God experience can change atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are not talking of name-form.

Since I have no idea what you mean by "name-form," you're right - we aren't.

 

[atanu]

I can't see this happening to atheists, without belief in god what is a god experience?

An agnostic could think, ok i can count that experience as known, at least by me, so maybe there is something in this god thing.

Data indicated that.

What the statistics tell us that while most religions are loosing adherents, none belief is gaining ground.

This probably is true and is expected with the increasing lure of consumerism. People do not have time for introversion.

 

[ChristineM]

Data indicated that.




This probably is true and is expected with the increasing lure of consumerism. People do not have time for introversion.

I personally think the data flawed in that it did not question or validate claims of faith or non faith

There are several reasons religion is in decline. people are becoming more educated, they are now more willing to question and evaluate, the rise of the internet gives better (and global) communication, multiples scandals among religious hierarchy to name just a few.

 

[viole]

I gave you a winner point. I will try.

Thank you. I hope there is something left afterwards

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

Well some may be unlucky and get to taste artificially ripened mango.

Why would you respond to a comment I made to 74x12 and completely ignore the comment I addressed to you...

However, this intentionally vague and misleading wording accomplishes what the author intended. It gives people like Antanu a reason to start a forum thread with the header:
God experience can change atheists

If atanu had bothered to read the article he would have seen the article mentions atheists only twice. Never does that article say how many of the thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God were atheists. That is either shoddy research or intentionally misleading rhetoric.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree that no experience carries its own perception. The computer monitor I'm looking at might only exist in my mind. But since I have no other concept of existence, I believe it exists.

So, let's assume I am one of the many people who have felt a loving presence within them. I agree that it's not intelligent to add my own interpretation to the experience. I should not assume it's God. However, it would be silly to jump to the conclusion that the feeling was merely a delusion simply because delusions are possible.

It's equally silly for anyone else to jump to the conclusion that such experiences are delusions simply because it wasn't their own experience and delusion can be raised as a possibility.

Yes, of course. The next question is whether there is consistency across the experiences of different people. Or do the reports from different people conflict in fundamental ways?

An example I like is color blindness. John Dalton, the developer of the modern theory of the atom, was color blind. He discovered this by realizing that others reported seeing distinctions in color that he could not. But he also found out that there was a *consistency* in the colors reported by other people. So, if Dalton saw two objects as the same color, and someone else saw the first as red and the second as green, then another person who came along that saw them as different colors would also report the first as red and the second as green consistently.

It is this consistency across people that verifies it is a real detection of color differences and not a delusion.

Can we say the same about religious experiences? Is there something that is consistently detected and reported by independent observers who have 'God experiences'? if so, it seems to be very limited as shown by the wide variety of religions and the wide variety of reports of religious experiences.

To me, that suggests that people are NOT detecting a real external phenomenon, but are instead showing individual reactions to a common source of illusion.

 

[ecco]

I have read the paper and the related article — both the links. Are you sure that you are not expressing your bias??

So, your belated response just comes down to accusing me of being biased.

I did not create a forum thread titled:
God experience can change atheists
You did.

I did not base a thread on an article that states that 2/3 of atheists "found god" while refusing to mention how many atheists were involved in a survey "of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God".

This was obviously and intentionally designed to mislead. You said you read the article. Didn't you notice this?

I carefully read the article. I can see deceit when it is blatantly obvious. That does not make me biased.

On the other hand, you intentionally choose to pick and choose a handful of words while ignoring the gist of the article in general and the specific deceitfulness of some of the statistics.

Is doing things like that part of your Hindu Sanatana Dharma teaching?

 

[Quintessence]

A few things I find especially interesting about the study as described by this third party:

• Most of the sample was male. This is significant because other studies have routinely shown men to be "less religious" than women using typical metrics. It means the study disproportionately surveyed a demographic known for being more skeptical, rather than less. I'm not sure what to make of that yet.
• The meaning of the word "god" was left refreshingly open-ended. Too often, studies about religion fail to do this, which constrain interpretation and responses unnecessarily. This is especially relevant when talking about religious experiences, for which conventional vocabulary is frequently a handicap.
• The disparity in "decreased fear of death" between the drug and non-drug groups is fascinating. It may have implications for the risks of drug overdosing in particular, as 70% of the drug group reported decreased fear of death (compared to only 57% for the non-drug group).

