Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 31 of 55 (563246)
06-04-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
To go abit further, our approach of reasoning is usually like this,
1) Truth with evidence
2) Truth without evidence
3) falsehood
The most efficient way to handle earthly matters is to give up further distinguishing between 2) and 3). Humans' way of thinking/reasoning will refuse to further distinguish 2) from 3). That's why they often ask for evidence. Such a way of reasoning is efficient, practical and good for survival on earth.
But by the application of such a reasoning mind set, they can never find out the truth in 2). Such an approach is the climbing up of the Tree of Knowledge (by human skills of survival, by pass experience, by accumulated knowledge and etc.). Humans use this approach to judge true and false, right and wrong, good and evil.
This approach is however inefficient in digging up the truth in 2). And thus the old prophecy,
The day you eat of it, the same day you shall surely die (the second death).
You thus need faith (not evidence) and rely on God to try to discover what's going on in the spiritual realm (after life). That's the Tree of Life (about life after physical death).
Moreover, you need faith anyway, by fate or by design of this earth,
-----------------
As long as the following question is without an answer, religions will continue to exist. The only thing actually changes is that people start to lose their self-awareness to recognise what kind of faith they possess. And the question is,
Does afterlife exist, does soul exist?
If your answer is Yes, that represents your religion as your answer is religious. If on the other hand your answer is No, that also represents your religion as your answer is also a religious one.
The more scientific answer is "I don't know". Yet unfortunately, it's not an answer you can keep till you die. If you don't make a consent choice, your sub-consciousness will pick a "no" for you.
As for those whose answer is a 'yes', they have the self-awareness about what their own faith and religion is. As for those whose answer is a 'no', they don't even have that awareness to realise that they are religious.
Religions only change forms. People jump from one side of the fence to join another bandwagon of faith. That's it.
There will be less and less people believe in God as predicted. Only those who endure shall be saved.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 4:56 AM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 10:52 AM Hawkins has replied

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


(1)
Message 32 of 55 (563283)
06-04-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 2:11 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
Straggler writes:
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 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 2:11 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 55 (563319)
06-04-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 4:56 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
Hawkins writes:
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.
Genesis 3:22-23 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
Gee, if we need the Tree of Life to accurately evaluate heavenly matters it sure is a shame God kicked us out of Eden. It seems like God purposely denied us the tools or ability to make informed decisions about spirituality.
So why is he being such a hard ass about us getting it wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 4:56 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 5:17 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 55 (563325)
06-04-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hawkins
06-04-2010 5:08 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
Hawkins writes:
Such an approach is the climbing up of the Tree of Knowledge (by human skills of survival, by pass experience, by accumulated knowledge and etc.). Humans use this approach to judge true and false, right and wrong, good and evil.
Past experience and accumulated knowledge are forms of evidence. As for skill of survival, someone can survive due to getting lucky; it doesn't give them special knowledge.
So try again.
Hawkins writes:
The more scientific answer is "I don't know". Yet unfortunately, it's not an answer you can keep till you die. If you don't make a consent choice, your sub-consciousness will pick a "no" for you.
So basically you are saying that people will subconsciously make an unwarranted decision when lacking evidence, but you provide no evidence of this claim. Perhaps an example can show you the error in this way of thinking:
I am making the claim now that the Christian god you worship is actually evil. Both Satan and God are equally immoral, and there is no supernatural advocate for humanity. Heaven is still available however, and the only requirement to get in is that you try to make moral decisions based on your own capacity rather than being a slave to either God or Satan.
I have no evidence to support this claim, therefore you cannot tell this from truth without evidence or falsehood. If you don't believe me, you are subconsciously making a "no" decision that is unwarranted.
So the problem is you are now left with two possible faith-based positions which are contradictory. Since neither has good evidence to support them you cannot objectively determine which is the more appropriate choice. Therefore choosing over the other has a 50% chance of causing eternal damnation for your soul. Well, that stinks, huh?
Furthermore, I can come up with more unevidenced claims that contradict your faith-based belief. This lowers the odds even more, so belief in your particular idea is unlikely to be true. Open-minded people easily realize that there are an infinite number of possible unevidenced proposals, each indistinguishable in truth from each other. This means that believing any completely unevidenced claim is not 90% likely to be true, or 50% likely, or even 10% likely; it is 0.000..(infinite zeros)..00001% likely.
So why believe your version rather than mine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hawkins, posted 06-04-2010 5:08 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 5:47 AM Phage0070 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 35 of 55 (563554)
06-05-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
06-03-2010 8:05 PM


