Experiencing God

[sojourner]

But you and I both know that a huge number of theists do exactly what you're saying they shouldn't.

Well, of course they do! You expect more?

The more religious one is, the more likely they are to confuse what they believe with what is actually true in objective reality.

That depends on what you mean by "more religious." I know that the more deeply spiritual a person is, the more broad their views tend to be, and the more tolerant. From my experience, it's those who are notoriously shallow, who "do church" but don't bother with spiritual formation per se, who tend to be confused about belief and reality.

I know what you're saying, I'm just trying to get you to a) not generalize, and b) be a little more specific with regard to what you really mean. Because I'm very religious, deeply spiritual, and I don't confuse belief with reality. And as far as I'm concerned, the whole purpose of religion is to help us make meaning of our lives and the real world around us. I'm not attempting to supplant cosmology with creationism.

 

[sojourner]

But you and I both know that a huge number of theists do exactly what you're saying they shouldn't. The more religious one is, the more likely they are to confuse what they believe with what is actually true in objective reality. That's what I'm arguing against.

And for the record, that sort of nonsense Drives. Me. Frickin'. Nuts! All that sort of thing does is disrespect both religion and reality. What we of a broader world view have had to do is to adjust the mythology in light of advances in scientific knowledge. And I'm OK with that. For me, religious myth isn't absolute, and I'm not threatened at having to make those reasonable adjustments.

 

[Cephus]

Well, of course they do! You expect more?

Yes, actually, I do. I don't lower my expectations because there are stupid people running around.

That depends on what you mean by "more religious." I know that the more deeply spiritual a person is, the more broad their views tend to be, and the more tolerant. From my experience, it's those who are notoriously shallow, who "do church" but don't bother with spiritual formation per se, who tend to be confused about belief and reality.

I mean people who are more serious about their religion, people who are fundamentalist or evangelical in their beliefs. Those are people who are anything but tolerant and broad-minded.

I know what you're saying, I'm just trying to get you to a) not generalize, and b) be a little more specific with regard to what you really mean. Because I'm very religious, deeply spiritual, and I don't confuse belief with reality. And as far as I'm concerned, the whole purpose of religion is to help us make meaning of our lives and the real world around us. I'm not attempting to supplant cosmology with creationism.

But we both acknowledge that there are lots of people who do, I'm not sure why there is an argument.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I disagree. It really doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove and the only proof is objective

What do you mean the only proof is objective? You really need to define your terms and your frame of reference if you wish to give any force to the arrogant dismissals you are trying to make. Surely, in some sense proof is subjective, in the sense that a proof is meant to assimilate a certain truth to a subject. This is the end to any proof. The truth is objective, of course, in the sense that it is outside an ordinary subject, but the proof is precisely subject in involving the knowledge of a subject. You seem to be referring only to the debate between interlocutors, which is surely far from the whole of coming to knowledge.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, actually, I do. I don't lower my expectations because there are stupid people running around.

You're going to continue to be disappointed and surly about humanity if you continue to give people jobs they can't handle.

I mean people who are more serious about their religion, people who are fundamentalist or evangelical in their beliefs.

People who are "fundie" and "evangelical" aren't necessarily "more serious" about their religion. I'm quite serious about my religion, and I'm not that way. Nor are many I know.
Perhaps "more serious" isn't the best terminology? Maybe you simply mean "closed-minded?"

But we both acknowledge that there are lots of people who do

That's not the fault of the religion -- it's the fault of the person.

 

[Cephus]

What do you mean the only proof is objective? You really need to define your terms and your frame of reference if you wish to give any force to the arrogant dismissals you are trying to make. Surely, in some sense proof is subjective, in the sense that a proof is meant to assimilate a certain truth to a subject. This is the end to any proof. The truth is objective, of course, in the sense that it is outside an ordinary subject, but the proof is precisely subject in involving the knowledge of a subject. You seem to be referring only to the debate between interlocutors, which is surely far from the whole of coming to knowledge.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. That means it has to be something that you can present that is not colored or influenced by your prior beliefs, that anyone can examine freely, without having to believe in it first. That means that things like personal experiences are not evidence because no one else can examine them. If someone says "you have to believe first", then it's not evidence. A lot of people confuse "knowledge" with "belief". Knowledge requires some rational and demonstrable basis in fact. If you cannot provide that, then you do not know it, you just believe it.

