Belief is Nothing When Compared to Experience

[Unveiled Artist]

That's not how christianity or any religion for that matter works. It's based on practice and experience not solely belief.

That is not going to happen out of your claim that it is not so alone

Is your practiced base soley on belief?

If so, how do you define a path without action?

I am not sure that I approve of such a stance, so I guess that I am indeed. It is not for religion to say what people "should" believe

My religion says honor my ancestors. Its a oral and passed on words that even in the smallest deed, we should take care of our family and honor those still with us that have passed.

My practice is to do just that in my everyday routine. Always checkin in and seeing how how things are going etc.

If I didnt believe this (didnt believe my girlfriend exist) why should I expect myself to experience this belief in action if it doesnt exist to begin with.

I dont know your religion. The buddhist religion I practiced with focus mainly on practice not belief. However, they do need belief in the Dharma because that belief builds a reason for trust and a motivation to do what they do.

I mean, if practice was all I need I would have stayed Catholic. However, I see religions based on both belief and practice. You neex the motiviation and discipline through teachings (or just stand still and sing kumbaya) and you neex the practice (or sit in a room with the lights off and say youre spiritual.

That is a very common, serious and self-inflicted trap for Christianity, created by its frequen

I dont consider christianity a trap, in my opinion. They follow a different way of following ones faith than I do and many others. There is a lot of value in christianity. I just wish people will see its good sides and stop arguing about its bad sides as if protestant fundamentlist make up christian thought.

 

[BSM1]

I have a tree in my yard ... an orange tree that is now about five foot high. Four years ago a Baha'i friend of ours gave us this little sprig of a tree in a milk carton ... It was then ohhh maybe three inches in length. It came from Shiraz, Iran and was cultivated from a tree that had been planted years before in the court yard of the house of Siyyid Ali Muhammad Shirazi known as the "Bab" or the Gate. That house was destroyed by fanatics but the followers of the Bab were able to save some of the seeds from the orange tree in the courtyard of the Bab and share them with the friends as far away as California... and so a lovely orange tree is in my yard.. and the Bab and His teachings continue in our hearts.

Or so you've been told and/or want to believe?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Suppose I tell you there's a tree in my yard. What difference does it make whether you believe or don't believe there's a tree in my yard? In either case, you have not experienced the tree in my yard. You might as well flip a coin to decide whether you believe or disbelieve there's a tree in my yard -- for all your belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Suppose you tell me there's a god. What difference does it make whether I believe or don't believe there's a god? In either case, I have not experienced that god. I might as well flip a coin to decide whether I believe or don't believe there's a god -- for all my belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Your greatest belief about the tree in my yard is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of the tree than the thought of taking a brisk walk is exercise. My greatest belief about your god -- no matter what it is -- is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of your god than the experience of seeing a dot on a map of France is the experience of having visited Paris.

No matter how hard I study a biology textbook, I cannot lose my virginity by studying it. No matter how hard I study what I think is god, I cannot experience god by studying it. I say, "Yes, but studying a biology textbook prepares me to lose my virginity". But it's not that simple. The textbook can't and won't tell you everything, and you will have little or no idea without the experience itself what has been left out of the textbook. The textbook can give you false expectations. And some of those expectations might even become self-fulfilling prophecies so that you experience what you expect to experience rather than what's really there. And so forth. Beyond a point, your textbook is useless to you as a guide to experience, even though you might not have studied all of it yet.

Do you think belief, by itself, is of any great significance when compared to experience? Why or why not?

All posits held true are beliefs, regardless of knowledge. What you are describing is faith.

Faith and direct experience are obviously not epistemological equals, no.

Your analogy gets a little thin when you consider trees and yards abound and are subject to direct experience while that other thing is not.

 

[Thief]

belief and experience come together in your last hour in this life

if by coincidence your experiences deal for you a continuance....good for you
if your belief deals for you a continuance....good for you

most likely you need both

 

[james bond]

I've talked about this in my worldview thread. What three factors make up one's worldview? 1) Religion, 2) Science and 3) Experience. I think you're only using one factor. In regards to the afterlife, everyone will experience it after they die. There's a catch there.

 

[Underhill]

Suppose I tell you there's a tree in my yard. What difference does it make whether you believe or don't believe there's a tree in my yard? In either case, you have not experienced the tree in my yard. You might as well flip a coin to decide whether you believe or disbelieve there's a tree in my yard -- for all your belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Suppose you tell me there's a god. What difference does it make whether I believe or don't believe there's a god? In either case, I have not experienced that god. I might as well flip a coin to decide whether I believe or don't believe there's a god -- for all my belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Your greatest belief about the tree in my yard is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of the tree than the thought of taking a brisk walk is exercise. My greatest belief about your god -- no matter what it is -- is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of your god than the experience of seeing a dot on a map of France is the experience of having visited Paris.