Re: My God - it's full of stars!
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).
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.
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.
I see what you are getting at but I still think the conviction issue is the stumbling block for me here.
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.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2010 8:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 9:08 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 39 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 6:06 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 36 of 55 (563560)
06-05-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Straggler
06-05-2010 8:29 PM


Re: My God - it's full of stars!
Yes. And it is this degree of conviction in such experiences that I am finding it hard to even imagine.
I can see why it would be difficult to see. One of their qualities seems to be their reported 'ineffability', in much the same way that my perception of 'red' might be.
All I can say is there is a certain sense of conviction and revelation of true knowledge. In some way it would be like trying to explain deja vu as the feeling you've experienced something before. That's kind of it, but the sensation is...more than that somehow, it has a strange 'uncanniness' to it.
As Dan Dennett would say: It really does seem to you that that is the way of things. When it stops - you have a choice. Do you take the red pill or the blue pill? One of them takes you further down the rabbit hole. Do you dismiss it as a 'funny turn' or believe it was a divine revelation as the surrounding culture massively reinforces?
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.
To be honest - I don't think it is all based on some un-explained religious experience. Some of what you see might be a result of the sunk-cost effect. Even competent people fall prey to it: sport coaches give more 'on field' time to people they paid more money for regardless of performance. People that pay more money for a concert are more likely to attend more concerts than those that pay less.
People have invested a lot of their time and energy into their religious views, so it wouldn't be surprising to see that this can result in some irrational decision making.
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.
Sounds like a good starting point to me. Perfect weather for it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2010 8:29 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 37 of 55 (564353)
06-10-2010 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phage0070
06-04-2010 10:33 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
quote:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."
Gee, if we need the Tree of Life to accurately evaluate heavenly matters it sure is a shame God kicked us out of Eden. It seems like God purposely denied us the tools or ability to make informed decisions about spirituality.
So why is he being such a hard ass about us getting it wrong?
Gee, you discuss Christianity on a daily basis without even knowing that the Christianity God wants your faith, instead of some tools you can rely on?
So yes, he kicked humans (basically Adam) out of Eden (His Kingdom) such that you need faith in order to make a return.
Is it harsh for someone who did wrong to say "God please forgive me"? If that's what harsh is, can't help that much.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 10:33 AM Phage0070 has not replied

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


Message 38 of 55 (564357)
06-10-2010 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phage0070
06-04-2010 10:52 AM


Re: Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?
quote:
Past experience and accumulated knowledge are forms of evidence. As for skill of survival, someone can survive due to getting lucky; it doesn't give them special knowledge.
So try again.
Because someone can survive by sheer luck such that humans don't need any survival skills?! Gee, I can't imagine one can draw such a conclusion which even school kids won't.
So try again.
quote:
So basically you are saying that people will subconsciously make an unwarranted decision when lacking evidence, but you provide no evidence of this claim. Perhaps an example can show you the error in this way of thinking:
Like I said, not every truth is evidence based all the times. Evidence is for a human skull to 'smell' truth. So don't always apply your 'the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence' fallacy. Moreover, since when you acquired the evidence that I even exist to make a reply to my post, I am surprised that you won't treat them as randomly appeared images before you prove my existence.
quote:
I am making the claim now that the Christian god you worship is actually evil. Both Satan and God are equally immoral, and there is no supernatural advocate for humanity. Heaven is still available however, and the only requirement to get in is that you try to make moral decisions based on your own capacity rather than being a slave to either God or Satan.
I have no evidence to support this claim, therefore you cannot tell this from truth without evidence or falsehood. If you don't believe me, you are subconsciously making a "no" decision that is unwarranted.
So your logic here is truth cannot exist without evidence. Again, it's a fallacy, whether you have evidence or not, if God exists then He exists. You may have a problem to approach Him though. Moreover, you can believe whatever you believe.
quote:
So the problem is you are now left with two possible faith-based positions which are contradictory. Since neither has good evidence to support them you cannot objectively determine which is the more appropriate choice. Therefore choosing over the other has a 50% chance of causing eternal damnation for your soul. Well, that stinks, huh?
Furthermore, I can come up with more unevidenced claims that contradict your faith-based belief. This lowers the odds even more, so belief in your particular idea is unlikely to be true. Open-minded people easily realize that there are an infinite number of possible unevidenced proposals, each indistinguishable in truth from each other. This means that believing any completely unevidenced claim is not 90% likely to be true, or 50% likely, or even 10% likely; it is 0.000..(infinite zeros)..00001% likely.
So why believe your version rather than mine?
Like I said, first your lack of evidence can't be used as a proof that others' claims are not true. Second, you haven't acquired any evidence doesn't mean that others haven't. You contradiction here is you believe without evidence that others don't have evidence about God. Third, human belief system varies, what considered as evidence to you might not be evidence at all to others, and vice versa.
At last, your concept of probability is truly lame. 1) According to what formulation you calculated the 0.00000x probability? 2) do you know that 0.000x probability doesn't simultaneously says that 'it can't be true'. Lower probability can still win out in a table of betting.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phage0070, posted 06-04-2010 10:52 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 6:08 AM Hawkins has replied