 

[Cephus]

You're going to continue to be disappointed and surly about humanity if you continue to give people jobs they can't handle.

And they will never be able to handle them if we don't raise expectations. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion and a lot of other things, there's a race to the bottom, not a race to the top. Just because there are stupid people out there, and there are a lot of them, that doesn't mean that stupidity becomes the acceptable norm.

People who are "fundie" and "evangelical" aren't necessarily "more serious" about their religion. I'm quite serious about my religion, and I'm not that way. Nor are many I know.
Perhaps "more serious" isn't the best terminology? Maybe you simply mean "closed-minded?"

Everyone says they're serious about their religion, even the people who just go to church on Sunday so they can network out front afterwards. Being serious about your beliefs ought to obligate you to know more about your religion than just what you've been spoon-fed from the pulpit, but we both know that most people, the overwhelming majority of theists, in fact, know nothing more than they have been indoctrinated into. Actually stepping back and researching their religious beliefs in detail would drive most of them away from the church, assuming they give a damn if what they believe is factually true, which most don't.

That's not the fault of the religion -- it's the fault of the person.

It's the fault of the religious culture. You're not supposed to openly disagree with religious beliefs. You're supposed to buy into whatever any religious person has to say and it's rude not to support them. In fact, since atheism has become so prevalent and questioning religious dictates has become common, we've seen the rise of cries of "religious discrimination" because the religious don't like having to answer questions and they certainly don't like being held accountable for justifying their positions. When you're competing in the arena of ideas, you don't get to declare yourself untouchable, that you have no requirement to justify your ideas. You're no better than anyone else and religion deserves no special rights or privileges.

 

[sojourner]

And they will never be able to handle them if we don't raise expectations. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion and a lot of other things, there's a race to the bottom, not a race to the top. Just because there are stupid people out there, and there are a lot of them, that doesn't mean that stupidity becomes the acceptable norm.

Unfortunately, that change will have to come from the inside, not form the outside.

Unfortunately, when it comes to religion and a lot of other things, there's a race to the bottom, not a race to the top.

I think that's true of fundamentalism. But please don't lump the rest of us in with the conservatives.

Everyone says they're serious about their religion, even the people who just go to church on Sunday so they can network out front afterwards. Being serious about your beliefs ought to obligate you to know more about your religion than just what you've been spoon-fed from the pulpit, but we both know that most people, the overwhelming majority of theists, in fact, know nothing more than they have been indoctrinated into.

You're right. But those of us who are clergy see more -- and far more objectively -- and we know who's "serious" and who's not.

It's the fault of the religious culture. You're not supposed to openly disagree with religious beliefs.

That's only true of fundamentalist religions. Most liberal religions welcome questioning and disagreement.

since atheism has become so prevalent and questioning religious dictates has become common, we've seen the rise of cries of "religious discrimination" because the religious don't like having to answer questions

There's the rub: religions aren't supposed to "answer questions." They're supposed to create space to wrestle with the tough questions.

You're no better than anyone else and religion deserves no special rights or privileges.

The reverse is also true -- no one gets to hold religions to arbitrary hermeneutics they were never designed to operate within.

 

[Willamena]

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

This definition does subjective a disservice. Subjective is the influence of personal feelings or opinions. It has nothing to do with facts, or representing or misrepresnting them. But perhaps it has to be something that you can present that is colored and influenced by your prior beliefs.

 

[Cephus]

Unfortunately, that change will have to come from the inside, not form the outside.

But if nobody holds them to higher standards, they will never rise to them.

I think that's true of fundamentalism. But please don't lump the rest of us in with the conservatives.

Conservatism is a political ideology, not a religious one. If someone starts talking about faith, they're talking about fundamentalism, not conservatism.

