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

[Jayhawker Soule]

So are visions of God. That's the whole point. Visions of God are intersubjectively verifiable (a million alive today is a generous, generous underestimate). Mermaids are not verifiable in this way.

You should learn what the term means ...

 

[Prometheus]

Australia is intersubjectively verifiable.

My point was that it's not true based only on the fact that everyone thinks it's true.

Besides, Hume and Descartes would disagree.

All I am saying is that we can believe a vision of God is true for the same reason we believe Australia exists, that is, that people verify its existence with their own experience.

Do you believe in flying saucers?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

You should learn what the term means ...

Go read philosophy of science, for a change.

As I said before, there's really not much point in replying to sarcastic posts. Learn what the word substance means.

My point was that it's not true based only on the fact that everyone thinks it's true.

Uhhh, there is a lot of miscommunication going on here.

Do you believe in flying saucers?

No.

Besides, wayyyy more people see God than see flying saucers. Even if millions of people believe in aliens, only a handful ever claim to have seen them personally.

There are over a billion theists in the world alive today. Now, I have estimated that over a million have had a vision of God, and that is a generous, generous, generous underestimate. I believe this number to be above a hundred million alive today, and over a billion over the course of human history.

Does that mean "God exists?" No. It means that from an agnostic point of view, a lot of people subjectively verify this phenomenon. Again, I am thinking here about why we think of a chair as more probably real than UFOs.

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

PS reading the wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability has only further confirmed my opinion that visions of God are intersubjectively verifiable by the definition above. Indeed, intersubjective verification is exactly what I'm recommending people do, for the first time ever, to visions of God.

I'm not claiming that most religions use intersubjective verification, I am recommending a new path to religious study.

If you continue to disagree that visions of God are intersubjectively verifiable after reading that article, which is possible I guess but seems unlikely to me, I would be curious on what grounds you could potentially do so.

As far as I can tell, Jay, your objection that visions of God aren't intersubjectively verifiable came out of a misunderstanding of what the term meant. Mistakes happen and I make them all the time, so I definitely don't hold anything against you. I know from reading your posts that you are just as thoughtful and careful as anyone I know, including me. For next time, I would just mention that I have taken the time to think very carefully about how to apply philosophy of science to a study of religion. I may have missed something. On the other hand, the chances are not very small that I have already thought of your an objection that you would raise, and applied it to what I'm saying.

Would you please proceed as much as possible from that assumption, and less from the assumption that what I'm saying could apply to mermaids, and is easily reduced to silly credulence? Besides, as I've said before, if you are trying to find some way to make my points sound silly, you will. Believe me, there is nothing I can do to stop you. It is only by wanting to think carefully about what I have to say, and giving it a chance, that you will have any hope of having a mutually beneficial conversation. I mean that. I don't believe you can benefit me with your insight until you take what I say seriously.

CV

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Doppelganger posted a quote in another thread from John Shelby Spong:

We visualize and experience God's effects, not God's being. We never see God as a disincarnate or separate Self. To embrace that simple truth is to watch the whole theistic theological enterprise totter under the weight of its own irrelevance. It is also to recognize that those endless rows of weighty theological tomes that fill library shelves in great centers of learning - every page of which attempts to explain God - must now be recognized as little more than monuments to human egos. I do not argue for a moment that God is not real. Indeed, the reality of the God-experience overwhelms me every day of my life. I assert only that no human words, no human formulas, and no human religious systems will ever capture that reality. To claim that any one at any time has ever done so is idolatrous.

Kinda makes the debate pointless, I think.

 

[Prometheus]

There are over a billion theists in the world alive today. Now, I have estimated that over a million have had a vision of God, and that is a generous, generous, generous underestimate. I believe this number to be above a hundred million alive today, and over a billion over the course of human history.

How did you estimate this and, more importantly, you've yet to define what "God" means when you say "vision of God." Perhaps you can go into more detail. Also, can you give us a method or explanation on how to go about expanding our perceptions? Do you suggest, prayer, meditation, psychedelic drugs, etc?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Besides, wayyyy more people see God than see flying saucers.

Well, that settles it!

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Well, that settles it!

Yes it does settle it. You have an infinite ability to read things exactly the way you want to.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Doppelganger posted a quote in another thread from John Shelby Spong:
Kinda makes the debate pointless, I think.

What's pointless is for you to decide. In my opinion, this is far from pointless. The entire search for knowledge in this life is equally pointless, yet we try. Also, I personally see no problem with studying God through God's effects... although once again, I believe it is possible to perceive God directly.

How did you estimate this and, more importantly, you've yet to define what "God" means when you say "vision of God." Perhaps you can go into more detail. Also, can you give us a method or explanation on how to go about expanding our perceptions? Do you suggest, prayer, meditation, psychedelic drugs, etc?

I estimated this knowing the number of my theistic friends who have had a "vision of God" for themselves... all of them... then generously undermultiplying. I'm not thinking just Christians here, I'm thinking Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Ancient Greeks, Hindu, certain Native Americans, the droos (sp?) etc. etc., over 2000 years. Personally, I think that's pretty reasonable. You may disagree, based on a different multiplication with different friends.

