A Red Chair, a Purple Couch, and Nothingness: Thoughts on the Problem of God

[Chevalier Violet]

It all began when I took Comparative Anthropology and was introduced to the concept of "cultural relativism." Ever since then, the notion that one religious group of people whoever has the truth, and everyone else is wrong or less right has always been hateful to me.

A few years earlier, I, a devout atheist at the time, had become a Christian after a vision of God came to me one evening. It felt like something I had always known, seeing God was like noticing a new detail in the house I grew up in. God to me, delusional or otherwise, was just a new part of the landscape I had never noticed before.

But something about this vision plagued me. My problem was never that God seemed irreal to me, although that was the case as well later. My problem was always "how is it that the Christians just landed on truth." And everyone else is just wrong, as the Christians say.

One Sunday there was a sermon in Church, and the pastor informed us that we needed an unshakable faith in Jesus Christ. That was the last time I ever went to Church as a Christian.

That was where my search began.

The Problem of God

I first need to ask a favor of you, and the favor is this. What I'm getting at in this thread is extremely complex, and there are a lot of different angles and aspects to this question. I don't have the time to cover every aspect right now. That means I need your help, as much as you are able, to try to understand the logic of what I'm saying.

Believe me, if you want to come away disagreeing with me or thinking I'm an idiot you will have a very easy time doing so. What I'm saying is a bit tough to express with words, so I will need help on your end being a bit patient and ruminating toward ideas that are not immediately intuitive.

The problem is very simple. It is this: many sane, rational, normal people perceive God. And yet there's a multiplicity of religions out there, even the monotheistic ones seem to disagree on the details of God's character. And then there are the non-theistic and poly-theistic beliefs, which add to the mess.

Even worse, there are a large number of people who never perceive God as a deity at all. There are the pantheists and the panentheists who never really interact with a deity in the way people I know did and I did.

One solution to this whole mess, offered by some atheists, is the very reasonable suggestion that everybody is wrong about God because everybody is just making God up. Or wishing God were there as a comfort. Or the conspiracy theorists will say that God is an invention of organized religion in an attempt to pacify or subjugate humankind.

Well from an atheist perspective, this probably seems about right. According to this theory, the atheists are the smart ones, everyone else is duped. That sounds like something I want to believe.

The "simple delusion theory" doesn't really fit the evidence I have. It is perfectly plausible. It is perfectly rational. It is perfectly logical and self-coherent. What this "God is just a delusion" bit misses is the fact that I am a sane rational logical person, and even though I was an atheist, God simply appeared to me one day, and I was flabbergasted. I was lying in bed, quite awake, and all of a sudden, I felt this presence, and I KNEW what Christians meant by God. They meant that presence. This was the "vision that Christians attribute to God."

Now, of course, I don't need psychic powers to hear the groans among the atheists. This could be a delusion, this could be a lot of things.

Absolutely right. I'm not saying this proves anything at all. Or taken alone, is even evidence for anything. Let's be perfectly clear: what I saw (and continue to see) could be a delusion. What makes this "delusion" interesting, is that millions of other people have it.

Reproducibility. It's that this vision has been reproduced. If it were just me seeing God, or ghosts or the Flying Invisible Unicorn, I would just be a crank. But since lots of people perceive God, this vision becomes more and more difficult to explain with the simple delusion model.

So, Jay, you asked what grounds we may call this evidence. I say very, very shaky grounds. But the grounds nonetheless is

1.) I see God.
2.) People see the same thing as I do.

That is evidence, even if it is weak evidence. Even if it is evidence that *can* be viewed another way. It can be seen as evidence for God. Or it could not be seen as such.

This point is not intuitive, so I ask that you read on Wikipedia about Quine.

Think about a chair. Why do we think a chair is real? We can touch it, see it, hear it. But most importantly, other people can touch it, and see it, and hear it. If everybody sees a chair except John, he sees an empty room.. we say that John must be crazy. If Jane sees a chair and nobody else sees a chair, she is delusional.

So you see that the more people see what I see means the more we tend to think of it as real. We associate reproducibility with reality. Now it may turn out, as the skeptic's dictionary says, that we have a biological capacity to have a vision of God. Just like how we all see optical illusions, it's not because the illusion is there, it's because we have a biological apparatus that leads us to perceive reality in a false way.

