Evidence

[autonomous1one1]

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.

Yes, you are right. There is an obvious flawed connection from 5 to 6 - i intended it. It was for humor and i meant to get a smile out of you because it was so obviously a blind leap. Sorry to hang you up on that. I was really addressing Rioku but what do you think of 1 thru 5. In my opinion, you should be able to agree with them on the basis of my prior posts. Treat them as individual statements not leading to any conclusion beyond what they say individually.
a..1

 

[autonomous1one1]

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

Greetings rojse. May it respectively be suggested that you not bring in preconceived notions of God (especially ones that you have eliminated ) and keep an open mind instead. This is a thread on evidence and why dismiss it so easily; there are other threads on concepts of God.

 

[sandandfoam]

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.

This is the point, you can objectively measure crime rates, intelligence scores, cases of depression etc but first you must subjectively decide what is crime, intelligence, depression.
What appears objective is actually rooted in subjectivity.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by autonomous1one1
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?

Thank you for taking the time to read my post, rojse, and asking questions. I was really responding to Rioku who agreed with me that there is consistency. My post #124 gave a list from Richard Bucke of characteristics of awakened people.

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

You are so right. See my post for Quath. I thought #6 was so obviously a 'shot in the dark' that you would smile.

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?

There are 'mystics' in every religion that speak similarly of this experience. In addition, you may notice that my religion is 'All;' this is because of my agreement with Roger Walsh that the source and aim of each and every religion is the same - this awakening experience. Variability is absolutely necessary for several interdependent, obvious reasons: the uniqueness of the awakened being; the unique surrounding circumstances; the uniqueness of the persons to whom the awakened conveys information; and the uniqueness of the path to us. Because of these, the very nature of the experience, the interpretation, and the explanation can vary but characteristics of the resultant State of Being are similar.

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?

Guess I would agree with you, it is a 'different sort' of experience and not in the same class as we are discussing. The characteristics listed in post #124 give evidence to this.

Best Wishes,
a..1

 

[Rioku]

You can't put omnipotence aside, because God supposedly can do anything He wishes,

I just want to say that you have to put omnipotence aside, because it is easily proven paradoxical. Now to mention all theists will either say god is more powerful then our profs can comprehend, or that their god is not exactly omnipotent.

 

[Rioku]

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?

Now I have to say although you meant #6 as a joke there is some validity to it. More or less the above 1 - 5 if put through the scientific method and succeed then #6 would say something like " the experience is evidence in favor of God" Which is still a far shot but you see my point. In the end 1 - 5 would never make it through the scientific method. But I like your optimism it is fun.

 

[Rioku]

This is the point, you can objectively measure crime rates, intelligence scores, cases of depression etc but first you must subjectively decide what is crime, intelligence, depression.
What appears objective is actually rooted in subjectivity.

I see your point but you should check out Intersubjective verifiability crime, intelligence, depression are intersubjectively verifiable. Where as subjective divine experiences are not.

 

[YmirGF]

There can be no situation that cannot have a natural explanation.

Really.

I agree, Willy. Simply because one does not have all the data at hand to perform a satisfactory conclusion is not a terribly good reason to chalk things up to paranormal explanations. Silly me, I don't believe in so-called "supernatural" as every experience within its own context is quite natural. I think that ascribing cause to supernatural assertions unnecessarily robs us of the ability to discern equally valid answers that would then simply be ignored as the question has already been answered with "goddidit".

Not THE truth, but the avenue to it. I'm just saying their reliance on consensus evidence limits them outside the truth of their inner life. There is no blame, really. That would be like blaming a blind person for not knowing what color of socks he's wearing.

The problem here is that you are simply alluding to a different kind of consensus, but it is consensus, nonetheless. Likewise I would never blame a deluded person for being deluded even if I can critically discern how they have wrapped themselves in the comfort of their delusion.

Evidence may not be all that, but it beats the heck out of making stuff up.

I agree and therein lies the danger of listening to folks who go on and on about what they believe but cannot show any kind of tangible proof -- especially through their less than persuasive arguments.

No matter what form it takes, religion is the intuitive discernment of the Infinite. It seems to me the incessant demand for “evidence” for something that, by definition, is infinite, shows an inability to intuit the presence of something which, by virtue of it being infinite, more than a “thing.”

