How to prove?

[Rational Agnostic]

Proof is for the law and for mathematics only. Science manages quite well without proving anything. Most of what we do in real life is based on assessing likelihood and value, not proof, in any case.

"Law" doesn't prove anything in the sense that mathematics does either. The "proof" required in a court of law is similar to the level of "proof" required to establish a scientific theory.

 

[ManSinha]

I have two incomplete - completely unsubstantiated and anecdotal - by current scientific standards - viewpoints to offer

1. (Completely personal based on my beliefs) - was doing some research into where to stay before going to visit Amritsar in India - chanced upon a travel site and the number of people that posted thoughts of calmness and peace and serenity while inside the complex was interesting to read. Now how many were devotees, how many sightseers, how many did not have any experience and did not post - I do not know but again - just one example of different regions of the brain being activated (nod to @ChristineM) with what might be considered a spiritual visit - again this is not unique to the Golden Temple - I am sure similar experiences can be found at visits to the Vatican, Mecca and the Tannah Lot in Bali

2. Have had a conversation with someone that decided to be an agnostic / atheist after being less than satisfied with their given religion at the time. And yet, decided to pray given a rough time and found some inner strength and calmness helping to cope with the circumstances. This is not a unique conversation - I have had it two or three times in my life - it would interesting to get PET scans on these individuals as well to see if the same front-temporal hippocampal plexus is being activated.

 

[exchemist]

"Law" doesn't prove anything in the sense that mathematics does either. The "proof" required in a court of law is similar to the level of "proof" required to establish a scientific theory.

It's intermediate I think. I entirely agree that in law one deals with "proof beyond reasonable doubt", which is not nearly as rigorous as mathematical proof. But many scientific theories are far from "beyond reasonable doubt". In fact we use a lot of them perfectly aware that they are not entirely correct.

The difference, I think, is that in science we work with models of reality, rather than claiming "truth".

 

[Falvlun]

Even in your contrived example, if you asked the two people to draw what they saw, the drawings would be very similar.

Out of curiosity: what tests would you use to confirm that two people both experienced the same thing, visited the same place, met the same person, etc.?

I doubt you would end up with a drawing that would look like the rabbit/duck. You’d probably end up with a clear rabbit or a clear duck, depending on what that person saw. And if you didn’t have prior knowledge of the rabbit/duck, you’d likely not think “oh yeah it could be a rabbit or a duck”, you’d just think they saw different things.

But we all have references for rabbits, ducks, and optical illusions— as well as places, people, etc. A spiritual realm could be something completely out of ordinary experience, for which we do not have adequate descriptors. So people settle for analogies and similes (eg “it was like this”), which will necessarily be colored by their culture and experiences. To add to the confusion, we know about religions so we may automatically place a spiritual experience within the context of a religion with which we are familiar.

Sure, it would go a long way to verifying these spiritual experiences if they matched. But the fact that they don’t match, doesn’t rule out the possibility that they are the same thing.

(And, honestly, many religions/spiritual experiences do tend to have similar aspects even if the entirety is divergent.)

 

[WalterTrull]

death is real enough

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

 

[PureX]

It's intermediate I think. I entirely agree that in law one deals with "proof beyond reasonable doubt", which is not nearly as rigorous as mathematical proof. But many scientific theories are far from "beyond reasonable doubt". In fact we use a lot of them perfectly aware that they are not entirely correct.

The difference, I think, is that in science we work with models of reality, rather than claiming "truth".

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I doubt you would end up with a drawing that would look like the rabbit/duck. You’d probably end up with a clear rabbit or a clear duck, depending on what that person saw. And if you didn’t have prior knowledge of the rabbit/duck, you’d likely not think “oh yeah it could be a rabbit or a duck”, you’d just think they saw different things.

But we all have references for rabbits, ducks, and optical illusions— as well as places, people, etc. A spiritual realm could be something completely out of ordinary experience, for which we do not have adequate descriptors. So people settle for analogies and similes (eg “it was like this”), which will necessarily be colored by their culture and experiences. To add to the confusion, we know about religions so we may automatically place a spiritual experience within the context of a religion with which we are familiar.

Sure, it would go a long way to verifying these spiritual experiences if they matched. But the fact that they don’t match, doesn’t rule out the possibility that they are the same thing.

(And, honestly, many religions/spiritual experiences do tend to have similar aspects even if the entirety is divergent.)

Just so we're clear: are you just flat-out rejecting intersubjective verification as a way to learn about reality?

 

[ManSinha]

It's intermediate I think. I entirely agree that in law one deals with "proof beyond reasonable doubt", which is not nearly as rigorous as mathematical proof. But many scientific theories are far from "beyond reasonable doubt". In fact we use a lot of them perfectly aware that they are not entirely correct.