No matter how hard I study a biology textbook, I cannot lose my virginity by studying it. No matter how hard I study what I think is god, I cannot experience god by studying it. I say, "Yes, but studying a biology textbook prepares me to lose my virginity". But it's not that simple. The textbook can't and won't tell you everything, and you will have little or no idea without the experience itself what has been left out of the textbook. The textbook can give you false expectations. And some of those expectations might even become self-fulfilling prophecies so that you experience what you expect to experience rather than what's really there. And so forth. Beyond a point, your textbook is useless to you as a guide to experience, even though you might not have studied all of it yet.

Do you think belief, by itself, is of any great significance when compared to experience? Why or why not?

Without belief there is no religion. In everything I have read (outside the bible and the odd televangelist script) disbelievers just don't "experience" god, or aliens, or the flying spaghetti monster. I often 'felt' gods love as a believer. When I started questioning the whole thing those experiences diminished. Some would point to a lack of faith but I think something else is at work.

It's the same problem police should have with eye witness accounts. People are absolutely terrible witnesses to events. This has been proven countless times. We often see what we want to see, attribute biases to our experiences and mix up timelines and events.

 

[Thief]

I've talked about this in my worldview thread. What three factors make up one's worldview? 1) Religion, 2) Science and 3) Experience. I think you're only using one factor. In regards to the afterlife, everyone will experience it after they die. There's a catch there.

I prefer the list of motivations of mind
religion, social, military and economics

so many people believe in Someone Greater
and so adhere to the teachings of that belief
religious motivations
the leaders stand behind pulpit to convince you....god wants you to (whatever)

some have no such inclination and do unto others for the sake of social living
and the leaders stand behind podium and convince the masses.....I have a plan (and i am not a crook)

then comes military.....moving a lot of people real quick
the leaders declare a cause and then declare war

last but not least ...money
there is money in it for me (the ceo).....there's a paycheck for you
and the time clock is over there

 

[Thief]

Without belief there is no religion. In everything I have read (outside the bible and the odd televangelist script) disbelievers just don't "experience" god, or aliens, or the flying spaghetti monster. I often 'felt' gods love as a believer. When I started questioning the whole thing those experiences diminished. Some would point to a lack of faith but I think something else is at work.

It's the same problem police should have with eye witness accounts. People are absolutely terrible witnesses to events. This has been proven countless times. We often see what we want to see, attribute biases to our experiences and mix up timelines and events.

so maybe your perspective....messes with your ability to believe in Someone Greater?

 

[Underhill]

so maybe your perspective....messes with your ability to believe in Someone Greater?

I think you have that backwards. Evidence would suggest that belief messes with your comprehension. This is why the vast majority of people who claim to have experiences with aliens already believed in them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think you're right. And yet you have religions, like Shinto, that have no theology, no dogma, and no requirement to believe anything. So belief does not seem to be an absolute requirement for religiosity.

Many "religions" seem to fall more under the umbrella of philosophy or worldview. A good example of why labels always need sufficient context to be useful.

 

[Thief]

I think you have that backwards. Evidence would suggest that belief messes with your comprehension. This is why the vast majority of people who claim to have experiences with aliens already believed in them.

Well.....God....by definition
IS an e.t.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If you don't believe god exist, how will you experience his presence.

Consider that I have an experience. Other people hear me describe my experience to others, and one says "That was God!" Another says "That was a demon!" Another says "That was a Djinn!" Another says "That was the electrochemical functioning of your brain!" And so on.

And then others describe their similar experiences to me. "That was God!" says one. Another says "That was a demon!" Another says "That was a Djinn!" Another says "That was the electrochemical functioning of my brain!" And so on.

People can have what appear to be the same experiences, but the experience each has can be quite different. For me, I don't KNOW (and in fact, can't know with certainty) what the cause of my experience was--but I do recognize that there are a variety of general models that try to categorize the kind of experience I (and others) have had, some of which are divine/religious explanations and others are mundane.

If my experience is of a blinding light, how can I, as the one who experiences it, tell whether it was a million-candlepower floodlamp a few inches from my face, or a hundred-billion candlepower lamp at bit farther away...or an array of lamps of differing intensities pointing at my face? Or was it a seizure of some sort? Or was it some divine event, a miracle? Was it a universal God? Or was it only a deity with control over the planet, or a portion of the planet? Was it a nuclear detonation? A nearby flash of lightning? How can I be sure?

Based on other experiences, and various beliefs, I can eliminate some possibilities from consideration, but not all of them. In the end, I can only remember that I had the experience of being blinded by a very brilliant light, and I may choose to believe any of the explanations that I or others can put forth, or reject them all.

I am learning more toward the "reject them all" or at most, assessing pragmatically what I assess to be most likely.

This works only for me (or any other individual): I'm not trying to "prove" to anyone else that I have experience God, or a/the gods, or a seizure, or a flash of lightning.