The same could be the case for religion. All of you, please resist the urge to accuse me of saying I know what this vision of God is. I do not. We could just have biological equipment that, for some reason, causes a complex and unique hallucination, and doesn't impact our perception of reality otherwise.

Note that if this is the case that biological equipment is the cause of "visions of God", then seeing God is like dreaming. And when I see visions of God in this light, I think it's a bit funny when people say "I don't need to see God to be happy." It's true, we absolutely do not need God to be happy, or to have a great afterlife. I just view it as something akin to saying "I don't need to dream to be happy." Seeing God would become part of our natural and fulfilled biological function.

But enough of this. I want to turn to a contradiction in play here, the "problem of God." Let's get to the point:

We all perceive a chair the same way, but even people who "see God" don't all perceive God the same way, a point that is fundamental to critiques of Christianity. Here is an analogy for the problem of God that I really like.

Imagine there is a room which nobody is allowed to enter, but which has open doors and windows.

And when looking into that room, one large group sees a red chair, another large group sees a purple sofa, another sees four chairs, and a final group sees nothing at all in the room.

I think this is an excellent analogy for the "problem of God."

Every group, including atheists, thinks *they're perceiving reality* and all the others are just imagining.

Consider that carefully. Every group thinks they see reality, and every group believes that all the other groups are mistaken.

So being a member of each group is subjectively the same, since everybody is saying "we're right and they're wrong." And if someone from each group were to report back to Tim the impartial observer, Tim would have no objective basis for a choice on what's in that room based on testimony alone. Objectively, nobody is any different. They all believe they are right and everybody else is wrong. And it is never just one person seeing, say, a purple couch, but a lot of people.

But there is no impartial observer Tim, because everybody either sees God or doesn't. So Tim tends to fall within whatever group perceives as he does. If Tim sees nothing in the room, as hard as Tim tries, he is going to have a hard time believing there is a red chair in the room.

It takes a ton of self-discipline to overcome the appearance of what's in the room, take a step back despite being part of a group, and respect what everyone else is saying. What makes it hard is that everything seems to clear and self evident... there's nothing in the room, or there's a red chair, or a purple couch. Everything seems so clear, it just doesn't seem like anyone else could possibly be in their right mind.

And the worst part is that every group contains many reasonable, sane, rational, people of sound judgment. (And every group has murderous nutjobs.) Every group claims that people from other groups are delusional or mistaken. How can we choose?

I will cover this question of choice or trust a bit later. For now, let's flesh out this analogy even further.

Now if this analogy were like reality, things would be even more chaotic. Because some people, their parents saw a red chair and the child sees nothing, but the child strongly believes in the red chair anyway. And then sometimes, a person like me will see a purple couch but will believe that there's actually nothing in the room. As you can imagine, there aren't many people like me. Then people are often changing what they see, sometimes a person will see nothing but then will see a red chair. Or I will see a purple couch but then realize that I also see a red chair.

Then there are people who see nothing, but are told that something is there and are told that we should believe in the four purple chairs on faith. I deplore this sort of reasoning because, obviously, we can all look for ourselves equally well. I see no reason to believe anything because someone else says it's true. Rather I believe we should believe in what we see. With one caveat which I will discuss later, namely that we should all believe what we see but always seek to expand our perception. I will discuss this later.

I hate it when people start making threats. If you don't believe in the red chair, you're going to be in a dark painful place for eternity. Pretend to see nothing and I will give you political power.

Cont'd

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Good luck, lol.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

There is a lot of disaccord about God. How do we solve this problem?

One solution is the current solution: tolerance. We all say, I disagree with you, I think I'm right, I think you're crazy, but I'm going to put up with you. I'm going to be polite. We're just going to talk about something else.

It's like having a conversation with a crazy uncle. He keeps talking as if his deceased ex-wife is sitting on the patio next to the begonias, but he's my uncle so I'm going to be nice and put up with him for a while. My best hope is to change the subject. If I mention that his wife is dead, obviously there's going to be a problem.

