How to prove?

[SalixIncendium]

Sometimes I think I lack some sort of 'spirituality gene'. I can get a feeling of 'oneness' when looking at stars or a sense of peace when visiting a Buddhist shrine or even some relaxation and centering from meditation. But I fail to see how any one those lead to 'truths' as opposed to a few pleasant experiences.

If the experience of eating an orange is analogous to a religious experience, I fail to see why not just enjoy the experience as opposed to thinking it reveals some deeper truth about the universe.

Actually, the sort of "religious experience" I'm referring to (more commonly known as a 'mystical experience' or 'oneness experience') is more analogous to biting into an orange with a flavor unique to most oranges and having the experience of the flavor interacting with your taste buds and subsequently your nervous system in a way which brings forth an entirely different perspective on everything that is.

 

[Windwalker]

This is strange to me. The taste of an orange is neither true nor false. Even to say it tastes good or bad isn't a matter of truth or falsity, although at least those can be opinions.

Spirituality is like this. It's a subjective experience of reality. It's not a matter of true vs false. It's simply the quality and texture of one's experience of themselves and all of life itself. It's a condition, a state of being, not a propositional statement. It's like the taste of an orange.

So I don't see anything to 'prove' about the taste of an orange.

Exactly.

If the goal is to have experiences, then the goal is not truth.

The goal is a quality of life, not temporary fleeting experiences. The goal is a state of being that brings Peace to everything we experience, and think, in life.

Beliefs are also the result of experiences, although usually with far fewer controls and much more subjective than truths.

But the reality is that all truth is subjectively experienced, so you never get rid of the subject as part of the valuation of what is truth. Beliefs are really simply structures for the mind to think about the things we experience subjectively in life. In fact, that pretty much sumarrizes them. Beliefs can change, to better speak to the experience of life. But it all comes back to subjective experience. We don't experience life any other way.

It just seems strange to me to identify an experience, in and of itself, as having a truth value.

Well, I'd say the experience is real, but what we tell ourselves about it can in fact vary quite a lot, from person to person, and from one time in our own lives to the next. What a thing means, and that is what the "truth" of it is to us, is simply the cognitive mind trying to understand what the subject self experiences. God knows, I certainly have changed my beliefs throughout my life to better suit where I am at the moment. But at each point of those beliefs, they represented the truth to my mind.

Think of them as "translations" of the raw experience. You can have lots of different translations, and each speaks truth to you.

So, I may interpret the wild feeling I get in some circumstances as 'being touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster'. Whether that interpretation is correct or not depends on whether FSM exists and whether I was, in fact, touched by that being.

If the FSM was actually a valid symbol of transcendence, which of course it is not, but if it were, then the meaning of the experience seen through that symbol does in fact become truth to the person. The experience is symbolized by a meaningful symbol to someone. It's not whether FSM really exists, but about the meaning and the effect it has on someone that defines the truth of their experience for them. What it "was" is really relative.

But, even if I don't interpret the experience correctly, I still had an experience.

But you see, what does "correctly" mean? If it had meaning, that it had meaning. "Correct" is trying to say only science can validate meaning making. I simply find that terribly naive.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, the sort of "religious experience" I'm referring to (more commonly known as a 'mystical experience' or 'oneness experience') is more analogous to biting into an orange with a flavor unique to most oranges and having the experience of the flavor interacting with your taste buds and subsequently your nervous system in a way which brings forth an entirely different perspective on everything that is.

OK, but my basic question remains. Why is that seen as a truth? It is an experience, yes. Perhaps a very enjoyable experience. Perhaps one that you want to experience again and tell others about and that becomes a center piece of your life because that orange is just so tasty.

But why call it a truth? Why say it reveals something deep about the universe at large? as opposed to how you interact with some small parts of the universe?

 

[Polymath257]

Spirituality is like this. It's a subjective experience of reality. It's not a matter of true vs false. It's simply the quality and texture of one's experience of themselves and all of life itself. It's a condition, a state of being, not a propositional statement. It's like the taste of an orange.

Exactly.

The goal is a quality of life, not temporary fleeting experiences. The goal is a state of being that brings Peace to everything we experience, and think, in life.

Hmmm.....sorry, but that just leaves me feeling cold. I want truth, not to just play around with my perceptions.

But the reality is that all truth is subjectively experienced, so you never get rid of the subject as part of the valuation of what is truth. Beliefs are really simply structures for the mind to think about the things we experience subjectively in life. In fact, that pretty much sumarrizes them. Beliefs can change, to better speak to the experience of life. But it all comes back to subjective experience. We don't experience life any other way.