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


Message 39 of 55 (564358)
06-10-2010 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Straggler
06-05-2010 8:29 PM


Re: My God - it's full of stars!
quote:
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.
I don't find it "offensive". Rather, I speculate those giving out alternative explanations can't be aware of the that their explanations are somehow faith based. To a certain extent, it makes no different to say that "I know it's your experience, but please take my faith since that experience could be your faith."
Could you see the odd?
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Straggler, posted 06-05-2010 8:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 10:09 AM Hawkins has replied

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


Message 40 of 55 (564359)
06-10-2010 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Hawkins
06-10-2010 5:47 AM


10% unknown does not mean 10% god
To swing it back on topic,
Do you believe that your personal/private experiences provide you with evidence, appropriate to yourself only, that a deity exists?
If so, could you attempt to describe those experiences?
Secondly - is 'a deity exists' the most parsimonious explanation for the experiences you have had? If it is not, why is it your preferred explanation?
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%.
"90% of the time it is a known psychological effect, 10% it is an unknown effect".
The question is, since the deity explanation is just one of many possible candidates for 'unknown effect' - why do people insist that Straggler proves it is not a deity and that if he says that it is more likely that the unknown effects are simply as yet undiscovered psychological effects (since the 90% started at 0% and has risen through time, as new evidence and better technology has come along) that he is some kind of strident fundamentalist faitheist?
No - Straggler, I'm sure, would be perfectly comfortable that there is a 1 in 10 chance any given religious experience does not have a suitable neurally based explanation. But what relevance is squeezing a deity into that gap, and what's so wrong with saying that bridging the gap with a deity was bad when it was done with medicine so it is wise not to do it with neuroscience?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 5:47 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 6:26 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 41 of 55 (564364)
06-10-2010 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
06-10-2010 6:08 AM


Re: 10% unknown does not mean 10% god
quote:
To swing it back on topic,
Do you believe that your personal/private experiences provide you with evidence, appropriate to yourself only, that a deity exists?
If so, could you attempt to describe those experiences?
It's complicated. First, it seems to me that people ususally fail to assume (or assume too fast) about 2 things.
1) whenever you mention an event, they quickly think that you draw your religious conclusion purely on that event. So they will blar about something like "No, it is more reasonable to explain it this way or that way". Now to make you think deep, how about that it is a series of events experienced, closely co-related to each other, within a time frame around 3 years or more?! Will you still say that "Oh I have some more reasonable explanation for your chain after chain experience (hmm...well insanity could be an explanation but that's by your faith that he's insane).
2) People will have to assume that things are plainly about present or past. They can never imagine that there can a closely related relationship between past, now and future. Say, if you can predict things during a period of time, will you still accept someone bragging about "Oh no, I have a better explanation...".
quote:
Secondly - is 'a deity exists' the most parsimonious explanation for the experiences you have had? If it is not, why is it your preferred explanation?
Hehe... think about the above. It's more about the "future" when you truly experience God.
So if you think that I ever experienced something worthy of describing, you expect me to write down events in a 3 years period here in the forum?!
Rather, my way would be that (i.e. if I truly experienced something) I wrote down everything I post in that 3 years then to speculate as a third person that "Gee, what this guy says. What intelligence he acquired after the experiences...". That sounds to be a better choice.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 6:08 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 7:26 AM Hawkins has replied
 Message 48 by Hawkins, posted 06-14-2010 4:17 AM Hawkins has replied

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


Message 42 of 55 (564375)
06-10-2010 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Hawkins
06-10-2010 6:26 AM