You're right. But those of us who are clergy see more -- and far more objectively -- and we know who's "serious" and who's not.

Some clergy, maybe, but you also get a lot of clergy who are trapped in a belief system they no longer accept. See the Clergy Project.

That's only true of fundamentalist religions. Most liberal religions welcome questioning and disagreement.

Only to a certain degree. There has always been a wall beyond which no religious person will welcome questioning or disagreement. Once you start to question the basis for faith, most theists no longer want to talk to you because they cannot even imagine being wrong.

There's the rub: religions aren't supposed to "answer questions." They're supposed to create space to wrestle with the tough questions.

Says who? Any position that makes factual claims about the real world, which religion absolutely does, needs to be responsible for answering questions. This comes off as dodging the fundamental logical requirements. If you're going to claim that there's a god, it rests solely on your shoulders to back it up. Just believing a thing and presenting those beliefs is, like it or not, making a claim.

The reverse is also true -- no one gets to hold religions to arbitrary hermeneutics they were never designed to operate within.

I don't think anyone is doing that, at best, people are holding religions to the claims that they, themselves, are making. When someone claims something about their religion, then refuses to back it up, that's a failure with that individual.

 

[Cephus]

This definition does subjective a disservice. Subjective is the influence of personal feelings or opinions. It has nothing to do with facts, or representing them.

It is the dictionary definition though, just like subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". However, you don't just get to declare that your subjective beliefs are factually true, and a lot of claims are, by definition, claims about objective reality. If you claim that your subjective belief is that the Earth is flat,you're just wrong. Any claim that is made about the real world, no matter how much you wish it was true, is either factually true or factually false, regardless of your desires.

 

[Willamena]

It is the dictionary definition though, just like subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

Just that.

However, you don't just get to declare that your subjective beliefs are factually true, and a lot of claims are, by definition, claims about objective reality. If you claim that your subjective belief is that the Earth is flat,you're just wrong. Any claim that is made about the real world, no matter how much you wish it was true, is either factually true or factually false, regardless of your desires.

Belief and subjective are different things, though. You have objective beliefs too. You believe that with the next step you take the ground beneath your feet will not crumble (both literally and figuratively).

 

[Cephus]

Belief and subjective are different things, though. You have objective beliefs too. You believe that with the next step you take the ground beneath your feet will not crumble (both literally and figuratively).

I don't have to believe that, or at the very least, don't have to have faith in it because I have direct, demonstrable and objective experience that it is entirely reasonable to expect that to happen. You can't say the same for religious beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

I don't have to believe that..

But, if you expect to survive the next step across firm ground, you do believe it.

...or at the very least, don't have to have faith in it because I have direct, demonstrable and objective experience that it is entirely reasonable to expect that to happen. You can't say the same for religious beliefs.

You have evidence of the future, indeed, that is inference.

Which includes an inherent uncertainty.

Some would allow an open-mindedness enough to call that faith.

 

[Cephus]

You have evidence of the future, indeed, that is inference.

Which includes an inherent uncertainty.

Some would allow an open-mindedness enough to call that faith.

There's no such thing as absolute certainty of anything but I do have credible, demonstrable and objective experience, something that nobody has with any gods. Do try again.

 

[sojourner]

Conservatism is a political ideology, not a religious one. If someone starts talking about faith, they're talking about fundamentalism, not conservatism.

It's also a religious hermeneutic. Not all conservatives are fundamentalists.

Some clergy, maybe, but you also get a lot of clergy who are trapped in a belief system they no longer accept.

Interesting, but not cogent to my comment.

There has always been a wall beyond which no religious person will welcome questioning or disagreement.

I disagree. the only point at which I stop welcoming disagreement is when the disagreement isn't based in fact or reason.

Once you start to question the basis for faith, most theists no longer want to talk to you because they cannot even imagine being wrong.

For many liberals, it's simply not a question of "right" or "wrong."

Says who? Any position that makes factual claims about the real world, which religion absolutely does, needs to be responsible for answering questions.

Xy doesn't make factual claims about the real world. It does make theological claims and mythological claims.

