Experiencing God's Presence

[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.