You want me to define God... I'm sorry, the answer is no. If I could, I seriously I would. One of my central points is that an experience of God is fundamentally different than any other normal experience we have. It's an unfortunate fact that it makes descriptions of it rather meaningless. Besides for the purposes of this post there are many different "definitions", that is to say perceptions. So if I tell you it looks like a red chair, obviously other people are going to say it looks like four purple stools. Once again, for the same reason that I can't give you a "definition" is the same reason God is a "problem" - because different people literally perceive different things. And even one of those individual things, you'll just have to try for yourself.

I think asking for a definition of God is a good and fair question, especially from your perspective because you most likely don't understand why I would be unable to respond. Let's just say if I describe God to you as a ball of light, that hardly, hardly does it justice. I don't mean to sound condescending, visions of God are just very, very unique. Which is one reason why I argue that many atheists are underinformed. But of course from an atheists perspective they aren't missing anything.

But I would like to reassure you that you could about as easily miss a vision of God as you could miss a vision of Godzilla passing you on the street.

I suppose it would be useful from your point of view to tell you that you can define a vision of God as a revelation of a feeling to your rational mind. Part of the experience is your subconscious or whatever revealing something to your conscious and rational mind. A vision of God is like the act of noticing a tree you had always walked past but never appreciated. A vision of God is, in part, the act of noticing. I hope that helps.

Also, can you give us a method or explanation on how to go about expanding our perceptions? Do you suggest, prayer, meditation, psychedelic drugs, etc?

This is a great question. I am hoping to work out and improve methods for this as time goes on, and your participation would be appreciated for that reason.

As for the particular way, drugs are of course not at all what I am thinking of (no Carlos Castaneda for you). I could give you a precise method, like praying for such and such, or meditating while saying this and that. But really these are superfluous, because in the art of praying, basically, all we need a desire and an intention to see more than we see right now. Meditation and prayer are just two ways people with that intention find to bring it to fruition. It is like a path. Once you decide a destination, your path will appear. So I am not concerned with this.

Obviously, this intention is lacking in most people, I believe largely due to fear. Atheists of course deny that fear is a factor, but on the other hand most people when they have a vision of God recognize the fear they felt but never noticed about this feeling that "God" (whatever it is) is present.

CV

 

[Prometheus]

You can't define God. Therefore, you can't define a vision of God. Furthermore, you have no way of telling whether anyone but you has ever had a vision of God.

Perhaps I should ask more specific questions. Is God conscious? Does God care about human affairs? Is God even a being or just a feeling? I want to learn what you mean when you say the word "God." What attributes would a hypothetical thing need to possess to be considered God. If you can't define it at all then the word is meaningless. We can't have a debate or a discussion unless we agree upon the terms we're using.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Chevalier Violet, there are many posts in the topic and I do not have time to go through them. Could you please indicate the looks and clothes of God, did you interact with him, etc? Have you seen the Christian God, or the Islamic God, or the Buddha, or a HIndu God? In case you have seen a Hindu God, please specify which one, we have about 33. Are you sure that you did see a God and not a Goddess, as we have 9 of them also. Thanks.

Prometheus, IMHO, in place of God there is something else which is non-conscious, it does not care about human affairs (does care neither about 9.11 nor about Iraq, would not worry the least when humans disappear from the face of earth one day), does not grant boons, does not require you to pray. But then, it constitutes the universe, time-space.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

You can't define God. Therefore, you can't define a vision of God. Furthermore, you have no way of telling whether anyone but you has ever had a vision of God.

Oh I know other people have, because they describe it and I say "yeah" and I describe it and they say "yeah." It is just like any other object we perceive in common - a chair, a pillow.

In short, it is not true that just because I can't define it meaningfully for you, doesn't mean I can't define it meaningfully for someone who has seen one. The definition would simply mean nothing to someone who has never had a vision of God.

Have you had one, yes or no.

Suffice it to say, the words of those who have had a vision of God mean something to others who have had one.

Perhaps I should ask more specific questions. Is God conscious? Does God care about human affairs? Is God even a being or just a feeling?

The entire purpose of my experiments, my posts, is to find ways to investigate these questions. I am entirely agnostic, for now God is a perception nothing more.

I want to learn what you mean when you say the word "God." What attributes would a hypothetical thing need to possess to be considered God. If you can't define it at all then the word is meaningless. We can't have a debate or a discussion unless we agree upon the terms we're using.

You're right, we can't really have a debate or discussion if you haven't had a vision of God. My entire point is that such a discussion would be meaningless. The only trait I would give this thing is that when you see it, everyone I know says "oh, that's what people call God."

CV

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am entirely agnostic, for now God is a perception nothing more.

I was under the impression that you have had a vision (or a meating?) with God. You cannot be an agnostic after you have had that. It means your statement to that effect was wrong. There is still no God.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I was under the impression that you have had a vision (or a meating?) with God. You cannot be an agnostic after you have had that. It means your statement to that effect was wrong. There is still no God.