Another solution is relativism. This says what's actually in the room depends on who's looking. When Rob is looking, there's actually a red chair in there, but whenever John starts looking, the chair vanishes. And so forth.

Then there are the positivists who say, "since looking in the room is not a reliable form of evidence, let's just all stop looking."

Atheists borrow this argument as support that God is just a delusion. Since the red chairs can't "prove" to the people who see nothing that a red chair is there, it must not be. Or since they have "no evidence" for their "delusion" , nothing is there.

I'm not saying this is incorrect. It is just one plausible opinion of what's in the room.


Now the atheists, of course, have the "simple solution": everybody else is a bunch of loonies, and there's really nothing there.

The theists have a different and also simple solution: the atheists just haven't looked in the right way yet. Each defines the "looking the right way" as, of course, their own way (just as the atheists do).

There are a lot of atheists in the world. There are also a lot of Christians and Muslims and Jews so it's hard to say who to believe. Simple numbers are not evidence for who is right.

The True Dream

Can God really exist if everybody perceives something different?

How can God really exist if everybody perceives something different?

These are atheistic questions. The theists do not need to ask. For a person who sees a purple couch, the only question is "how does anybody see anything different?" Theists tend to believe what they see. An atheist obviously wants to know why he or she should look in the first place.

Since this answer is addressed to atheists, I should speak a bit about what it's like to encounter a deity (I am agnostic as to whether this encounter was based in reality, in other words, I don't know and neither do you).

For me and for people I know, seeing God was like noticing something on the wall. For this reason, the people I know and I became theists. I don't think revelatory or epiphanic are quite the right words. Seeing God was noticing something I had always looked at but never seen, the realization of something I had always known. Once seen, a vision of God can always be seen again. In this sense, I would compare seeing "God" as learning to draw. Because learning to draw is really just learning to see, it is difficult to forget.

Delusion or not, I believe this is why "visions of God" usually convert people into theists, and I believe why there are so few atheists who have seen a vision of God.

Let's look at some more reasons an atheist might want to look.

One thing has to go out the window right away. There cannot be a red chair, a purple chair, four chairs and nothing in the same place at the same time. In this way, God cannot be at once the Christian God, Jesus, Zeus, Krishna, Allah, Hera - in the strictest, most literal sense - at the same time.

Respecting other people's ability to perceive God just as well as you means we all have to let go of being right exclusively. We have to let go of the "I and everyone who thinks like me is right, and everyone else is wrong" syndrome. We have to let go of literal, strict interpretations of whatever we believe in order to respect the perceptions of others. The world's religions cannot all be correct in the same way at the same time. God is probably not Aphrodite and Jesus at the same time.

As I have mentioned before, the atheists would say that since everybody disagrees about what God looks like and who God is, everybody is probably just imagining God.

The reasons I would ask atheists to expand their perception, is because I am not asking anything different of anybody else. The Christians I ask to see God as a delusion, or as multiple Gods, or as Aphrodite. And to everyone else I do the same. That is the only "objective" data I can have, is what can people find and what can't they find.

How can everyone be right at the same time about God?

The atheists say everyone is equally crazy.

The polytheists would suggest that there are multiple Gods, and this is why there is such a multiplicity of perceptions.

Certain monotheists would say that God is vast and beyond complete human comprehension. This would explain why God may be seen as inherent to matter (pantheism and panentheism), a deity (Judeo-Christian), *and* a pantheon of various world Gods (Ancient Greeks, Hinduism.). In other words, some would argue that God is so complex that we *need* multiple visions of what God is, in order to get a more complete picture.

This point of view, though not very satisfying, would mean that different views of God see different aspects of God's character. This is like seeing a finely cut diamond from different angles.

For instance, I am a good person and a bad person, both of these are "true" since I am in fact a very complex person, and there is more than enough room for more than one metaphor to be correct.

So the monotheist would suggest that the Christians see part of the truth, the native Americans another part, and the Muslim a third. But nobody understands God in His entirety, because God is beyond human comprehension. God can only be reduced to metaphors small and familiar enough to be digested by the human mind. Different ways of viewing God are nothing more than different, incomplete tools for perceiving what God is.