That is why we test and compare notes and come up with new tests that are publicly available, etc. To get away from the subjective aspect and attempt to reach for the objective truths.

Well, I'd say the experience is real, but what we tell ourselves about it can in fact vary quite a lot, from person to person, and from one time in our own lives to the next. What a thing means, and that is what the "truth" of it is to us, is simply the cognitive mind trying to understand what the subject self experiences. God knows, I certainly have changed my beliefs throughout my life to better suit where I am at the moment. But at each point of those beliefs, they represented the truth to my mind.

OK, I would use a different language. They represent an opinion or even a value in our minds. They aren't 'truths', which by nature are objective.

Think of them as "translations" of the raw experience. You can have lots of different translations, and each speaks truth to you.

Hmmm.....I just try to remember the raw experience and NOT translate.

If the FSM was actually a valid symbol of transcendence, which of course it is not, but if it were, then the meaning of the experience seen through that symbol does in fact become truth to the person. The experience is symbolized by a meaningful symbol to someone. It's not whether FSM really exists, but about the meaning and the effect it has on someone that defines the truth of their experience for them. What it "was" is really relative.

Hmm...for me the relevant factor would be whether the FSM was real or not. If not, I would have to re-interpret my experience. The symbol seems to be avoiding the issue for me: whether what I experienced says something interesting about reality or whether it was just a fun ride for a while.

But you see, what does "correctly" mean? If it had meaning, that it had meaning. "Correct" is trying to say only science can validate meaning making. I simply find that terribly naive.

Well, the meaning it has would be worthless *for me* if it doesn't correspond to reality. At that point, it would be, for me, a delusion. Maybe a happy delusion. Maybe one that motivates me. But a delusion, none the less.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Go back a step and question your assumptions. If you can't demonstrate it to others, what reason do you have to accept it as true?

If you have good reasons, then these should give you ideas of how you can demonstrate the truth of your ideas to others.

I hate to try to add to the wise responses of others, as it looks as if I think I'm wiser. That is not my intent here, as I called the above post a "winner."

But I just love this idea that if you have no way to successfully demonstrate to others that what you believe is either true or of estimable value, then really the only reason you yourself have to believe it is because it satisfies you, and your preferences.

Many things have been believed in the past, often by whole civilizations, which we would today consider to be just plain silly. Things like "the Divine Right of Kings," or that slavery was an acceptable economic device. Nobody can make an argument to me that would convince that either was true, just as no religious belief has ever been argued in a way that seemed to me to be compelling.

 

[SalixIncendium]

OK, but my basic question remains. Why is that seen as a truth? It is an experience, yes. Perhaps a very enjoyable experience. Perhaps one that you want to experience again and tell others about and that becomes a center piece of your life because that orange is just so tasty.

But why call it a truth? Why say it reveals something deep about the universe at large? as opposed to how you interact with some small parts of the universe?

Let me attempt to explain it using another analogy...the experience of walking on the moon.

Twelve people have done it. Those twelve have seen the moon and felt and interacted with the moon from an entirely different perspective than the other 7.53 billion other people that exist. Each part of that experience, the reduced gravity, the feeling of walking through the moon dust in their space boots, looking over the moon's horizon, the view of the earth from the perspective of standing on the moon is a truth to the twelve that experienced it.

While others can relate to the experiences based on rationalizations, they will never know the truth of the experience until they experience it themselves.

Then there are those that say the moon landing was a hoax; that no one has walked on the moon; that the moon landing is a lie.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me attempt to explain it using another analogy...the experience of walking on the moon.

Twelve people have done it. Those twelve have seen the moon and felt and interacted with the moon from an entirely different perspective than the other 7.53 billion other people that exist. Each part of that experience, the reduced gravity, the feeling of walking through the moon dust in their space boots, looking over the moon's horizon, the view of the earth from the perspective of standing on the moon is a truth to the twelve that experienced it.

While others can relate to the experiences based on rationalizations, they will never know the truth of the experience until they experience it themselves.

Then there are those that say the moon landing was a hoax; that no one has walked on the moon; that the moon landing is a lie.

OK, I don't see the point. All it says to me is that I will never have that experience, but 12 people did. My cat has experiences I will never have. So? I mean, I'm sure it was quite a rush for them. But I fail to see anything deep about the experience itself. That we managed to figure out how to get people up there...now that is amazing to me.

Again, it was a truth that they were there. That's why they had the experience, after all. And it says something about our abilities to put people on the moon. But the experiences themselves? Not such a big deal to me.