The flaw here is that you claim something to be "infinite" and yet there is no possible way to verify that ANY given thing IS "infinite". It is merely supposition in regards to a quality of an "unknown" with only your (and others) say so that that given thing IS infinite.

That such is NOT evidence to others is immaterial to my perception.

Nor is your earnest imploring evidence of anything other than your own deep seated need to believe in something being behind it all. Imho, to believe in "god" robs the human animal of seeing its true place in the scheme of reality and places impediments on the path to their destiny. This destiny is not engraved in stone however but it is nonetheless something that we are inexorably drawn to like moths to flame. But heck, maybe I am simply a dreamer who prefers to envision a future beyond the imaginations of most.

The topic is the role of "evidence" in religion.

Conditioned deference for “evidence” at the expense of input from the inner life can only inhibit one’s awakening. The habit of looking for “evidence” for experiential truth does not reinforce one’s autonomy as a self-realized being. Rather, it reflects and fosters dependency.

And yet you deem the so-called evidence provided by the sages throughout the ages as evidence enough. For example, I assert that I have more exposure to inner experience than perhaps anyone else on RF. To me, it is a simple "fact", as I read people's words and remember thinking like that at one point or another. The only "real" path is the path that allows for a balanced interplay between "inner" and "outer". I would agree that so-called "inner reality" should not be dismissed as the baffle-gab of the delusional, but those adherents must remember to keep their feet planted firmly on solid ground. By relying on what is in essence whimsy, convinces no one. I get the effects I desire more often by saying nothing whatsoever and I will leave it to you to determine how that is accomplished.

I am invested in an ongoing process of self-realization that has a distinct sense of direction. I don’t need the logical mind to steer the ship. The process is not one of assimilating and reorganizing facts, but in the form of a vantage point.

I get uncomfortable when people downplay the "logical mind" as to my thinking, that is not especially wise. That does not mean that I will not, on occasion, do something simply because I have a strong urge to do so. My writing often bursts out in this manner and is not entirely logical -- at first glance. In retrospect, I usually can understand what precipitated given events and then see the inherent logic to it all. I guess the idea is be remain open and free to what may be loosely termed "inspiration".

You do well to do as you do. "Consensus evidence," external evidence, has its place in the material world, but it should not be allowed to pilot the ship alone--if at all.

So, are you advocating sprituality by braille?

I am not proposing a philosophy at all, but saying there is a level of awareness for which there is no evidence that manifests as a way of life.

Horse hockey. You, yourself even assert that the world's religion's are the evidence of something greater. So which is it? Sadly, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

[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.

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.

Anyway, rojse, you seem to have missed my point. Whether God is omniopotent or not, if the encounter is passive on God's side, there is ample room for human reason and (mis)interpretation.

 

[YmirGF]

I've said many times that reality does not end where the skin begins. What I have not said until now is its corollary: life does not end with the skin. I'm saying there "is a level of awareness for which there is no evidence that manifests as a way of life" and the obsessive demand for objective evidence is an expression of dependance on the external at the expense of the internal.

In some respects I agree, but one does have to pay attention to the simple fact that "inner reality" has not been "marketed" very well, to the extent that the non-believer remains relatively unimpressed with the thinking of those who have a tendency to prattle on about said "inner" reality.

Why don't you pay attention to what I write? The answer is right there in another post.

You might try to appreciate that your arguments, as given, are not exactly persausive. It is little wonder to me that people don't understand what you are talking about. For example, I DO know what you are talking about I just take exception to your rendering of reality. How long, exactly, has it been since your own awakening? In theory, you ought to be able to pin it down to the year, month, date and time. I know I certainly can. My appointment with my larger identity (aka "The Grand Awakening") was Feb. 28, 1974 , shortly after 8pm (PST).

Not that I can see.

That is simply because some might conjecture that the writer is not "up to speed" on the topic of his choice, although I, myself, could never suggest such a thing, of course.

See post #47. If you can't see the answer there, I can't help you any more than I can help a blindman see colors.

Some could construe this to mean that you consider SunnyStone to be "blind". I would think a man who has garnered an award for his intellectual commentary is worthy of slightly more respect.

Post #47 may well be considered to be baseless assertion and at best may be considered simple opinion.