I would suggest a fourth possibility: God is the feeling of a presence. On the one hand, the atheists are numb to it. On the other, every theistic religion has a different way of expressing that feeling.

When viewed in this way, every different representation or way of describing God would be similar to dreams or art. For instance, we all feel joy the exact same way, yet one person will express this in a painting and another through music. And if two express joy through music, no two songs will be alike. Dreams too are built upon my emotions, so that if I feel happy I will run in a sunny field whereas someone else may swim in the ocean. So although the forms, the metaphors will differ from person to person, the feeling of joy is real and is the same for everyone. In the same way, it is theoretically possible that God could exist and cause a feeling in us that we represent in a number of different ways.

Another Solution:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51324

I have already posted about how every religion can be right at the same time. That is not my point here. Here, I am focusing on the problem of God, and how everybody perceives something different.

A Third Solution:

Unlike my other post, this "solution" is far from complete, and needs your help. This is not a solution but a way, a path toward finding a solution.

Step 1: Humility

We all have to admit and openly confess that we don't know "what's in the room," in other words, the true nature of the universe. All we know is what we personally perceive, feel, and believe.

Step 2: Respect

We all need to seriously consider the possibility that people who perceive something different aren't delusional.

In other words, people see something different. It may be that they're the ones who are right. It may also be that they may be seeing something important and useful to humankind even if that perception isn't outside of their own body or mind.

For instance, the atheists prove that we don't need God to be happy and focuses on secular morality. The Hindus may have proven that multiple deities exist. They have at least proven that this is a changeable perception. The pantheists show the godliness of normal matter, and ourselves. And so forth.

In other words, we don't know who's right. Most likely, it doesn't even matter. We should still strive to "perceive" the things that each group perceives. It may be the case that the wisest people can learn to see an empty room, a red chair, and four purple couches.

Step 3: Effort

Understanding other people and religions that aren't our own takes effort. Not like oh ok I read a book effort. Real, long, enduring effort.

I met a guy once who had read a few pages of the Qu'ran and declared it a false religion. That is not effort.

I met a Christian once who imagined himself a real expert on world religions. He came off to me as a know-it-all. I asked him, so what do you understand of Islam? He said, well, I read their holy book and it's just not as good as the Bible.

My thought was, "then you just didn't look hard enough."

My motto is: I don't understand a religion until I would live it myself. Not that I do live it, but that the religion is so compelling to me that I can completely and totally see how I would.

Cont'd

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Step 4: Expand our perception

My dad, a profound atheist, went to Church one time. He sat there and observed its rituals, the Christian prayers. And seemed most satisfied.

When I talked to him afterward, he said, it was kind of cool to watch the Christian rituals, and hear the prayers and stuff. I kind of had fun. I was disgusted. Dad, you have never seen God before... everything they're saying is totally meaningless without that. It's like claiming to understand chemistry without knowing what an element is, or biology without knowing the organs, or an archeologist without understanding a fossil.

Every time he says "God" he might as well have said Gobbeldy gook, for all it means to you.

I wasn't calling my dad stupid - at all - it is just easy to assume we understand something we don't. I have done this a million times. My dad thought about it for a while, and agreed that I had a point.

I honestly believe that it would be disgusting to be a Christian without ever having seen a vision of God - aka personal evidence. I totally understand why people would deconvert.

The point is, if we don't see four chairs personally, we are NEVER GOING TO UNDERSTAND any religion with "four chairs." Sure, we could understand it as a meaningless ritualistic system, a moral philosophy, a creation story, a history. But really, we will be missing a huge part of the picture if we cannot perceive the fundamental perception that makes that religion seem true to its followers. Christianity is almost meaningless without God, Hinduism means nothing without its pantheon, Buddhism is meaningless if you don't meditate, Castanedianism (a hoax but still) has no meaning until you can *see*.

We will never be able to agree on anything if we don't expand our perceptions.

Since the question of God does not have socially observable objects, the only way to study religion with any objectivity at all is to look for ourselves.

I have reached a point in my life where I don't know what to be: atheist, agnostic, Christian, a follower of Castaneda, a Buddhist, a deist, a pantheist, and panentheist. That is because all are so compelling to me, I just don't know what to do. That may sound like a bad place to be, but actually it is wonderful. I am so far from understanding "every world religion" it is ridiculous. I don't even know very much about Buddhism, much less Islam or Zoroastrianism. My ignorance of these ways of being is enormous.

