Experiencing God

[Cephus]

Of course I'd believe them. Deity is Deity. Differences are perception only. In the dark, all cats are black.

So you're going to say that pink elephants, drunken hallucinations caused by alcoholic poisoning of the brain, are gods? Seriously?

 

[Sonofason]

Established guidelines of logic and reason, not just something that you feel like making up for yourself.

Who exactly established these guidelines of logic and reason? And what are the guidelines?

 

[Sonofason]

Then you should be able to demonstrate, with evidence and reason, that it is a bad idea. Just asserting something is no proof at all.

You had said that it is good to laugh at or make fun of people when you yourself believe their claims are ridiculous. In my opinion, the world would be a better place without people who believe it is good to laugh at and make fun of others. We have all seen some of the horrible consequences that such behavior can have on others. Such behavior can often lead a person into feelings of despair, to the point that they may even become suicidal. Yet you say such behavior is good for humanity. I disagree. It is not good to mock others...not ever. And for this reason, as I have said, I will reject this particular notion of yours, because it is a bad idea. It is always a bad idea to mock, ridicule and laugh at other human beings. And of course, if you were to be honest for a moment, you will certainly agree.

 

[Sonofason]

Scientific claims say, "The sun appears to 'rise' in the east. Here's why it appears that way, and here's how that happens."

Theology says, "The sun rises in the east, and so the east is seen as the direction of new life, or resurrection."

The first explains how and why, and provides concrete definitions. The second makes meaning of the experience.

When theology attempts to say, "God did this," that's not a definition, because there's no concrete evidence to show that it's so. It's a metaphor that usually attempts to show why the event is important to us.

Okay, I can accept that.

 

[sojourner]

So you're going to say that pink elephants, drunken hallucinations caused by alcoholic poisoning of the brain, are gods? Seriously?

There's a difference between hallucination and religious experience.

 

[Sunstone]

There's a difference between hallucination and religious experience.

Apparently, there is. See Andrew Newberg's and Eugene D'Aquill's little book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief for a discussion in scientific terms of several ways in which mystical experiences differ from hallucinations.

 

[Cephus]

There's a difference between hallucination and religious experience.

How do you know that?

 

[Sunstone]

How do you know that?

Oh for gawd's sakes, just read the book.

 

[Cephus]

Oh for gawd's sakes, just read the book.

That's just a claim in a book of mythology. I'm asking how you came to know that said claim is actually true.

 

[Demonslayer]

You had said that it is good to laugh at or make fun of people when you yourself believe their claims are ridiculous. In my opinion, the world would be a better place without people who believe it is good to laugh at and make fun of others. We have all seen some of the horrible consequences that such behavior can have on others. Such behavior can often lead a person into feelings of despair, to the point that they may even become suicidal. Yet you say such behavior is good for humanity. I disagree. It is not good to mock others...not ever

I agree with Cephus here, there is value in mocking certain attitudes, ideas or behaviors.

I understand your side too, obviously. On the surface it seems obvious that people should not be mean spirited towards other people. Your vague example obviously refers to the bullying stories we hear, and who wouldn't agree with you when thinking of those kids of issues? "Live and let live, be nice to people," right? Seems obvious and hard to argue when you put it that simply without thinking it through.

But I strongly believe that each idea, belief, claim or behavior needs to be analyized on merit, and not all ideas, beliefs, attitudes or behaviors are worthy of praise or respect.

What do we do with an idea, belief, claim or behavior that is damaging in some way? Do we 'live and let live' and stay quiet, for fear of insulting the holder of such a belief? Suffering the damage done, simply to play nice-nice at all costs? I use the example of Christian Scientist's belief that they should not bring their sick children to the doctor, because God will heal them. Or the belief of the Westboro Baptist Church that God intentionally kills American soldiers because of the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in America.

Those beliefs shouldn't be mocked? We should stand aside and stay silent, in the face of beliefs like these that cause innocent children to die and/or foster misunderstanding and hatred between groups of different-minded people? WHY? If I don't mock these sorts of beliefs, how am I supposed to convince my children and others that these beliefs are wrong and damaging?

Some ideas, beliefs, attitudes or behaviors deserve to be, and should be, mocked. We don't have to accept every idea or belief just because someone holds it, or just because someone says it's part of their religion.

 

[viole]

There's a difference between hallucination and religious experience.

True. The formers happen.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sojourner]

That's just a claim in a book of mythology. I'm asking how you came to know that said claim is actually true.

Skepticism for the sake of being skeptical is a poor substitute for reason. do "religious experiences" appear in the DSM as a subheading under "hallucination?" I didn't think so. If it's good enough for the medical community, it ought to be good enough for you.