 

[Polymath257]

While others can relate to the experiences based on rationalizations, they will never know the truth of the experience until they experience it themselves.
.

Hmm...I would just say they will never experience it themselves. Truth isn't the relevant variable here. Experience is.

 

[SalixIncendium]

OK, I don't see the point. All it says to me is that I will never have that experience, but 12 people did. My cat has experiences I will never have. So? I mean, I'm sure it was quite a rush for them. But I fail to see anything deep about the experience itself. That we managed to figure out how to get people up there...now that is amazing to me.

I wasn't making reference to the depth of the experience. You asked why it was seen as truth.

 

[Polymath257]

I wasn't making reference to the depth of the experience. You asked why it was seen as truth.

Hmm...I guess I would say that it is true that they had an experience because it is true that they were there. But I wouldn't say the experience was true.

I don't say that about my own experiences. I may describe them as fun, or surprising, or whatever other adjective you want, but not as 'true'. I leave that word for beliefs that correspond to reality.

 

[wandering peacefully]

How to prove spirituality to someone when spiritually is something that happens within us?
How to prove to someone that realm we do not see with physical eyes does exist?

Does it need to be proven to someone who do not belive in other then physical existance?

You can't and you do not need to.

Mainly because it is your spiritual viewpoints which have no proof no matter what anyone chooses to believe.

Just teach by example to people in your life. No one's personal beliefs are provable and belong only to the believer. Just enjoy them.

 

[Ajarn]

Can you prove it, of coarse not.

Thats why the word faith was created as my other thread speaks of.

6000 Religions have faithful members, find one that does not require faith, or the concern for converting others.

 

[Thief]

Of the body, certainly. Past that, much speculation. This life is so unlikely, the next is not much of a jump.

I speculate......some of us will survive the last breath
I speculate further....
we have discipline and hierarchy in this life
and there will be greater discipline and Hierarchy
in the next

 

[Windwalker]

Hmmm.....sorry, but that just leaves me feeling cold. I want truth, not to just play around with my perceptions.

It's interesting you chose an emotional evaluation of what I said. That's not relying on rational propositional truths. Do you believe that your emotions are entirely subject to your rational thoughts? That's what I hear you stating you hold as the ideal, to find "objective" truth to validate subjective feelings, but yet your response was not from a place of rationality, but from a feeling statement "cold".

That is why we test and compare notes and come up with new tests that are publicly available, etc. To get away from the subjective aspect and attempt to reach for the objective truths.

You do realize that "comparing notes" is in fact an inter-subjective experience? You have two, or multiple subjective individuals sharing their subjective thoughts with others subjective thoughts and opinions, and coming to some form of mutual agreements based on shared subjective perceptions, thoughts, ideas, frameworks, systems, etc?

In other words, it's a somewhat rather closed group-system of reality, that those of that tribe happen to have developed a common language around a set of shared cultural perspectives that creates a shared reality that they all agree on? This pretty much defines all cultures and the relative nature of truth.

OK, I would use a different language. They represent an opinion or even a value in our minds. They aren't 'truths', which by nature are objective.

No, truths are not objective. They're shared subjective points of reference and a mutual agreement of that particular basic view of reality. There is no such thing as an "objective truth", only an agreement with other subjects trying to create a common language and point of view in order to share the same space together of what the hell all this mess out there means.

Hmmm.....I just try to remember the raw experience and NOT translate.

The only way for that to happen is to set aside all language, and all thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc. This is a state of mindlessness, as the Buddhists might call it. Very few people, do this. We always colorize reality with an idea of our mind. The only way out of this, is meditation. Is that what you say you are trying to do? If so, I agree with that. If you are saying you're trying to be objective in thinking about it, I know that will fail.

Hmm...for me the relevant factor would be whether the FSM was real or not. If not, I would have to re-interpret my experience. The symbol seems to be avoiding the issue for me: whether what I experienced says something interesting about reality or whether it was just a fun ride for a while.

You see, I don't understand this. "Fun ride for awhile". If something has actual meaning to you, it's not mastubetory. It's not a thrill of the moment. It has significance. It has lasting, deeper meaning.

A symbol is a hook for that deeper sense of meaning to have some "object" for the mind to look to that points to that deeper, or transcendent meaning to. It gives it a face, that is "supernatural", in the sense that it's not just a rock or some common object laying around. It is imbued with meaning. It holds things like hope, love, truth, promise, and all these intangible, subjective truths that constitute pretty much every waking moment of our days on some deep subjective background level. In other words, our actual lived realities.