In any case, it's refreshing to see a more meaningful (albeit with its own set of flaws) study on a matter of substance when it comes to religion. Thanks for sharing, @atanu

 

[ecco]

I am an example of an atheist who became a believer after a God experience or two.

What was your worldview of gods/religion before you became an atheist?

 

[sealchan]

I might be missing your point.

I don't think the discussion is about subjective truths. I think we have a disagreement about facts, true or false, where there is insufficient evidence to make a persuasive case either way. I think my opponents are jumping to conclusions when they write off so-called "God experiences" and such as delusions.

I'm probably coming in sideways to your line of argument.

For me what gets missed is that it is that personal experience not only includes correctly and incorrectly perceived facts, but it also includes currently generally believed facts as well as a huge class of inaccessible facts such as currently unknown facts and impractical to obtain facts. So in my view the subjective is this huge feature that we are all dealing with all the time.

One goal of human rationality is comprehensive, definitional consistency. This is what I take to be a science-y, word-based logical system which explains experience. But there is another goal of human rationality which is meaning and value. It is a moral-y, feeling-valuation based system which seeks to create a comprehensive, moral-value position consistency with respect to our experience.

If we have an experience of some sort it may be dismissable in terms of one goal but not the other. Some people will easily dismiss any feeling based experience because they believe they only need to value definitional types of experiences. As soon as one has an experience they have to immediately move to the impersonal, definitional and scientifically reproducible aspects of that experience and ignore the personal value aspects of the experience.

I think that we must give due credit and attention to feeling responses because they evidence objective qualities of human psychology. We are not just emotionless data processing machines...we are also empathetic wasters of energy on our sense of personal meaning and value. Why do we feel compelled to pay attention to and devote so much effort and energy around such topics as "why am I important?", "why should I care?", "am I seen as of value to others?". Not only do we spend our time on this, apparently, useless pursuit of subjective value, but we seem to be likely to ignore all kinds of impersonal, objective truths in the process. At some point our subjective truths are our own worst enemies, but to pretend that we are not all trapped in this situation is what find is the flaw in the exclusively rational view that requires all truths to be tested in a lab...as if anyone actually lived that way.

 

[Polymath257]

I think that we must give due credit and attention to feeling responses because they evidence objective qualities of human psychology. We are not just emotionless data processing machines...we are also empathetic wasters of energy on our sense of personal meaning and value. Why do we feel compelled to pay attention to and devote so much effort and energy around such topics as "why am I important?", "why should I care?", "am I seen as of value to others?". Not only do we spend our time on this, apparently, useless pursuit of subjective value, but we seem to be likely to ignore all kinds of impersonal, objective truths in the process. At some point our subjective truths are our own worst enemies, but to pretend that we are not all trapped in this situation is what find is the flaw in the exclusively rational view that requires all truths to be tested in a lab...as if anyone actually lived that way.

I found this paragraph interesting mostly because I spend very little time thinking about those issues. I almost never think about my own importance. I assume I am only important to myself and a few friends. I almost never ask why I should care. I either already care or it is clear why I don't. And I allow others to tell me whether I am of value to them.

So, well, these thoughts that seem to take up most of your time are hardly a blip on my screen. I spend *far* more time asking 'what do I think about this?' or 'what is another interpretation of that'? or even 'how can I prove this mathematical result in an easier way?'. A bit further down the scale are organizational issues: 'what do I have to do today?' and 'when can I find time for lunch?'.

 

[sealchan]

What was your worldview of gods/religion before you became an atheist?

I was about 19 years old, a fan of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series and was keenly aware of the historical hypocrisy of the Church. I was a math and physics major at a school associated with the Holy Cross only because I had a scholarship and it was near my home. I took introductory courses in the world's religions and the Old and New Testament. I was not at all a participant in religion but I was curious about some of its philosophical ideas. I also loved epic fantasy and science fiction and I could see that there was something in common between Tolkien and Star Wars with the Gospels and the stories in Genesis. I also gained my first focused exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism through that world's religions course.

By the time I had my first God experience I was very interested in the beliefs of religions but by default a huge skeptic of Christianity and organized religion in my part of the globe.

 

[atanu]

So, your belated response just comes down to accusing me of being biased.

I did not create a forum thread titled:
God experience can change atheists
You did.

I did not base a thread on an article that states that 2/3 of atheists "found god" while refusing to mention how many atheists were involved in a survey "of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God".

This was obviously and intentionally designed to mislead. You said you read the article. Didn't you notice this?