The difference, I think, is that in science we work with models of reality, rather than claiming "truth".

And ladies and gentlemen - mathematical and scientific proofs are not the only kind - there are also - as you know - social experiments - in which much of the work is empirical

 

[ManSinha]

(And, honestly, many religions/spiritual experiences do tend to have similar aspects even if the entirety is divergent.)

Is that not in part because there are only so many ways that we humans experience spirituality? There is bound to be some overlap

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Does it need to be proven? Not really. Since a spiritual experience is only relevant to you.

Why go about trying to prove what is beyond someone else's experience?

What's important, IMO, is that you gain something from what you experience. The subjective truth of our experience is not something that can be shared. I think it is best to seperate subjective truth from objective truth. Objective truth is what we can share, prove, validate.

While we can talk about our subjective experiences, we can't really share the experience.

There is your truth and my truth, both subjective. Then there is objective truth, the truth in accordance with physical reality. People tend to confuse the subjective with the objective.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

For some endeavors, proof is not the point and fixating on it is both a waste of time and counterproductive. Often, what you are asking about falls into that category. I also live in a cultural climate that is generally hostile to personal religious experiences. That makes approaching the topic more problematic than it might be otherwise. Given these factors, I recommend letting go of any need to prove anything. It is a waste of time compared to focusing on the need for discernment.

All that said, this is a topic that comes up quite a lot if your religious community heavily embraces aspects of mystery religions or mystical/religious experiences. One of my favorite Pagan bloggers just wrote another essay on the topic here - UPG: Why Unverified Personal Gnosis is Good and Necessary - that you might find of value. More important than that essay is his words on discernment here - Discernment: Distilling the Truth from our Pagan Experiences - of which I'll hilight this gem:

"The better job you can do of being present while the experience is happening the better chance you have of discerning the truth in the experience."
​

Fussing about proof from the gate absolutely gets in the way of being fully present while having an experience, whether we want to label it as spiritual, religious, mystical, mundane, or whatever after we have that experience. Mystery traditions necessitate the ability to shut up inner analysis and just experience in the moment and pay attention to it without judging it. It's why meditation is a critical skill to learn in such paths. The analysis can come later.

 

[ecco]

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?

How to prove that Mickey Mouse is a real living, breathing, conscious being?

How to prove that the universe was created by psychic snowflakes?

Do these things need to be proven to someone who does not believe in them?

 

[ecco]

it can not give a constant result because if you use more then one person they will be on different level of wisdom and they will do things a little different and they will understand same thing a little different. this is why science never could prove what spiritual people belive in

And there, folks, we have the same cop-out given by woosters for millennia.

It's right up there with:

• The negative vibes of the non-believers in the room are keeping the spirits away.
• My powers are not very strong today. (If I remember correctly, this was the excuse Uri Geller used when he failed to bend a spoon on Carson's show).

 

[Falvlun]

Just so we're clear: are you just flat-out rejecting intersubjective verification as a way to learn about reality?

No. Obviously, comparing notes with other people is a great way to learn about reality.

You wrote: “if two people both claim to see the same "spiritual realm" but their descriptions of that realm don't correspond at all, then even without being able to see that realm myself, I can conclude that the two people aren't seeing the same thing.”

I am saying that this is a premature conclusion. It is possible for two people to see the same thing and describe it differently. I would think this would be especially compounded for descriptions of things for which we have less references.

 

[ManSinha]

My powers are not very strong today.

Superman loses his powers at night and during solar eclipses?

 

[ecco]

I realize that experiencing GOD accidentally (NDE) or intentionally (Samadhi), though hard, is much easier then bringing science to the point where we can find out what is actually going on.
IMO No one has their "facts" straight.

I think that science has come to some very definite conclusions about NDE's.

 

[Falvlun]

Is that not in part because there are only so many ways that we humans experience spirituality? There is bound to be some overlap

Most likely.

I would be so interested in experiencing how people thought, in a natural state, before knowing various religions. How would they describe things?

 

[ecco]

2. Have had a conversation with someone that decided to be an agnostic / atheist after being less than satisfied with their given religion at the time. And yet, decided to pray given a rough time and found some inner strength and calmness helping to cope with the circumstances.

Someone who decides he is an atheist after being less than satisfied with their given religion at the time is not really an atheist. He is a religious person looking for a different religion/god.

 

[ManSinha]

Someone who decides he is an atheist after being less than satisfied with their given religion at the time is not really an atheist. He is a religious person looking for a different religion/god.

Fair enough - even if they claim not to follow an organized religion?

 

[ManSinha]

Mri scanner can detect thought, or at least the parts of the brain activated by thoughts

PET scans actually