. Especially when realizing that the Future lies with them.

This change of paradigm should not be looked at as a failure of the Old. It is in fact due to the success of the Old. Love is what matters. It is precisely because we have grown in compassion that we demand the new paradigm.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, I don't think it's the case that most theists will concede that they believe in Jesus because that is what they have heard the most about. When I said that it was "weak" I just meant that it wouldn't be satisfying to me if I was the believer. I would need more. I would question it. There must be some other way that the believer makes sense of these experiences if they think about it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might not concede it, but that doesn't mean that's not the reason. If an American says, "I''m a Christian because Christianity meshes best with my personal subjective spiritual experience", does that make it true? I'm sure it's true *to them*, but there's a 99.9% chance that person would be a Muslim if he happened to be born in a different place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're understanding me. I'm not really concerned with what is true in the sense of how people actually come to arrive at their beliefs. I am curious as to how people think they have arrived at their current beliefs.

I want to know how the believer makes sense of it.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, personally, am not ignoring your insight, ptb. In fact I agreed with it before you even mentioned it. Of course the most rapidly religion drops its "god" metaphor and just accept that the world simply is, that the god metaphor for what we don't know, doesn't help at all, in fact is full of dangerous contradictions and delusions, the better off we we all be and, the sooner greater progress in civilization will be made. The universe simply is, duh!

Thanks for your insightful posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't think you're getting the analogy. We don't call a photon of light a "particle" to represent that which we Don't know about Light. We use it to organize that which we believe we Do know about it. Similiarly the word "god" is used to convey that which we Believe to be the Way existence is. I realize that when you, MidGe, look at the Way existence is you see raw Nature with the undeniable suffering that happens. So you need no "god" word to describe your view. Others see something More in the Way existence is. The word "god" is useful to them for their view.

You are like someone who has only done experiments on light for which "particle" is the best organizing metaphor. You can't understand why everyone doesn't just call light a "particle". Others have done experiments which you have no experience with and which you cannot understand and which you cannot relate to whereby "wave" is the best organizing metaphor for light. It's not that they are using "wave" to describe what they do not know about light. They are using "wave" to describe what You do not know about light and which they believe according to the experiments they have performed.

Of course in the case of Light the experiments are objective and really can be explained and conveyed to you. For Spiritual issues the "experiments" are subjective and not so easily conveyed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Your last half of your last sentence here illustrates the entire problem. You claim they are not so easily conveyable....but we have no reason to think they are conveyable at all. And if they aren't, it makes no difference whether some people call it a particle or some a wave, neither description is meaningful in the least, from a practical standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I go around and around on this. From the practical standpoint of explaining our world according to objective evidence, yes. You are right. Subjective experience has little place in that practical quest. But it has a great deal to do with the practical quest of deciding our attitude toward existence and how we want to live and experience it.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, personally, am not ignoring your insight, ptb. In fact I agreed with it before you even mentioned it. Of course the most rapidly religion drops its "god" metaphor and just accept that the world simply is, that the god metaphor for what we don't know, doesn't help at all, in fact is full of dangerous contradictions and delusions, the better off we we all be and, the sooner greater progress in civilization will be made. The universe simply is, duh!

Thanks for your insightful posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't think you're getting the analogy. We don't call a photon of light a "particle" to represent that which we Don't know about Light. We use it to organize that which we believe we Do know about it. Similiarly the word "god" is used to convey that which we Believe to be the Way existence is. I realize that when you, MidGe, look at the Way existence is you see raw Nature with the undeniable suffering that happens. So you need no "god" word to describe your view. Others see something More in the Way existence is. The word "god" is useful to them for their view.

You are like someone who has only done experiments on light for which "particle" is the best organizing metaphor. You can't understand why everyone doesn't just call light a "particle". Others have done experiments which you have no experience with and which you cannot understand and which you cannot relate to whereby "wave" is the best organizing metaphor for light. It's not that they are using "wave" to describe what they do not know about light. They are using "wave" to describe what You do not know about light and which they believe according to the experiments they have performed.

