Evidence

[sandandfoam]

I am unfamiliar with the work of Kant, or the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Would you care to explain this further?

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is that nothing is true that has no sufficient explanation.
Leibniz put it forward with The Principle of Contradiction (which is that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true) to derive a view of the world that is perspectiveless. He argued that reality is only available to reason because only reason can get above an individual point of view and that the real nature of the world cannot be gained from any point of view.
Kant argues that reason alone leads to illusion, reason must be based in experience. He goes further again and argues that some knowledge, a priori knowledge, is not based in experience (Eg.- my knowledge that 'The world consists of enduring objects which exist independently of me' is not based in experience). This is the sensible intuition referred to in the(my) first post.
The Principle of Sufficient reason only works with 'relation to sensible intuition' using his 'transcendental' method that relates the object of knowledge to the 'capacity of the knower'
In relation to your post that I first adressed my point is that Kant shows that objectivity is necessarily rooted in subjective experience and subjective knowing, so to dismiss experience is incorrect, even a priori knowledge is based in my experience of it as true.
As I said in my earlier post I am not sure that I understand Kant correctly as it is quite heavy going and I'm reading and discussing his ideas for the first time. If any or all of what I've understood him to have said is flawed I'd appreciate if any who are familiar with his ideas point it out.

 

[Willamena]

However, I certainly do believe that my explanation regarding hallucinations is a logical, rational explanation. I do not mean hallucinations that occur after taking drugs or depriving yourself of nutrition or other such silly things that some might do. I do not mean to use it as an insult, merely as "seeing things that are not truly there".

But there are other, more appropriate, less medicated words to describe such --"medicated" because they can occur in a healthy person --like "visions," "experiences" (not my favourite, but often used by people here), "imaginings" or even "'understandings."

Edit: and "realizations."

 

[Kay]

I don't think many people say, "My doctor told me to take anti-biotics, but I'm disregarding the evidence and going with my spiritual intuition and throwing them away."

The following is off topic:

You just repeated a conversation I had with a coworker recently. Oy!

 

[autonomous1one1]

Firstly, let me make it clear that I am sorry if anything that I have said has been construed by you to be an insult, and I certainly did not mean it that way. Apologies...........

Greetings Quath, Rioku, and rojse. Thank you for responding so quickly to my post. You certainly think fast. For those that commented such, It does seem that you are qualified, but I do not believe any of you have examined the type of experience that we refer to in this thread, nor understand it yet. And rojse, please do not be concerned about insults, although your attitude is greatly appreciated. (About the only kind of insult that takes hold is an insult to intelligence and that is never recognized when it happens. ) My apologies for making you feel you had to apologize.

My main point is that imo one should not dismiss carelessly this key class of awakening experience that is of such immense value. To help clarify the experience referred to, let me point merely to the table of contents of the old classic book (now online) by Richard Bucke that lists some of the persons throughout history that he had concluded experienced this 'awakening.' http://djm.cc/library/Cosmic_Consciousness_edited02.pdf
This was one of the earliest of my readings on the subject. Other names such as Meister Eckhart, other mystics, philosophers, and theologians can be added to the list.

The evidence, as Rolling_Stone alluded, is the resultant being - their significant numbers and their similarities contributing to the evidence. In Bucke's words, he lists the "marks of the Cosmic Sense:
The subjective light.
The moral elevation.
The intellectual illumination.
The sense of immortality.
The loss of the fear of death.
The loss of the sense of sin.
The suddenness, instantaneousness, of the awakening.
The previous character of the man - intellectual, moral and physical.
The age of illumination.
The added charm to the personality...
The transfiguration of the subject of the change ..."

I would change a few words in the 'marks' but the awakening experience is a reality, even though it may seem 'hokey' to you. What was it that the CEO (Iococca) of Chrysler said at one time - 'I give my personal guarantee.'

Best Wishes,
a..1

 

[Rioku]

I will do some skimming of the reading you linked to, but again I would waist my life away trying to keep up with all the readings theists and atheists send my way. At first glance of your post here is some input you should consider.

The subjective light.
The moral elevation.
The intellectual illumination.
The sense of immortality.
The loss of the fear of death.
The loss of the sense of sin.
The suddenness, instantaneousness, of the awakening.
The previous character of the man - intellectual, moral and physical.
The age of illumination.
The added charm to the personality...
The transfiguration of the subject of the change ..."

All of these are none quantifiable. i.e. you can not measure moral elevation or intellectual illumination. If there was a questionnaire that asked questions like "do you feel morally elevated" then that is quantifiable, but in the case of all these questions there exists too many confounding variables to consider such a study valid.

The evidence, as Rolling_Stone alluded, is the resultant being - their significant numbers and their similarities contributing to the evidence.

There is no doubt in my mind there are a lot more differences then similarities. But without a study done to show the differences or the lack of differences then we are back at square one, no verifiable evidence.

I would change a few words in the 'marks' but the awakening experience is a reality, even though it may seem 'hokey' to you. What was it that the CEO (Iococca) of Chrysler said at one time - 'I give my personal guarantee.'

Personal guarantee is meaningless. Again I refer you to the studies of how erroneous the human mind is. This time you might want to look up 'change detection' it is kind of fun. In the end there is verifiable evidence for the unreliability of the human mind, yet no evidence for any awakened experience.

 

[autonomous1one1]

.....