Alright, Rolling, the problem isn't with you, it's me and Sunstone and everyone who's reading your posts and not understanding them. Is that what the evidence suggests to you?

Precisely. Some could certainly take this thinking as "evidence" but one is still left to ponder exactly what it is evidence of.

Critics exhibit the very kind of dependency on externalities I mentioned. Note this: "...a level of awareness for which there is no evidence that manifests as a way of life." What does that tell you? Nothing?
I'm tired of Sunstone's (and others) cynical red herrings and habit of posing questions without answering any posed in return

Excuse me? Rotflmao!

Some may venture the opinion that the thinking espoused by yourself in this thread is evidence of a different nature than what is intentioned.

To be perfectly truthful, I utterly and completely reject your comment that "...a level of awareness for which there is no evidence that manifests as a way of life." What does that tell you? Nothing?"

The truth is that life itself IS the evidence IN "external reality", that is constantly created from internal reality, one nanosecond at a time. It is never the other way around. In this respect, everything is evidence "manifested as a way of life", I simply think you are narrowing your definitions beyond credulity by creation divisions where none exist, but hey, that's just me.

Well, you said it so much better. When you are done putting it together, it still has no meaning.

The point that seems to be illuding the writer of the OP is that every form of expression imaginable is an expression from so-called "inner reality" agressively impacting into "external" reality. To say otherwise simply demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding of the mechanics of reality, of how we as agents, take our ideas and make them real in three-dimensional terms for others of our species to appreciate.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Human perceptions mimic what is found at the subatomic level, where an object can be said to exist only upon being measured. The only reality we are taught to recognize as real are those aspects that can be measured and quantified. We are conditioned to believe that the flickering images on the screen of our consciousness are the whole of reality, little imagining or caring that what we see is an infinitesimal part of the whole of what’s going on. With our vision thus limited, we can never really understand the nature of the whole, much less be at home in the universe.

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Someone living comfortably in a make-believe world has neither reason nor desire to escape. The unremitting demand for measurable and quantifiable evidence of a reality beyond the physical is indicative of someone still living comfortably in the make-believe world—a world that is “make-believe” because in it, only the measurable and quantifiable are thought to be real. Not until one reaches the saturation point of disillusionment, disappointment and suffering do they set off to look for something more.

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]For all their diversity, every religion in the world, East and West, is a direct result of dissatisfaction with the measurable and quantifiable. They represent the conscious or unconscious recognition of there being “something more” to reality than emotional response and the intellectual analysis of what is perceived by the physical senses.[/FONT]

 

[autonomous1one1]

Now I have to say although you meant #6 as a joke there is some validity to it. More or less the above 1 - 5 if put through the scientific method and succeed then #6 would say something like " the experience is evidence in favor of God" Which is still a far shot but you see my point. In the end 1 - 5 would never make it through the scientific method. But I like your optimism it is fun.

Yes, 'evidence in favor of God;' my humor came in with the word 'proof.' But now that you are having fun from my optimism, I should follow the guidance of Muhammad - to add joy into the heart of another - by giving you even more optimism. You are ready for #'s 7 through 10.

7) Even one example of awakening that proved to be true would be significant.
8) Case studies of potentially awakened beings can be conducted to 'learn from others' and help collect evidence for our own experiment. (Literature research is essential in scientific investigation. )
9) One should verify and validate the findings of others through one's own study and experimentation.
10)The founders of religion each have pointed us in the same direction to begin our experiment. (See post #42 in thread http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ts/1051-pitch-your-religion-5.html#post586838) Yes, we must use ourselves in the experiment to 'know' for sure.:angel2:

Regards,
a..1

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I'm a bit slow, but I finally realized that what is actually being discussed is the validity of the "perennial philosophy," which rests on two fundamental convictions:

1. Though it may be to a great extent atrophied and exist only potentially in most men, men possess an organ or faculty which is capable of discerning spiritual truth, and, in its own spheres, this faculty is as much to be relied on as are other organs of sensation in theirs.
2. In order to be able to discern spiritual truth men must in their essential nature be spiritual; in order to know That which they call God, they must be, in some way, partakers of the divine nature; potentially at least there must be some kinship between God and the human soul. Man is not a creature set over against God. He participates in the divine life; he is, in a real sense, 'united' with God in his essential nature.