Of course in the case of Light the experiments are objective and really can be explained and conveyed to you. For Spiritual issues the "experiments" are subjective and not so easily conveyed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Your last half of your last sentence here illustrates the entire problem. You claim they are not so easily conveyable....but we have no reason to think they are conveyable at all. And if they aren't, it makes no difference whether some people call it a particle or some a wave, neither description is meaningful in the least, from a practical standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I go around and around on this. From the practical standpoint of explaining our world according to objective evidence, yes. You are right. Subjective experience has little place in that practical quest. But it has a great deal to do with the practical quest of deciding our attitude toward existence and how we want to live and experience it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm forced to just concede your point, since the whole problem is you can't prove it or demonstrate it to me. But even if I do grant you that it is ACTUALLY important, that doesn't mean talking about it is. In fact, talking about it is guaranteed to be futile, isn't it?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I don't think it's the case that most theists will concede that they believe in Jesus because that is what they have heard the most about. When I said that it was "weak" I just meant that it wouldn't be satisfying to me if I was the believer. I would need more. I would question it. There must be some other way that the believer makes sense of these experiences if they think about it at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think for many if not most people, that really is how it happens. It's the easy way to go for them. It requires the least amount of thought. They can settle the question without much bother and go about their business. It also involves something I pointed out earlier that I think people here are missing. Listening to what other people say about it and simply "taking their word for it" becomes part of the subjective experience for the believer. When you think about it, that's how we come to believe a lot of things. I believe the President gave a speech today because I heard a reporter say so. I take his word for it even though I didn't witness the event.

Looking at those people will not give you much of an idea about what you're looking for. For what you're talking about you need to look at people who do give it a lot of thought. How do they make sense of it all? And how can we make sense of it all? It's not an easy question.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think for many if not most people, that really is how it happens. It's the easy way to go for them. It requires the least amount of thought. They can settle the question without much bother and go about their business. It also involves something I pointed out earlier that I think people here are missing. Listening to what other people say about it and simply "taking their word for it" becomes part of the subjective experience for the believer. When you think about it, that's how we come to believe a lot of things. I believe the President gave a speech today because I heard a reporter say so. I take his word for it even though I didn't witness the event.

Looking at those people will not give you much of an idea about what you're looking for. For what you're talking about you need to look at people who do give it a lot of thought. How do they make sense of it all? And how can we make sense of it all? It's not an easy question.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just shocked at how sure some people are of their faith. They just know that they are right. I'm curious as to why. I've heard many people say that they have "felt God" and that this reaffirms their faith. I just want to know how this experience gives them confidence in their entire religion and not just that there is "something out there".

In my opinion, the problem with religion is fundamentalism and that people are so sure of their faith that they wish to legislate laws and push their beliefs on others. I want to know how people come to believe so strongly. I know there are some posters on this site who feel very confident in their faith and I want to know what gives them this confidence.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both metaphors may be abadoned completely in the future for better ones. Try to apply this as an analogy to Religious doctrines when you think about them.

I've offered this insight here repeatedly. People seem to be ignoring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, personally, am not ignoring your insight, ptb. In fact I agreed with it before you even mentioned it. Of course the most rapidly religion drops its "god" metaphor and just accept that the world simply is, that the god metaphor for what we don't know, doesn't help at all, in fact is full of dangerous contradictions and delusions, the better off we we all be and, the sooner greater progress in civilization will be made. The universe simply is, duh!

Thanks for your insightful posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't think you're getting the analogy. We don't call a photon of light a "particle" to represent that which we Don't know about Light. We use it to organize that which we believe we Do know about it. Similiarly the word "god" is used to convey that which we Believe to be the Way existence is. I realize that when you, MidGe, look at the Way existence is you see raw Nature with the undeniable suffering that happens. So you need no "god" word to describe your view. Others see something More in the Way existence is. The word "god" is useful to them for their view.

You are like someone who has only done experiments on light for which "particle" is the best organizing metaphor. You can't understand why everyone doesn't just call light a "particle". Others have done experiments which you have no experience with and which you cannot understand and which you cannot relate to whereby "wave" is the best organizing metaphor for light. It's not that they are using "wave" to describe what they do not know about light. They are using "wave" to describe what You do not know about light and which they believe according to the experiments they have performed.

Of course in the case of Light the experiments are objective and really can be explained and conveyed to you. For Spiritual issues the "experiments" are subjective and not so easily conveyed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Your last half of your last sentence here illustrates the entire problem. You claim they are not so easily conveyable....but we have no reason to think they are conveyable at all. And if they aren't, it makes no difference whether some people call it a particle or some a wave, neither description is meaningful in the least, from a practical standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I go around and around on this. From the practical standpoint of explaining our world according to objective evidence, yes. You are right. Subjective experience has little place in that practical quest. But it has a great deal to do with the practical quest of deciding our attitude toward existence and how we want to live and experience it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm forced to just concede your point, since the whole problem is you can't prove it or demonstrate it to me. But even if I do grant you that it is ACTUALLY important, that doesn't mean talking about it is. In fact, talking about it is guaranteed to be futile, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The futility lies in the kind of proof you seek and your preconceptions about what it is being proved. The Statement will not be found in the words nor will its proof. As an example, the Life of Mother Theresa conveyed the real Statement to you. It also provided evidence for the reality of it.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think for many if not most people, that really is how it happens. It's the easy way to go for them. It requires the least amount of thought. They can settle the question without much bother and go about their business. It also involves something I pointed out earlier that I think people here are missing. Listening to what other people say about it and simply "taking their word for it" becomes part of the subjective experience for the believer. When you think about it, that's how we come to believe a lot of things. I believe the President gave a speech today because I heard a reporter say so. I take his word for it even though I didn't witness the event.