Re: 10% unknown does not mean 10% god
whenever you mention an event, they quickly think that you draw your religious conclusion purely on that event
Maybe so. But we are talking about people who, when asked why they believe say "I spoke with Jesus in a revelatory experience of love and transcendence , experienced 'the futureness of god', etc "
Now to make you think deep, how about that it is a series of events experienced, closely co-related to each other, within a time frame around 3 years or more?! Will you still say that "Oh I have some more reasonable explanation for your chain after chain experience (hmm...well insanity could be an explanation but that's by your faith that he's insane).
I have already explained my experiences, closely co-related within a time frame of about 15 years
We don't need to postulate 'insane' when 'has a human brain' will suffice.
I suppose some would argue that your having a brain is something I am taking on unsubstantiated faith - but that's not quite the same thing you mean.
Hehe... think about the above. It's more about the "future" when you truly experience God.
Why is 'truly experienced God' your preferred explanation over the multitude of neural effects that can cause similar things? Do you think something being about 'the future' or any confusion of space and time doesn't happen to people having strokes, epileptic fits etc?
So if you think that I ever experienced something worthy of describing, you expect me to write down events in a 3 years period here in the forum?!
If you hold that your 'future' experiences are reason for you to believe that you 'truly experienced God', why not describe some of these 'future' experiences?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 6:26 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2010 10:20 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 45 by Hawkins, posted 06-14-2010 3:55 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 46 by Hawkins, posted 06-14-2010 4:01 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 43 of 55 (564404)
06-10-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hawkins
06-10-2010 6:06 AM


Re: My God - it's full of stars!
Rather, I speculate those giving out alternative explanations can't be aware of the that their explanations are somehow faith based.
How are the alternative evidence based conclusions reliant on faith?
To a certain extent, it makes no different to say that "I know it's your experience, but please take my faith since that experience could be your faith."
If one explanation is evidenced and the other not they are not both faith based are they?
Could you see the odd?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hawkins, posted 06-10-2010 6:06 AM Hawkins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Hawkins, posted 06-14-2010 4:03 AM Straggler has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 44 of 55 (564405)
06-10-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
06-10-2010 7:26 AM


Re: 10% unknown does not mean 10% god
Why is 'truly experienced God' your preferred explanation over the multitude of neural effects that can cause similar things? Do you think something being about 'the future' or any confusion of space and time doesn't happen to people having strokes, epileptic fits etc?
Or ingesting 400 milligrams of mescaline? I did that a few times in the long-ago and had some very nice "religious" experiences. Brain chemistry, Hawkins, is the parsimonious explanation for stuff like that. Dieties are the unevidenced explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 7:26 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 45 of 55 (564961)
06-14-2010 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
06-10-2010 7:26 AM


Re: 10% unknown does not mean 10% god
quote:
Maybe so. But we are talking about people who, when asked why they believe say "I spoke with Jesus in a revelatory experience of love and transcendence , experienced 'the futureness of god', etc.
Sure, there are tons of NDE which are not unquestionable, yet you can't simply judge all situation using what you've already know, especially to judge something totally outside of human technology to reach.
Can technology reach afterlife, the answer is NO. Yet your argument could still be because it is not true because our technolgy can't reach it. It's a kind of circular logic.
quote:
I have already explained my experiences, closely co-related within a time frame of about 15 years
We don't need to postulate 'insane' when 'has a human brain' will suffice.
I suppose some would argue that your having a brain is something I am taking on unsubstantiated faith - but that's not quite the same thing you mean.
Experience about what? Absence of evidence, you may experience though 100000000000000000000000 years of absence of evidence, yet 1 encounter can disprove your stance.
quote:
Why is 'truly experienced God' your preferred explanation over the multitude of neural effects that can cause similar things? Do you think something being about 'the future' or any confusion of space and time doesn't happen to people having strokes, epileptic fits etc?
Only the other hand, why can't true exist outside of your human knowledge and experience acquired? Do you mean that because you think that the neural explanation is efficient to you such that no other truth can exist outside of neural scope?
If your answer is NO, that is, other truth can exist outside of the neural explanation, then if you always adapt the neural explanation no matter how odd the situation is against it, then how will you be able to find out those other truth.
If on other hand your answer is YES, that is, there is no other possible truth outside the neural explanation, that remains your faith and not necessarily true.
quote:
If you hold that your 'future' experiences are reason for you to believe that you 'truly experienced God', why not describe some of these 'future' experiences?
What for, to filfull your curiosity? Or to allow others jump on me like crazy. I talk only when I feel comfortable to talk. I actually tried on several occassions (here as well) to go deeper into the situation but I was quickly rejected.
To tell you the truth, I was even rejected by spiritual person like Phat (the admin here I believe). Since then I am not keen on telling my story at all. Plus that I speculate two things, 1) God's will is important (if it's truly God in behind) 2) you need faith either to accept or to reject, to go deeper helps nothing.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.
Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 7:26 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2010 7:35 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024