If you're going to claim that there's a god, it rests solely on your shoulders to back it up.

How can one "back up" a mythic concept?

Just believing a thing and presenting those beliefs is, like it or not, making a claim.

Of course it is. It's a theological claim,whose hermeneutic isn't based in empirical evidence.

I don't think anyone is doing that, at best, people are holding religions to the claims that they, themselves, are making.

I've had people try it with me -- including you. It happens when people don't understand the nature of a theological claim, and conflate a theological proposition with an ontological argument.

It is the dictionary definition though, just like subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". However, you don't just get to declare that your subjective beliefs are factually true, and a lot of claims are, by definition, claims about objective reality. If you claim that your subjective belief is that the Earth is flat,you're just wrong. Any claim that is made about the real world, no matter how much you wish it was true, is either factually true or factually false, regardless of your desires.

You're correct, of course. Where we run into problems is (as I stated above), when theological claims are conflated with empirical fact.

 

[sojourner]

but I do have credible, demonstrable and objective experience, something that nobody has with any gods.

Here you go, doing exactly what I stated as a problem above -- comparing objective experience with subjective experience, and making a judgment about subjective experience that it was never designed to stand up to.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. That means it has to be something that you can present that is not colored or influenced by your prior beliefs, that anyone can examine freely, without having to believe in it first. That means that things like personal experiences are not evidence because no one else can examine them. If someone says "you have to believe first", then it's not evidence. A lot of people confuse "knowledge" with "belief". Knowledge requires some rational and demonstrable basis in fact. If you cannot provide that, then you do not know it, you just believe it.

I don't think this is technically correct. Certainly, on its own a personal experience is not necessarily the sort of evidence that will persuade others, but that does not mean it is not proof.

For a start, there are areas where personal experience is valid (or at least it would seem one would very much impoverish one's epistemology if one didn't accept it). For example, if your friend said they went to Sainsbury's today and you wanted to know what colour uniforms their staff wear, you might ask them and would likely put a lot of stock in their answer. This is knowledge based on personal experience and testimony. This sort of knowledge is ubiquitous in our lives.

To channel Michael Polanyi and Michael Oakeshott, there is also a personal knowledge, a tactic knowledge or technique, that is indispensable for just about any serious pursuit and is partly developed through our personal experience. This is even the case for natural science. We can read a book, for example, on carpentry until we had memorised it from cover to cover, but only when we practice and learn personally, often in a non-discursive way, from those already proficient, can we truly possess the knowledge to be good carpenters.

Besides, the truth known is ultimately personal. Reason and demonstration are proofs of a truth, rather than the truth itself. Dialectic may make known a truth to us, but it isn't the truth itself, which can only ultimately be known by seeing and assimilating it. To argue otherwise would be to reduce knowledge to a sort of shell game in which the thing is never known in itself but only that which points to it. It would be like a mathematical proof that never resulted in a theorem or a staircase that never reached a summit

Now, none of this means one should necessarily accept the personal experience of those who speak about experiencing God, but it does seem to suggest that the issues of knowledge and personal experience are far more complex than your comments imply.

 

[Willamena]

There's no such thing as absolute certainty of anything but I do have credible, demonstrable and objective experience, something that nobody has with any gods. Do try again.

There is such a thing as absolute certainty of the past.

'Nuff said.

 

[Looncall]

It's also a religious hermeneutic. Not all conservatives are fundamentalists.

Interesting, but not cogent to my comment.

I disagree. the only point at which I stop welcoming disagreement is when the disagreement isn't based in fact or reason.

For many liberals, it's simply not a question of "right" or "wrong."

Xy doesn't make factual claims about the real world. It does make theological claims and mythological claims.

How can one "back up" a mythic concept?

Of course it is. It's a theological claim,whose hermeneutic isn't based in empirical evidence.

I've had people try it with me -- including you. It happens when people don't understand the nature of a theological claim, and conflate a theological proposition with an ontological argument.

You're correct, of course. Where we run into problems is (as I stated above), when theological claims are conflated with empirical fact.

I would be grateful if you would explain the nature of a theological claim.