Looking at those people will not give you much of an idea about what you're looking for. For what you're talking about you need to look at people who do give it a lot of thought. How do they make sense of it all? And how can we make sense of it all? It's not an easy question.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just shocked at how sure some people are of their faith. They just know that they are right. I'm curious as to why. I've heard many people say that they have "felt God" and that this reaffirms their faith. I just want to know how this experience gives them confidence in their entire religion and not just that there is "something out there".

In my opinion, the problem with religion is fundamentalism and that people are so sure of their faith that they wish to legislate laws and push their beliefs on others. I want to know how people come to believe so strongly. I know there are some posters on this site who feel very confident in their faith and I want to know what gives them this confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever given someone your opinion on something, see their eyes light up in agreement with you, and then watch them go and abuse the sh-t out of the idea in ways you would have never anticipated nor approved of?

People are prone to weaknesses of character, human nature if you will. The gold of humility is a rare commodity. People enjoy being sure of themselves. People enjoy lording it over others. Just about anything that can be used as a means to power Will be used as a means to power by somebody. That's just the way people are. If it were possible for the statement "do not abuse anyone" to be used abusively you can bet somebody will use it that way. Such people do an injustice to the principle but they either don't see it or don't care.

It is hard to love such people. It can be even harder to see the ways in which we may do likewise.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

I'm interested in this one,
If the spirit has a connection with the physical body at some point, logically it would make sense that we have a 'physical response' in our brains to make us aware of 'the spiritual thing'. So it doesn't surprise me that it would be possible to directly manifest the physical response by tampering with the brain, but this wouldn't prove the cause in the case where there was no such tampering.

It looks at the chemistry that is going on in the brain when a person has a 'spiritual experience' - This is great research into brain chemistry but hardly evidence that the spiritual is non-existent.

Though, the point made in the article about the person naming the 'god-figure' that they are familiar with is a compelling point that we believe our 'spiritual experiences' to be representing that which we are most familiar with.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Have you ever given someone your opinion on something, see their eyes light up in agreement with you, and then watch them go and abuse the sh-t out of the idea in ways you would have never anticipated nor approved of?

People are prone to weaknesses of character, human nature if you will. The gold of humility is a rare commodity. People enjoy being sure of themselves. People enjoy lording it over others. Just about anything that can be used as a means to power Will be used as a means to power by somebody. That's just the way people are. If it were possible for the statement "do not abuse anyone" to be used abusively you can bet somebody will use it that way. Such people do an injustice to the principle but they either don't see it or don't care.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are basically saying that they just don't think about it though. Is that right? I guess I just assumed that some people have thought about it, but still believe.


[ QUOTE ]

It is hard to love such people. It can be even harder to see the ways in which we may do likewise.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to judge anybody, I just want to understand.

[bunny]

My position as a theist was essentially that the experiences I had which made me religious were subjective and hence evidentially weak. Consequently, I tried to analyse my religious beliefs with logic to see if there were any internal contradictions as that seems (to me) the best way to objectively test them. Anything contradicting objective evidence was discarded.

The result of that was I considered myself religious (and still go to a church where they consider me a christian) although I didnt accept the inerrancy of the bible, nor did I have any great confidence that my religious views were correct. In fact, I ascribed a high probability (almost a certainty) that I was wrong. Nonetheless, I was striving to understand and to grow closer to God. If God exists (as I conceive of him) then I think he wants that more than blind obedience to rules.

As to "How did you choose christianity over islam?" I relied on my subjective judgement as to which seemed true. I was well aware that this was likely to be culturally biased, hence my rejection of it as any kind of authoritative source. It seemed to me that I had no rational way to choose between religions, although I had rational reasons for being religious. Consequently, I did the best I could do and made an irrational choice (backed up with critical introspection)

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Have you ever given someone your opinion on something, see their eyes light up in agreement with you, and then watch them go and abuse the sh-t out of the idea in ways you would have never anticipated nor approved of?

People are prone to weaknesses of character, human nature if you will. The gold of humility is a rare commodity. People enjoy being sure of themselves. People enjoy lording it over others. Just about anything that can be used as a means to power Will be used as a means to power by somebody. That's just the way people are. If it were possible for the statement "do not abuse anyone" to be used abusively you can bet somebody will use it that way. Such people do an injustice to the principle but they either don't see it or don't care.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are basically saying that they just don't think about it though. Is that right? I guess I just assumed that some people have thought about it, but still believe.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. I was responding to your shock that people can be so sure of their doctrines and so overbearing about them. Why are they like that? Because people enjoy being sure of themselves and enjoy being overbearing.