Note that I don't just know, say, the ten commandments by rote. I perceive the same God that the Christians do.

I don't aim to understand, I aim to live these religions. Note how few religions I named. It's so few. And note too that I do not understand any of these completely. Nobody does. Nobody understands every single way of being one of these categories. I simply try to expand the way I think.

So obviously I have said a lot of personal things here. I don't really know what all of you are capable of. All I know is that I believe, to the very core of my being, with every grain of my body, that we humans are all capable of perceiving the same things. And what a waste that most of us go through our entire lives saying, "the room is empty, I am right and they are wrong." "The chair is red, I am right and they are wrong."

We are all human, and have the same capacities for perception.

What I think a lot of people need to do right now is work to perceive what other people perceive. Because they're not crazy, and yet they perceive something different. I cannot yet imagine multiple Gods and I am working on it.

So I would ask the person who sees nothing to search for the red chair. And the person with the red chair, search for the purple couch. And the purple couch, try to see nothing.

So that everybody is trying to perceive what thousands of other sane, rational people are perceiving.

An objection:

If a red chair doesn't exist, what's the point of trying to perceive a red chair?

This a bit beside the point. We don't know if the red chair exists or not. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows.

If the red chair doesn't exist, neither you or I would ever be certain about it. We would still have the problem of God before us today. The best way to get at the true nature of the universe is for everyone to realize that we all perceive something different. And to look.

The solution is simple. The more people actually respect the perceptions of others, the more we can have a meaningful dialog about religion for the first time in history. It would be the first time in history that we as a species have a real dialog about God, based on (ever expanding) personal experience, dropping the priests and the religious texts.

I can't imagine why anyone, atheists included, would have any reason to disagree with what I'm saying. Not because "I'm right" but because I am not really saying anything against atheism or Christianity. So if your first instinct is to object angrily to something I'm saying, please reread the passage carefully. Chances are I am simply making an inoccuous point we can all agree on, or expressing something that is unique to me, and that I am not trying to impose on you.

I will say that if expanding your perception doesn't interest you, I'm ok with that too. I am not trying to impose this on anybody (so don't get any assumptions). I simply see this as the only road out of the "problem of God" before us. If any of you have better solutions, I'm listening.

Finally, I will not respond substantively to sarcastic remarks. I don't like them, I don't think they are necessary to making your point, and frankly, I don't deserve to be spoken to that way. I am convinced that sarcasm and judgment are ways to avoid thinking.

If you read carefully and you decide that you object, I most welcome the expression of how you feel. I simply ask that you express it respectfully.

Humbly yours,

The Purple Knight
Le Chevalier Violet

 

[ChristineES]

I didn't read your entire statement, but I do know one thing- There is absolutely no problem with God, there may be a problem with a person's interpretation of God. People are still people whether they believe in God or not and people make errors.
If I see something you do not see, that does not mean it does not exist. It only does not exist for you.
If someone does not believe in God, there is nothing I or anyone else can say to make him believe. To them it will be gobbledegook. All we believers can do is tell an atheist about God and hope they will hear and understand. I wish all people could believe in God as I do, but I can not force them. God could do it, but He wants true faith from His followers.
Answers are never easy to find in this world. Each person find his/her own answers.

Good luck in finding the religion (or nonreligion) you are looking for.

 

[kmkemp]

Well, a central doctrine to Christianity is that no one comes to heaven except through Christ, so that's about the same as denying cultural relativism.

I just read all of your posts and I don't really see a question. It seems, in my estimation, that you are more asking that everyone get along than anything else.

Several thoughts: could it be that I see a red chair when there is really green chair? What if I continually see the green chair while someone else only sees the red chair once? What if someone believes that there is a red chair only because they were told the information second hand and actually have no first hand knowledge of what is in the room?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, Jay, you asked what grounds we may call this evidence. I say very, very shaky grounds. But the grounds nonetheless is

1. I see God.
2. People see the same thing as I do.

That is evidence, even if it is weak evidence.