Therefore, how can I experience the presence of God without believing? By acknowledging that I had an experience, and that it might have been God...and that I might choose to believe it was God. But I still keep in mind that I might be mistaken, and that the experience might have been the result of flawed wiring in my brain, or some natural phenomenon, or some 'spiritual' experience of a power somewhat less than a fully universal deity....and so on.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well.....God....by definition
IS an e.t.

Perhaps YOUR God is an ET; mine (if I actually acknowledged them as such, which I don't at this time) are very much immanent in the world, here and now. And maybe the rest of the solar system, too, but not much beyond that--at least, I don't see how I (as a human) could tell the difference between some universal deity and one much closer and smaller.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Therefore, how can I experience the presence of God without believing? By acknowledging that I had an experience, and that it might have been God...and that I might choose to believe it was God. But I still keep in mind that I might be mistaken, and that the experience might have been the result of flawed wiring in my brain, or some natural phenomenon, or some 'spiritual' experience of a power somewhat less than a fully universal deity....and so on.

I read your full post. With me, though, it's different. I've always believed in spirits because my family believed in them. We have numerous experiences, yes but the basis of our experiences (or how we interpret it was a spirit and not, say, the devil) is the belief that our family talks to us or communicates with us when one dies. Without that belief I've had since forever, I can contribute my experiences to my seizures (which I have) or anything else you've listed. But the fact I have belief first shaped my experiences and pretty much defined them as X rather than saying "oh, I had an experience. Hm. Don't know. I guess it could be this." But that's not how I came to spirituality. Was never christian until recently, so everything is based on knowledge. We attribute say our experiences with love with the belief that whomever we are with loves us and we love them. It's not a religious term, belief, it just means you have an idea or framework for your experiences and that's why you attribute it to, say, Zues and not the God of Abraham.

If experiences didn't have their basis of belief, then I wouldn't see the difference between polytheist and monotheist because they'd be explaining the same experiences just your attributes (rather than foundation) are different. Since polytheist religions and monotheist religions are different, I would highly assume outside of the religions of abraham that there needs to be a framework to interpret your experiences so you know you are an Animist and not an alien or so have you.

The biggest problem with belief is, like religion and god, they attribute it to christianity and god of abraham definitions. If you step from that and define it as a foundation or framework (and idea or so have you-lost of words right now) that shapes your experiences you understand the need for one to have the other.

If not, you can have zillions of experiences why would one be spiritual and another not? How do you tell the difference without your belief (or the name you prefer to call it)?

 

[LuisDantas]

That's not how christianity or any religion for that matter works. It's based on practice and experience not solely belief.

Right you are! That is certainly how it should be, at least IMO.

Is your practiced base soley on belief?

No. But beliefs - that were not even mine in the first place - were enough for others to decree me a Catholic and are often enough for others to decide on my behalf what I should believe on.

I can't help but see that as a major, tragic doctrinary flaw of those faiths.

If so, how do you define a path without action?

I don't. It is certainly weird that people so often expect me to hold beliefs that are not natural to me.

My religion says honor my ancestors. Its a oral and passed on words that even in the smallest deed, we should take care of our family and honor those still with us that have passed.

My practice is to do just that in my everyday routine. Always checkin in and seeing how how things are going etc.

If I didnt believe this (didnt believe my girlfriend exist) why should I expect myself to experience this belief in action if it doesnt exist to begin with.

You see, I agree with you that religion is supposed to be Dharmic (based in practice, not on belief). I think you may have misunderstood some of what I said.

I dont consider christianity a trap, in my opinion. They follow a different way of following ones faith than I do and many others. There is a lot of value in christianity. I just wish people will see its good sides and stop arguing about its bad sides as if protestant fundamentlist make up christian thought.

It is not the fault of the critics of proselitist faiths that their proselitists are often so reckless and attempt to spread belief-based doctrines, now is it?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If not, you can have zillions of experiences why would one be spiritual and another not? How do you tell the difference without your belief (or the name you prefer to call it)?

I am finding that among my zillions of experiences, a much larger fraction of them I can categorize as "spiritual" as I have tried to stop further categorizing them or explaining them on the basis of my more-complex mental conceptions.

I don't know why any given experience should be classified as "sacred" or "spiritual" and another be "mundane" and still another be "profane." I just know that the more I just focus on the experiences themselves, and less on the mental conceptual models ('beliefs') I use to explain them and position them in relation to my other experiences, the more "spiritual" my experiences are overall.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

No. Just a story. But twelve people are saying it happened.

How hot are these 12 and do they have free pizza?