Well, the meaning it has would be worthless *for me* if it doesn't correspond to reality. At that point, it would be, for me, a delusion. Maybe a happy delusion. Maybe one that motivates me. But a delusion, none the less.

But reality is what you are choosing it to be. Just like it was reality for you before when you believed what you did, but now decided you don't believe anymore. And the same thing will be tomorrow, when you realize that what you believe today, no longer fits reality as you see it then.

 

[sealchan]

How to prove spirituality to someone when spiritually is something that happens within us?
How to prove to someone that realm we do not see with physical eyes does exist?

Does it need to be proven to someone who do not belive in other then physical existance?

I think faith is so tied up in our subjective selves when it is deep and sincere that you cant really prove it or spread it accept through the refreshment that is the presence of a personality that has transcended it's own typical limitations.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How to prove spirituality to someone when spiritually is something that happens within us?
How to prove to someone that realm we do not see with physical eyes does exist?

Does it need to be proven to someone who do not belive in other then physical existance?

I believe It cannot be proven or transferred because of the law of karma.

When I have worked the soil, tilled the ground I get the fruit. A person who cultivates nothing, makes no effort to cultivate spirituality in His year receives nothing. Effort is required to achieve results.

I do not have access to the garden of your heart so as to cultivate it. Only you do. And if you neglect that then all you’ll have is a garden of weeds.

If it were possible to do that then where would be the Justice that you laid back and did nothing and got the same thing I had to sweat and toil for?

So, according to spiritual laws it is forbidden to ‘instill’ spiritual truth into one who hasn’t earned it.

“Only heart to heart can speak the bliss of mystic knowers;
No messenger can tell it and no missive bear it.

The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys
Bahá’u’lláh

I can describe and tell you how delicious chocolate is but until you taste it for yoursel you will not know. Same with spiritual truth.

 

[exchemist]

Good post. ...But I would remind us all that, "models of reality" is basically a definition of what we generally call; 'subjective truth'.

Hmm, I would not agree with that. I would say, rather, that these models represent a sort of provisional "truth".

The whole point of the scientific method, surely, is to produce models that objectively represent how nature behaves. In science one rarely encounters claims of "truth", probably because it seems hubristic and asking for trouble, considering that further research is always adding new things to our understanding.

 

[PureX]

Hmm, I would not agree with that. I would say, rather, that these models represent a sort of provisional "truth".

They are the truth as we imagine it, because we cannot know the the truth that is by any other means. We live in a subjective reality, and presume there is an objective reality beyond and apart from it. Which is foolish, because reality includes both existence as we perceive it, and existence beyond what we perceive of it, whether they align or not.

The whole point of the scientific method, surely, is to produce models that objectively represent how nature behaves. In science one rarely encounters claims of "truth", probably because it seems hubristic and asking for trouble, considering that further research is always adding new things to our understanding.

How things behave as we experience and perceive them is not "objective reality" even when their behavior is being perceived through scientific experimentation. Like it or not, the only access to reality we have is subjective, because we are the subjects doing the accessing. Science doesn't change this. It just changes the method of access.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Hmm...I guess I would say that it is true that they had an experience because it is true that they were there. But I wouldn't say the experience was true.

I don't say that about my own experiences. I may describe them as fun, or surprising, or whatever other adjective you want, but not as 'true'. I leave that word for beliefs that correspond to reality.

Would you say that your personal experiences that no one has experienced besides you are true to you? Think back to the day you married your wife. No one else had that experience. It's exclusive to you. While you can attach other adjectives to the experience, is not not true as well?

I find it interesting that you would attach the term truth to belief. Being inherently skeptical by nature, I struggle to do this. I need to see some sort of evidence to label something to be true.

 

[exchemist]

They are the truth as we imagine it, because we cannot know the the truth that is by any other means. We live in a subjective reality, and presume there is an objective reality beyond and apart from it. Which is foolish, because reality includes both existence as we perceive it, and existence beyond what we perceive of it, whether they align or not.
How things behave as we experience and perceive them is not "objective reality" even when their behavior is being perceived through scientific experimentation. Like it or not, the only access to reality we have is subjective, because we are the subjects doing the accessing. Science doesn't change this. It just changes the method of access.

To most people, the idea of objectivity is what we can all agree we observe. So a consensus of what is observed, as opposed to what an individual thinks he or she observes.

But I suppose that if you want to speak of humanity having a kind of collective subjectivity, then human "objectivity" can be said to be subjective at that level, seeing as we have no means of getting outside our shared human experience of the world.