Yes, but not evidence of God. It is simply evidence of a common neurochemistry and shared capacity to see things, be they ghosts, mermaids, demons, deities, or the ubiquitous UFO. You wrote a good deal to prop up a rickety ontology built on such "very, very shaky grounds", but you still end with something wholly underwhelming to anyone with a respect for evidence.

 

[Aqualung]

Yes, but not evidence of God. It is simply evidence of a common neurochemistry and shared capacity to see things,

It's not SIMPLY evidence of that. That's just one explanation, but not necessarily the simple truth. Correlation does not admit causation, so the fact that we have a common neurochemistry does not necessarily mean that's the reason for these visions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's not SIMPLY evidence of that. That's just one explanation, but not necessarily the simple truth. Correlation does not admit causation, so the fact that we have a common neurochemistry does not necessarily mean that's the reason for these visions.

Horrible argument, Aqualung. I'm rather surprised at you. And, yes, it is "SIMPLY evidence of that", because 'that' can be verified while the God-postulate remains in the realm of "very, very shakey" wishful thinking. Furthermore, references to what some phenomena 'necessarily' means is simply a red herring. At issue is what it does not necessarily ... or likely ... or reasonably mean, and there is more than enough science out there to render such visions worthless as evidence for deity.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi, Chevalier.

Wow and I thought I wrote long threads!

Then there are people who see nothing, but are told that something is there and are told that we should believe in the four purple chairs on faith. I deplore this sort of reasoning because, obviously, we can all look for ourselves equally well. I see no reason to believe anything because someone else says it's true. Rather I believe we should believe in what we see. With one caveat which I will discuss later, namely that we should all believe what we see but always seek to expand our perception.

Just when I thought you were starting to go around in circles, you said something I totally agree with. Frubals for your efforts to explain your position. I've got to admit, you kind of lost me there for awhile, but this last paragraph made up for the rest.

 

[Aqualung]

Horrible argument, Aqualung. I'm rather surprised at you. And, yes, it is "SIMPLY evidence of that", because 'that' can be verified while the God-postulate remains in the realm of "very, very shakey" wishful thinking.

No, it can't be verified. It must be taken on the same faith as any other assumption. One must either assume that the scientists are right or that CV is right, with just as little personal experience. Sure, one has the benefit of being generally accepted by the masses, but the masses have just as little personal evidence as I do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, it can't be verified. It must be taken on the same faith as any other assumption. One must either assume that the scientists are right or that CV is right, ...

Bingo! And until CV or you can demonstrate why his vision of God deserves more credence than do visions of fairies and mermaids, I choose science. Furthermore, your attempt to suggest some equivalency between CV's interpretation and the findings of science is unworthy of serious consideration.

 

[Aqualung]

Bingo! And until CV or you can demonstrate why his vision of God deserves more credence than do visions of fairies and mermaids, I choose science.

Fine. But recognise that you're just choosing for yourself and only for yourself, because you also haven't demonstrated why your vision of science deserves more credence than visions of God. And therefore, it's not simple. It's not simple until you can hold up your end.

 

[Super Universe]

My experience is very similar but I never thought for a second that I was contacted directly from God. Your soul, also known as guardian angel even though it is not an angel at all, performed your "awakening".

This event was tailored specifically for you to affect you.

To address your questions:

1) Reality does not change whether people perceive it correctly or not. The truth is the truth, one day we will all find it.

2) People look for things that justify what they WANT to believe. Some take to fire and brimstone religion because feeling that others are on the wrong path makes them feel better about themselves.

God is the Christian God, Allah, Great Mystery, Zeus... But I agree that He isn't in the most strict description of each though. Aphrodite was always considered to be a lesser god.


Athiests are simply being who they are. They need proof to believe. Here on the earth we are covered in a veil of self. God does not punish us for anything we believe or do here because of this veil. It is like all of us are perfect abiding children of God but we are playing a video game acting as a character.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fine. But recognise that you're just choosing for yourself and only for yourself, because you also haven't demonstrated why your vision of science deserves more credence than visions of God.

At issue isn't my vision of science but science's vision of me ...