 

[David T]

Suppose I tell you there's a tree in my yard. What difference does it make whether you believe or don't believe there's a tree in my yard? In either case, you have not experienced the tree in my yard. You might as well flip a coin to decide whether you believe or disbelieve there's a tree in my yard -- for all your belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Suppose you tell me there's a god. What difference does it make whether I believe or don't believe there's a god? In either case, I have not experienced that god. I might as well flip a coin to decide whether I believe or don't believe there's a god -- for all my belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Your greatest belief about the tree in my yard is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of the tree than the thought of taking a brisk walk is exercise. My greatest belief about your god -- no matter what it is -- is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of your god than the experience of seeing a dot on a map of France is the experience of having visited Paris.

No matter how hard I study a biology textbook, I cannot lose my virginity by studying it. No matter how hard I study what I think is god, I cannot experience god by studying it. I say, "Yes, but studying a biology textbook prepares me to lose my virginity". But it's not that simple. The textbook can't and won't tell you everything, and you will have little or no idea without the experience itself what has been left out of the textbook. The textbook can give you false expectations. And some of those expectations might even become self-fulfilling prophecies so that you experience what you expect to experience rather than what's really there. And so forth. Beyond a point, your textbook is useless to you as a guide to experience, even though you might not have studied all of it yet.

Do you think belief, by itself, is of any great significance when compared to experience? Why or why not?

AMEN Sunstone and spot on. Carl rogers wrote a little quote that i tnink poetically and clearly says exactly what you have written and its a quote that i have lived by for the last 25 years.

"Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person's ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets -- neither Freud nor research -- neither the revelations of God nor man -- can take precedence over my own direct experience. My experience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction".

The nonsense on this site that we all keep seeing is a mutual agreement between what we institutionally call science and institutional religion. One has hijacked God reductively and the other has hijacked nature reductively. One says nature is a car engine created by or designed by an intellect, mind on high, and the other days indeed we agree nature is a car engine and is subect/subjective to objective objectifiying principles and laws and it's all accidental randomness. Reductionism in religion and in science make cozy psychotic self deluding , battling lovers while rome burns.

 

[David T]

Excellent post and point.

I think why there is so much focus on "belief," is that, in fact, very few people have had a substantive experience regarding god, and thus, abstract belief (or, at least the affectation of it) is all they are going on.

It's a something that is fundemental at the university. My degree , theology was the original queen of all sciences and the foundational reality of western culture. It was the bAsis of the first "modern" university in bologna 1094. The problem with theology in it's entirety is it's reductive and thus nonsense. Its actually identical to psychology that way it's reductive. We live in a book cult, scientifically and religiously, and both hold their respective topics, nature and God, propriatory in context to the others . Religion and science are neurological manifesting institutionally. The institutional, dictacts authoritatively. Exactly like middle age priests or the the dark ages as we used to call it. I actually "get out, and in doing so, I really am going in", as john Muir said. Culture is nuts in aggregate in context to even Muir.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Suppose I tell you there's a tree in my yard. What difference does it make whether you believe or don't believe there's a tree in my yard? In either case, you have not experienced the tree in my yard. You might as well flip a coin to decide whether you believe or disbelieve there's a tree in my yard -- for all your belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Suppose you tell me there's a god. What difference does it make whether I believe or don't believe there's a god? In either case, I have not experienced that god. I might as well flip a coin to decide whether I believe or don't believe there's a god -- for all my belief or disbelief matters when compared with experience.

Your greatest belief about the tree in my yard is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of the tree than the thought of taking a brisk walk is exercise. My greatest belief about your god -- no matter what it is -- is no more profound when it comes to an actual experience of your god than the experience of seeing a dot on a map of France is the experience of having visited Paris.

No matter how hard I study a biology textbook, I cannot lose my virginity by studying it. No matter how hard I study what I think is god, I cannot experience god by studying it. I say, "Yes, but studying a biology textbook prepares me to lose my virginity". But it's not that simple. The textbook can't and won't tell you everything, and you will have little or no idea without the experience itself what has been left out of the textbook. The textbook can give you false expectations. And some of those expectations might even become self-fulfilling prophecies so that you experience what you expect to experience rather than what's really there. And so forth. Beyond a point, your textbook is useless to you as a guide to experience, even though you might not have studied all of it yet.

Do you think belief, by itself, is of any great significance when compared to experience? Why or why not?

I have always considered 'belief by itself' to be intellectually and spiritually disingenuous if not outright dishonest. That any religious belief, of any tradition, does not lead directly to a distinct experience of transcendent power is the PROOF that has eluded religious claims and tradition for the whole of history. It is also contrary to much of the scriptural record that suggests the potential for something much more profound!

I cannot imagine a God who is prepared to reveal 'anything' to our species and then find it subject to the intellectual corruptions, divisions, schisms, and bloodshed that is part of parcel of religious history. I'm certain in my own mind, that if there is a God, He has a better plan, yet to be revealed? Something to replace the theological counterfeit of history. Where direct experience is the final authority.
The Final Freedoms