 

[sojourner]

True. The formers happen.

Ciao

- viole

So do the latter.

 

[Cephus]

Skepticism for the sake of being skeptical is a poor substitute for reason. do "religious experiences" appear in the DSM as a subheading under "hallucination?" I didn't think so. If it's good enough for the medical community, it ought to be good enough for you.

No, actually, it isn't. Be skeptical of everything. Verify everything. Apply reason and logic to everything. Besides, in the most recent DSM, there is indeed a section called "Religious or Spiritual Problem" which identifies extreme religious belief and experience as a nonpathological problem. You're desperate to defend these experiences but they really are not defensible at all.

 

[Cephus]

So do the latter.

I think the point was that the latter doesn't demonstrably happen.

 

[sojourner]

No, actually, it isn't. Be skeptical of everything. Verify everything. Apply reason and logic to everything. Besides, in the most recent DSM, there is indeed a section called "Religious or Spiritual Problem" which identifies extreme religious belief and experience as a nonpathological problem. You're desperate to defend these experiences but they really are not defensible at all.

You're projecting. I'm not desperate at all. "Spiritual Problem" isn't the same thing as "religious" or "spiritual experience" at all. Nothing about spiritual experience is "extreme." It may be "deep," but that's a completely different phenomenon, which is encouraged by the medical community as being beneficial for many conditions, among them blood pressure and other stress-related presentations. The kind of belief you're describing causes stress.

No, I'm afraid it's you who's grasping at straws in some desperate attempt to discredit anything spiritual.

There's such a thing as healthy and beneficial skepticism and extreme skepticism. The latter (showcased by you) would say "Says who?" to the statement that the sky appears to be blue on a typical sunny day, or to the observation that "diamonds are hard." Just to be obtuse.

 

[sojourner]

I think the point was that the latter doesn't demonstrably happen.

They do, actually.

 

[Cephus]

You're projecting. I'm not desperate at all. "Spiritual Problem" isn't the same thing as "religious" or "spiritual experience" at all. Nothing about spiritual experience is "extreme." It may be "deep," but that's a completely different phenomenon, which is encouraged by the medical community as being beneficial for many conditions, among them blood pressure and other stress-related presentations. The kind of belief you're describing causes stress.

No, I'm afraid it's you who's grasping at straws in some desperate attempt to discredit anything spiritual.

There's such a thing as healthy and beneficial skepticism and extreme skepticism. The latter (showcased by you) would say "Says who?" to the statement that the sky appears to be blue on a typical sunny day, or to the observation that "diamonds are hard." Just to be obtuse.

No, you're being ridiculous. Religious experiences are self-identified. Someone has an experience that they claim, on their own, to be spiritual in nature. They have not proven that spirituality had anything whatsoever to do with it. They might as well be claiming that aliens did it or Bigfoot did it or leprechauns did it. But what you desperately want is to pretend that religion and spirituality is somehow magically different than all of these other irrational claims. It is not. You want to carve out an exception for religion and there just isn't one, no matter how much you clench your eyes closed and wish.

But where we would reject claims of aliens and Bigfoot and leprechauns because they are claims made without evidence, you want to take another claim made without evidence, that of the supernatural and spiritual, and insist we should take that seriously because you are emotionally invested in it being true. Talk about obtuse! Look in the mirror.

 

[Cephus]

They do, actually.

Okay, produce your objective evidence for them. We'll wait.

 

[sojourner]

No, you're being ridiculous. Religious experiences are self-identified. Someone has an experience that they claim, on their own, to be spiritual in nature. They have not proven that spirituality had anything whatsoever to do with it. They might as well be claiming that aliens did it or Bigfoot did it or leprechauns did it. But what you desperately want is to pretend that religion and spirituality is somehow magically different than all of these other irrational claims. It is not. You want to carve out an exception for religion and there just isn't one, no matter how much you clench your eyes closed and wish.

But where we would reject claims of aliens and Bigfoot and leprechauns because they are claims made without evidence, you want to take another claim made without evidence, that of the supernatural and spiritual, and insist we should take that seriously because you are emotionally invested in it being true. Talk about obtuse! Look in the mirror.

But... what, exactly is "spirituality?" You talk as if it's some outside force that intrudes upon us. You talk as if the "nature" of "spirituality" is something ... other than us. It's not. The nature of spirituality is deeply of us. Therefore, when someone has a spiritual experience, it is something deeply human -- and something deeply personal. And a "spiritual experience" can be one of many, many things. So, when someone claims to have had one, I'm inclined to believe that that's the case. Because those who really do have such experiences don't usually talk about leprechauns or pink elephants, or any other hallucination. That's because the spiritual experience is an inner experience -- not an outward perception.