To repeat: until CV or you can demonstrate why his vision of God deserves more credence than do visions of fairies and mermaids, I choose science. Let us all note that you wisely avoid even attempting such a demonstration.

 

[PureX]

At issue isn't my vision of science but science's vision of me ...

To repeat: until CV or you can demonstrate why his vision of God deserves more credence than do visions of fairies and mermaids, I choose science. Let us all note that you wisely avoid even attempting such a demonstration.

Well, I can't let a challenge like that pass ...

One big reason a given "vision of God" should be given more credence than visions of fairies and mermaids is because no one here is reporting visions of fairies or mermaids. No one is reporting them because no one here believes that they exist. This of course is not true of "God", which is why the visions persist, and is why the conversation about and the idea of "God" is so much more important. So your "fairies and mermaids" analogy is basically a red herring.

The fact is that "visions of God" are happening to people. Whatever they are, and however we explain them, they are happening. So pretending that they are not happening is silly and dishonest.

So the question then becomes, what ARE these experiences that people have, and that some refer to as "visions of God"? Do they have anything to do with God as a reality? Why are our experiences of God so different if they are all experiences of the same real God? What can science, if anything, tell us about these experiences? What OTHER methods of inquiry are available to us to help us explore these questions, besides science?

OK, NOW we have the basis for an interesting conversation .... anyone care to take it up?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

At issue isn't my vision of science but science's vision of me ...

To repeat: until CV or you can demonstrate why his vision of God deserves more credence than do visions of fairies and mermaids, I choose science. Let us all note that you wisely avoid even attempting such a demonstration.

What I am proposing to do is use the scientific method to skeptically investigate the existence or non-existence of God.

So if you choose science, I am happy to have you on board.

Now you may put your faith in positivism, or mechanism, or mechanistic materialism - or all of the above (please see Wiki articles on these, as well as Quine). And that's all well and good. Those are just different worldviews based on faith. But the scientific method can in entirely different frameworks.

Also, you may choose to only investigate normal, material phenomena, and demand socially observable experiences. That is your right. I admit that visions of God are a weaker form of evidence. All I'm saying is that many reputable disciplines investigate phenomena with weaker evidence, and they find out important things. A skeptical, empirical approach to the problem of God has only very rarely been tried. And to be honest, we didn't have the latest theories about the working of mind, dream, representation, and language that make this possible. Skeptical investigation is exactly what I propose.

I think we are hitting a snafu once we say the word evidence. Please read the wiki articles on Quine and on theory-ladenness. Both will tell you that "evidence" does not exist independently of a theory. Please make certain that you are crystal clear on this point.

As for why we should give claims of the existence of God more credence than claims of mermaids, I agree this is not a self-evident point to grasp. If I had to explain it in one sentence, I would say we should listen to this claim because over a billion people in the world perceive God. Whereas I can't think of anyone who perceives mermaids, and even if we produced a few who did, we could easily and simply dismiss such a small number as insane.

Again, please refer to my example of a chair. Why do we think of the second chair in this room as real? It's not so much because we perceive and experience the chair but because in our experience, everyone else reliably perceives and experiences the chair.

I am not claiming this is an easy point to grasp. As I have said, the problem of God is unique and worthy of my investigation, because on the one hand billions of people all around the world see this perceptual object, and on the other hand billions don't.

That is my demonstration. In short, it is not because I have a vision of God, it's because over a billion other people do, that my experience becomes epistemically interesting.

Once again I extend my offer for you to perceive this perceptual object for yourself, and I believe you will wisely refuse once again.

CV

 

[logician]

" would say we should listen to this claim because over a billion people in the world perceive God."

Or maybe they just go thru the motions due to tradition.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

" would say we should listen to this claim because over a billion people in the world perceive God."

Or maybe they just go thru the motions due to tradition.

Right, those who only pretend to see "a red chair" were not intended to be included in this number of over a billion. I mean this to be a number of people who really perceive a deity. Perhaps we can quibble over numbers, I'm sure we can come up with several different plausible estimates. I think a billion is pretty reasonable, and I could easily have said more. If you want to put this number in hundred millions, I would perhaps agree to that depending on your rationale.

Please keep in mind, I am not talking about "motions." This is a perception, white or black, "yes or no did you see the chair in that room."