 

[sandandfoam]

I see your point but you should check out Intersubjective verifiability crime, intelligence, depression are intersubjectively verifiable. Where as subjective divine experiences are not.

They are intersubjectively verifiable, that still leaves them rooted in subjectivity.

 

[autonomous1one1]

......

Greetings Stephen. Now that the thread has slowed some perhaps we can diverge a bit. Few people read Kant for fun and your courage is admired. It has been a long time since my reading of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" but have read about him recently in one of Tillich's books.

Nicolaus Cusanus and Immanuel Kant have given us classical treatment of the finitude of reason ('critical ignorance' of Kant and 'learned ignorance' of Cusanus) and with their analyzes point toward the finitude in which humankind is imprisoned. This 'imprisonment' seems akin to some of Rolling_Stone's points in this thread. For Cusanus, Catholic mysticism points to an intuitive union with the ground and abyss of reason to approach 'reality-itself' which seems akin to the awakening experience of his posts. For Kant, Tillich says, "Protestant criticism restricts reason to the acceptance of the unconditional imperative as the only approach to reality-itself." This latter requires explanation beyond the capability my fuzzy memory allows but both men seem to have broken through the limits of finitude.

Regards,
a..1

 

[sandandfoam]

Greetings Stephen. Now that the thread has slowed some perhaps we can diverge a bit. Few people read Kant for fun and your courage is admired. It has been a long time since my reading of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" but have read about him recently in one of Tillich's books.

Nicolaus Cusanus and Immanuel Kant have given us classical treatment of the finitude of reason ('critical ignorance' of Kant and 'learned ignorance' of Cusanus) and with their analyzes point toward the finitude in which humankind is imprisoned. This 'imprisonment' seems akin to some of Rolling_Stone's points in this thread. For Cusanus, Catholic mysticism points to an intuitive union with the ground and abyss of reason to approach 'reality-itself' which seems akin to the awakening experience of his posts. For Kant, Tillich says, "Protestant criticism restricts reason to the acceptance of the unconditional imperative as the only approach to reality-itself." This latter requires explanation beyond the capability my fuzzy memory allows but both men seem to have broken through the limits of finitude.

Regards,
a..1

Hi,
I am still reading and yet to get my head around this but I think how Kant might have got through the 'limits of finitude' as you nicely put it is by arguing that:- although we cannot know reality apart from ourselves if we act as if the ideas of reason (such as a 'perfect creator who exists of necessity') were true of reality then we will formulate true hypotheses.
Does that fit in any way with your memory?
This stuff is hard to think about. I must have a look at this Cusanus. Thanks,
SW

 

[autonomous1one1]

Hi,
I am still reading and yet to get my head around this but I think how Kant might have got through the 'limits of finitude' as you nicely put it is by arguing that:- although we cannot know reality apart from ourselves if we act as if the ideas of reason (such as a 'perfect creator who exists of necessity') were true of reality then we will formulate true hypotheses.
Does that fit in any way with your memory?
This stuff is hard to think about. I must have a look at this Cusanus. Thanks,
SW

It is agreed - very difficult reading - and I was being generous with myself when I used "fuzzy memory." I will count on you to teach me.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

...if we act as if the ideas of reason (such as a 'perfect creator who exists of necessity') were true of reality then we will formulate true hypotheses.

Interesting. I had to think about it. Wouldn't it be more accurate that we would formulate a working hypothesis?

 

[Rioku]

They are intersubjectively verifiable, that still leaves them rooted in subjectivity.

You should read it again, there is a big difference between subjectivity and intersubjectively verifiable.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I see your point but you should check out Intersubjective verifiability crime, intelligence, depression are intersubjectively verifiable. Where as subjective divine experiences are not.

Greetings Rioku. Thank you for the reference to intersubjective verifiability; reading it again was enjoyable. Jay has sent us there in the past but sections in Wikipedia continue to be improved.

The awakening experience has been transferred human to human and verified over and over again. For examples, check out just the appendix of Evelyn Underhill's classic analysis of mysticism - Mysticism: A Study in Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness | Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Respectfully, what am I missing for your comment in blue not to be a misconception?

Regards,
a..1