Greetings. Conclude what you wish. My posts are only for your benefit.
Regards,
a..1

 

[Rioku]

Greetings. Conclude what you wish. My posts are only for your benefit.

Thank your for your attempts at befitting me, but I respond in hopes that my information or knowledge on a topic is either incorrect or I prove someone else incorrect. So it is of no benefit to either of us if you do not try to defend your claims or conclude that your claims are erroneous.

In the end all you have shown is there is evidence for consistency in people who have had an awakened experience. The examples you gave I showed are not enough to draw any conclusions from. Do you have anything else to back up your claims for an awakened experience?

Edit: I have also been reading the "Cosmic Consciousness" and so far there is nothing worth reading, is there any data you can point me to that is worth reading?

 

[Willamena]

All of these are non-quantifiable. i.e. you can not measure moral elevation or intellectual illumination.

Does that make them any less real?

 

[Quath]

Does that make them any less real?

I think it just makes them subjective. So no one can show that something is improving or happening unless it can be measured in some way.

For example, we can measure crime rates, intelligence scores, number of cases of depression, etc. So each category should show why it is real other than assert it.

 

[Willamena]

I think it just makes them subjective.

Oh, well that's a good thing then.

 

[autonomous1one1]

.... I respond in hopes that my information or knowledge on a topic is either incorrect or I prove someone else incorrect. So it is of no benefit to either of us if you do not try to defend your claims or conclude that your claims are erroneous....In the end all you have shown is there is evidence for consistency in people who have had an awakened experience. ....

Greetings my friend Rioku. So far, all I have tried to do is point towards the kind of experience we are talking about so that we all can narrow the broad spectrum down a bit. Also, several have posted that if there were some consistencies among religious experiences they might look at them differently. It seems from the bolded part of your post that you agree with me that there is an experience that some interpret as an awakening and that there is some consistency among such experiences.

Let me see if we really agree on anything yet:

1)there is an experience that some interpret as an 'awakening'
2)there are many examples documented and described throughout history
3)there is some consistency of characteristics among the 'awakened' persons
4)these characteristics result from the being that has believed and interpreted the experience and been transformed by it
5)if the experience is actually real as believed, the 'awakening' is of immense importance (e.g.'s, realization of eternal life, loss of fear, knowing a higher reality, etc.)
6)the experience is proof of God.

Of course, you cannot agree in any way with #6, but #'s 1 thru 5 should be palatable to some degree. Yes?

Regards,
a..1

 

[Quath]

1)there is an experience that some interpret as an 'awakening'
2)there are many examples documented and described throughout history
3)there is some consistency of characteristics among the 'awakened' persons
4)these characteristics result from the being that has believed and interpreted the experience and been transformed by it
5)if the experience is actually real as believed, the 'awakening' is of immense importance (e.g.'s, realization of eternal life, loss of fear, knowing a higher reality, etc.)
6)the experience is proof of God.

I think you have a flawed connection from 5o to 6. For example, someone drunk may have real feelings and experiences, but they may be entirely in their own head and not related to reality.

This is also flawed because you could use it to prove just about anything. For example, if you show that Thor followers are similar to each other and that they believe and think similar things, that does not mean Thor is real.

 

[rojse]

1)there is an experience that some interpret as an 'awakening'
2)there are many examples documented and described throughout history
3)there is some consistency of characteristics among the 'awakened' persons
4)these characteristics result from the being that has believed and interpreted the experience and been transformed by it
5)if the experience is actually real as believed, the 'awakening' is of immense importance (e.g.'s, realization of eternal life, loss of fear, knowing a higher reality, etc.)
6)the experience is proof of God.

For #3, what characteristics would you describe as consistent between those that are awakened?

For #6, as has been mentioned before, but thought it worth repeating, it does not automatically follow that the experience comes from God.

I would also like to mention that different people, who are "awakened', as you put it, end up in believing in different religions - Christianity, Muslim, pagan, and so forth. How can they have the same experience, this "awakening", and end up with completely different conclusions regarding who to believe and how to do it?

And what would you call it when people are, for want of a better phrase, come to a different sort of "awakening", where they "realise" that there are no gods? (I am not saying that there are no gods, just what some people come to think) Is this "awakening" equivalent to yours, and would it follow that no god really exists?

 

[Storm]

I would also like to mention that different people, who are "awakened', as you put it, end up in believing in different religions - Christianity, Muslim, pagan, and so forth. How can they have the same experience, this "awakening", and end up with completely different conclusions regarding who to believe and how to do it?

Individual interpretations.

 

[rojse]

Individual interpretations.

But if they experience the same event, why would different people end up believing in quite opposed interpretations of God?

 

[Storm]

But if they experience the same event, why would different people end up believing in quite opposed interpretations of God?

Because we don't really understand the event.

 

[rojse]

Because we don't really understand the event.

Surely an all-powerful God would be competent enough to present an event which would give someone a complete understanding.

 

[Storm]

Surely an all-powerful God would be competent enough to present an event which would give someone a complete understanding.

Omnipotence aside, I don't believe God is the active agent in the experience, but the person perceiving God.

 

[rojse]

Omnipotence aside, I don't believe God is the active agent in the experience, but the person perceiving God.

You can't put omnipotence aside, because God supposedly can do anything He wishes, and that includes allowing people to perceive God.

 

[Storm]

You can't put omnipotence aside, because God supposedly can do anything He wishes, and that includes allowing people to perceive God.

Not my God.