Experiencing God's Presence

[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.

[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.