I carefully read the article. I can see deceit when it is blatantly obvious. That does not make me biased.

On the other hand, you intentionally choose to pick and choose a handful of words while ignoring the gist of the article in general and the specific deceitfulness of some of the statistics.

Is doing things like that part of your Hindu Sanatana Dharma teaching?

The article and the paper are included for all to see. I reproduced a part from the article.

If you do not like it do not respond.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, of course. The next question is whether there is consistency across the experiences of different people. Or do the reports from different people conflict in fundamental ways?

An example I like is color blindness. John Dalton, the developer of the modern theory of the atom, was color blind. He discovered this by realizing that others reported seeing distinctions in color that he could not. But he also found out that there was a *consistency* in the colors reported by other people. So, if Dalton saw two objects as the same color, and someone else saw the first as red and the second as green, then another person who came along that saw them as different colors would also report the first as red and the second as green consistently.

It is this consistency across people that verifies it is a real detection of color differences and not a delusion.

Can we say the same about religious experiences? Is there something that is consistently detected and reported by independent observers who have 'God experiences'? if so, it seems to be very limited as shown by the wide variety of religions and the wide variety of reports of religious experiences.

To me, that suggests that people are NOT detecting a real external phenomenon, but are instead showing individual reactions to a common source of illusion.

I agree that consistency in the reports should be a factor in determining whether the experience was real or not.. However, let's face facts. These phenomena are unlike color-blindness. If studied, the proponents would find consistency and the opponents would not.

You agree that we should not jump to the conclusion that such experiences are delusions simply because it wasn't their own experience and delusion can be raised as a possibility but you reached the conclusion that there's no consistency based on a "wide variety of religions and the wide variety of reports of religious experiences." I doubt an unbiased mind would find your logic persuasive on this point. The most frequent claim I've heard is that of feeling a "loving presence within." On it's own, this experience, which might be real, has nothing whatsoever to do with religion
or god.

How people interpret their experience is not relevant on the question of whether the experience was real of not.

 

[sealchan]

I found this paragraph interesting mostly because I spend very little time thinking about those issues. I almost never think about my own importance. I assume I am only important to myself and a few friends. I almost never ask why I should care. I either already care or it is clear why I don't. And I allow others to tell me whether I am of value to them.

So, well, these thoughts that seem to take up most of your time are hardly a blip on my screen. I spend *far* more time asking 'what do I think about this?' or 'what is another interpretation of that'? or even 'how can I prove this mathematical result in an easier way?'. A bit further down the scale are organizational issues: 'what do I have to do today?' and 'when can I find time for lunch?'.

So your tagline under your name says "Think & Care". Can you elaborate on what you mean by this in the light of this particular exchange?

 

[atanu]

Thank you. I hope there is something left afterwards

I know nothing will be left. Do ‘Things’ have reality of their own?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not surprising at all, really. For example, if a believer in UFO's declares that one landed in his back yard and he went out and had a chat with the occupants, he will DEFEND his right to believe that really happened and NO ONE would be able to "prove' to him otherwise.

Like you said, "any 'evidence' anyone has for a god or gods is a purely subjective experience that cannot be duplicated for anyone else"
Amen to THAT !~

And any such experience is absolutely worthless when it comes to verifiable evidence for UFO's.

 

[Polymath257]

So your tagline under your name says "Think & Care". Can you elaborate on what you mean by this in the light of this particular exchange?

Those are my moral principles. I think it is a duty to think about the consequences of my actions and to care about their effects on others. Maybe that is why I so often just find myself caring. It isn't a question whether I should care or not. And, in this, is a realization that my importance in the scheme of things is small, but can nevertheless have an impact on others.

And, like I said, I spend a lot of time thinking about issues of truth, provability, and the inter-relatedness of ideas.

 

[atanu]

I personally think the data flawed in that it did not question or validate claims of faith or non faith

There are several reasons religion is in decline. people are becoming more educated, they are now more willing to question and evaluate, the rise of the internet gives better (and global) communication, multiples scandals among religious hierarchy to name just a few.

Opinions do not interest me much. There is a study. Take or leave it.

 

[Polymath257]

I know nothing will be left. Do ‘Things’ have reality of their own?

Interesting. I would say exactly the opposite. Experiences have no reality of their own. Things are the only things that have reality as far as I can see.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes. Not at all surprising that experience makes some people change.

What I find so interesting is that the ONLY kind of evidence for gods is that pesky kind that no one else can ever verify.