I believe there is a miscommunication here. More specifically, I believe you are being tripped up by the special senses of the words I'm using. I believe that if you consider the specific senses of the words I'm using, you will understand how I am not a theist.

1.) Agnosticism, at least the way I'm using it and as the dictionary defines it (a bad source for definitions I agree), is a philosophical position, not a religious one.

2.) Theism vs. atheism is a question of belief not of perception. A theist can believe God exists without ever perceiving God. An atheist can disbelieve and have "visions of God."

3.) The word vision can be used for things that are hallucinatory or for things perceived that have a basis in reality. When I say vision of God, it means I perceive the the perception that people attribute to God. A vision of God is intentionally ambiguous about whether this perception is a delusion or if it is based in reality.

In short, I have perceived what some people call God. But it is not my claim that this perception has a basis in reality (aka theism) or delusion (aka atheism).

My position is that I don't have certain knowledge of the existence of God, and I suspect that certainty about the existence of God is impossible. Therefore, whatever I have seen, even should I suspect that visions of God are based in reality, I am still an agnostic. If you want to label me something else for your own purposes, that is ok with me. I am nonetheless an agnostic according to my understanding of this word's standard use.

CV

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I am not interested in labelling you. Though I do not like atheism to be described as delusion. Most things including science point to non-existence of any entity like God, and an existence of quantum fields, strings etc. (best guess at the moment). That is what I will agree to right now. This is certainly amenable to change if science comes up with something duifferent. You can say that I lean heavily towards non-existence of God.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Chevalier Violet, there are many posts in the topic and I do not have time to go through them. Could you please indicate the looks and clothes of God, did you interact with him, etc? Have you seen the Christian God, or the Islamic God, or the Buddha, or a HIndu God? In case you have seen a Hindu God, please specify which one, we have about 33. Are you sure that you did see a God and not a Goddess, as we have 9 of them also. Thanks.

Prometheus, IMHO, in place of God there is something else which is non-conscious, it does not care about human affairs (does care neither about 9.11 nor about Iraq, would not worry the least when humans disappear from the face of earth one day), does not grant boons, does not require you to pray. But then, it constitutes the universe, time-space.

I'm sorry, I don't really know the answers to these questions. I have learned to see God through many lenses.

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Bump

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Yes, I'm familiar with the discussion and enjoyed reading it. I appreciate your desire to get people to have the experiences that you find so sublime.

You would do well to consider that others have equally sublime experiences though (as sublime to them as yours are to you), and may have no need (and very likely, no appropriate symbolic faculties in their reality) to interpret it or otherwise try to capture in the type of language that you so much delight in using.

Thanks for the kind words. That means a lot to me. I'm posting my response here to avoid cross posting.

Just to make sure my thinking is absolutely clear - I am not at ALL interested in people experiencing what I experience. That would be an extremely dull aim. I experience such a small percentage of the height of religious experience as described by many different cultures and parts of humanity. It would be a waste of time, and a bad use of the word humility I subscribe to, to ask people to try to experience what I do. I'm not sure what impression you have of me, but I would hope it is not all that conceited.

And moreover, I would be very sorry for somebody who used my very deficient language to describe it - I feel pretty much 100% of the time like what I am saying does not do anything much justice. That's why I have an obsession for clarifying things. So my real aim is below...

Carefully listening and a genuine thirst for empathy and understanding makes all the difference.

As you well know, I believe empathy and understanding, though necessary, cannot get someone to understand a religious experience who has never had a similar one. I believe that experience is necessary to bridge the gap. You apparently disagree, though, and I respect that. Before I had such experiences, moreover, I would have completely agreed with you. I hope you won't believe I wish to sound condescending. There are many examples of things that are near-impossible hard to explain but can then be discussed when people have similar experiences. My five years living in a francophone country is a great example. A "vision of God" is even harder... but it would be naive to expect someone who hasn't had a similar one to understand why.

I for one feel no compelling need to stimulate "God" experiences,

Fair enough.

preferring instead to follow the sage advice of Daryl Zero, the world's greatest living detective:

"Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them."

That is lovely, thanks for sharing!!

To make sure that you understand completely (see how paranoid I am about language), as a musician I am well aware of many sublime experiences that are completely non-religious. I am not suggesting that people try to see a purple couch for the sublimity of the couch. Some will be interested and others won't. I personally respect that.

This is meant to be a solution to the problem of God, an interesting line of research.

To have no curiosity, that's fine. But the problem will not be resolved that way. I agree with you though that, barring that, empathy and understanding would go a very, very, very long way.

CV

 

[doppelganger]

I'm not talking about others understanding you, but you listening to and understanding others. You don't have any idea what others experience unless you ask and carefully listen to the answers they give. Without that, you really have no means of assessing whether they lack some experience you've had, and assuming they do because they don't use the word "God" in desceibing it frankly makes any discussion pointless and impossible.

You didn't include my link in my post when you pasted it over here, btw.

 

[logician]

The main difference between atheism and theism is the latter is much more evangelistic, take away that, and there would not be near as many problems in the social acceptance category.