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Well, a central doctrine to Christianity is that no one comes to heaven except through Christ, so that's about the same as denying cultural relativism.

If that is true. Then again, nobody on earth knows for certain what is true. This is subtly different from relativism, so the difference may not be immediately obvious. With relativism, everybody is right from their own perspective. With humility, there is only one reality, but nobody knows what it is. It is theoretically possible to know, but even when a person is right, there is no way to prove or demonstrate that correctness conclusively. It's not like any individual has "all the evidence" before them anyway, so it's pretty easy for anyone to say "I can't think of any reason I would be wrong." Indeed, virulently opposed sides in a debate say this all the time.

I just read all of your posts and I don't really see a question. It seems, in my estimation, that you are more asking that everyone get along than anything else.

Thanks for reading, I appreciate it, and some of my posts are a bit long, I would cut some parts out if I had to do it again.

But no, I am not calling for people to get along. For one, I am calling for humility - aka there is one ultimate reality of the universe but no one knows what it is. Coming from humility, yes is the effect that people will get along far, far better - since people will drop the absurd idea that we can know anything with certainty. We can have evidence and good reason to believe many things.

Now one effect of humility is that rather than different points of view clashing, they become mutually complimentary. In other words, people with different points of view learn how they REALLY CAME to have different points of view. The overall effect is beneficial for everyone involved, and far more intellectually honest and useful than tolerance, which I view as inferior to humility, just as politeness is to loving sincerity.

Several thoughts: could it be that I see a red chair when there is really green chair?

It's possible. This is a good question, and part of what makes the problem of God so... problematic. Some claim that different theistic religions see different aspects of God, like seeing different facets of a diamond.

What if I continually see the green chair while someone else only sees the red chair once?

From what I understand, most visions of God are continuous and learned. It may be the initial vision is more intense, but most people I've spoken to view "visions of God" as part learned ability part experience.

In that hypothetical case that you mentioned, as always, how much credence we give each experience depends on how many people experience it.

What if someone believes that there is a red chair only because they were told the information second hand and actually have no first hand knowledge of what is in the room?

Personally, I think it's pretty disgusting to believe in something one has not seen for oneself. And I would add that I encourage all people - monotheists, atheists, agnostics, polytheists, pantheists, etc. to **always seek to expand** their perceptive capabilities. I emphasize this point because I think it's important.

Yes, but not evidence of God. It is simply evidence of a common neurochemistry and shared capacity to see things, be they ghosts, mermaids, demons, deities, or the ubiquitous UFO. You wrote a good deal to prop up a rickety ontology built on such "very, very shaky grounds", but you still end with something wholly underwhelming to anyone with a respect for evidence.

If Joe's faith is that visions of God are due to neurochemistry, then Joe will believe a vision of God is a manifestation of that neurochemistry.

If Joe's faith/trust is that a vision of God is due to something real, then Joe will believe a "vision of God" is a manifestation of something real.

Both claims have evidence.

Neither party has any evidence that could persuade the other out of their beliefs. Reality therapy is simply not possible - not without expanding your perceptions. Again, theists have good reason to belief, but atheists cannot imagine what they are.

Horrible argument, Aqualung. I'm rather surprised at you. And, yes, it is "SIMPLY evidence of that", because 'that' can be verified while the God-postulate remains in the realm of "very, very shakey" wishful thinking. Furthermore, references to what some phenomena 'necessarily' means is simply a red herring. At issue is what it does not necessarily ... or likely ... or reasonably mean, and there is more than enough science out there to render such visions worthless as evidence for deity.

This post operates on one faith. A valid faith. But just because Aqualung is less certain of that faith than you are, doesn't make his argument horrible. In fact, I found what Aqualung said to be perfectly fair to your faith and to others.

Hi, Chevalier.

Wow and I thought I wrote long threads!

Just when I thought you were starting to go around in circles, you said something I totally agree with. Frubals for your efforts to explain your position. I've got to admit, you kind of lost me there for awhile, but this last paragraph made up for the rest.

Thanks for getting to the end. I didn't do a careful job reducing that post to a more coherent thought, but I'm glad you found something useful and important there.

Best wishes,
David