PairTheBoard

[Alex-db]

Wouldn't it be interesting if someone, anyone, anywhere in the world, had one of these spiritual experiences that converted them to an existing religion that they hadn't previously heard of.

I think that that would count as evidence for religion and against mild schizophrenia.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it be interesting if someone, anyone, anywhere in the world, had one of these spiritual experiences that converted them to an existing religion that they hadn't previously heard of.

I think that that would count as evidence for religion and against mild schizophrenia.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect there's a valid point somewhere in your observation, although I'm not sure what it is. It's an interesting thought I need to chew on.

However, this is what I'm seeing in it. Someone has the experience of the beauty and grandeur of a mountain scene. Do you condemn poetry because they don't immediately express that experience with a poem that exactly matches one that's already been written? Suppose that person then reads a lot of poems and settles on one as best describing her experience? Do you condemn poetry because her choosing of that particular poem looks arbitrary to you? Do you exclaim, "this is not science", and reject poetry as meaningless?

Suppose further that she gets so excited about this poem she loves so much and proclaims to all the world that this is the one and only legitimate poem for describing the beauty and grandeur of a mountain scene? Do you condemn poetry now just because she happens to have become a nit about it?

Try looking at Religious doctrines as being more closely related to Poetry and Zen Koans than to science.

PairTheBoard

[revots33]

I like your poetry analogy PTB but a couple of things:

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose that person then reads a lot of poems and settles on one as best describing her experience? Do you condemn poetry because her choosing of that particular poem looks arbitrary to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of religion I'd say they may read a lot of poems, but they are all of the type those around them happen to be reading.


[ QUOTE ]
Suppose further that she gets so excited about this poem she loves so much and proclaims to all the world that this is the one and only legitimate poem for describing the beauty and grandeur of a mountain scene? Do you condemn poetry now just because she happens to have become a nit about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact is that the vast majority do become nits about it. If written into every poem was the instruction that you must try to prevent people from reading any other poem, then yes I'd condemn poetry as being rigid and opposed to knowledge and freedom.

Organized religion is actually anti-spirituality. It takes the wonder of the universe and cheapens it. I love to look at pictures from the Hubble Telescope. They are incredibly beautiful and the distances are infathomable to me. Now take that sense of wonder and pretend that it's all created by some diety as background props for my personal salvation. The explanation is so much less beautiful than the mystery.

[PairTheBoard]

I was watching the Actors Studio the other day with Johnny Depp on the show. He said something that struck me funny. He said it in such a casual offhand matter of fact way. I don't remember the context but in passing he remarked something to the effect of, "You know, in religion you pick and choose the things that work for you...". Like everybody knows this. Everybody does this. That's how religion works. Well yea. It does for people like you Johnny.

But for a lot of people That is a major revelation. "You can do that? Who said you can do that? Nobody ever told Me you can do that? My priest/minister/guru/... told me Not to do that? Are you some kind of authority or something? I can't do that unless someone in authority tells me it's ok." That's the muck a lot of people are stuck in.

If you're a poetry lover you don't just get married to one poem. You have a whole library of poetry books and enjoy each poem according to what is has to offer you.

I agree that Religion as it is has a lot of problems. That doesn't mean we can't adopt a personal view for Religion as it Should be for us.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
My position as a theist was essentially that the experiences I had which made me religious were subjective and hence evidentially weak. Consequently, I tried to analyse my religious beliefs with logic to see if there were any internal contradictions as that seems (to me) the best way to objectively test them. Anything contradicting objective evidence was discarded.

The result of that was I considered myself religious (and still go to a church where they consider me a christian) although I didnt accept the inerrancy of the bible, nor did I have any great confidence that my religious views were correct. In fact, I ascribed a high probability (almost a certainty) that I was wrong. Nonetheless, I was striving to understand and to grow closer to God. If God exists (as I conceive of him) then I think he wants that more than blind obedience to rules.

As to "How did you choose christianity over islam?" I relied on my subjective judgement as to which seemed true. I was well aware that this was likely to be culturally biased, hence my rejection of it as any kind of authoritative source. It seemed to me that I had no rational way to choose between religions, although I had rational reasons for being religious. Consequently, I did the best I could do and made an irrational choice (backed up with critical introspection)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish more people would use the same approach that you did.

[bunny]

Most of the people in my church follow a very similar view in deciding moral questions. How it appears to me is that they say the Bible is the source of their moral views and claim to make ethical decisions based on what is written in there. What they actually do though is make the same moral judgements as anyone else, then interpret the bible to justify that position.