Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[themadhair]

Actually, I could count myself one of those; and yet, I cannot discount the 'experience' as evidence of "God".

Why not? Doesn’t this render the term ‘god’, when used in this way, nothing more than a descriptor for those experiences?

Confirmation bias is a tendency to interpret an experience using a particular set of symbols. When I had an 'experience' I also interpreted it with a particular set of symbols unique to me, that also produced an image inspired by my understanding. It's to be expected that not only each person who follows a particular ideology, but each individual person would interpret the 'experience' using a unique set of symbols --individual bias. Even so, within those sets of symbols is a message that is unmistakably representative of a similar 'experience'.

How does this not argue against the interpretation being offered by theists? That the experience is similar shouldn’t be surprising. We all experience the same emotions, and we may in fact be hard wired for such emotions. People who were born blind will still smile when happy for example. Given the similarity of experience shouldn’t be surprising when this context is considered, why do these folks still regard this similarity as evidence for their interpretation (particularly given the inherent conformational bias)?

It's not so very vague if many (in the know) from various religions, and even from no religion, can recognize it.

I’m of no religion and I don’t recognise ‘it’ as god. I’ve talked to others who also didn’t recognise it as god. So why are you implying a universal recognition here of it being god when this clearly isn’t the case?

 

[PureX]

I don't think anybody has problem accepting that god is a real, subjective concept, just like the other things you mentioned.

But are you saying that these other subjective concepts aren't "real"?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Subjective concepts only exist in the subject base that they originate from.

Love, can be a screwed up thing, depending on what your base for truth is.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But are you saying that these other subjective concepts aren't "real"?

They are real, subjective concepts. Without a conscious entity capable of perceiving and experiencing them, they cease to exist. Is that what you're saying about god?

 

[PureX]

They are real, subjective concepts.

They are also real experiences.

Without a conscious entity capable of perceiving and experiencing them, they cease to exist. Is that what you're saying about god?

I don't know. Maybe. I don't know that these things cease to exist without our being conscious of them, and I don't know if the same is true of "God". It's possible, to me, that our consciousness of these concepts exists because the concepts themselves are real.

 

[Willamena]

Why not? Doesn’t this render the term ‘god’, when used in this way, nothing more than a descriptor for those experiences?

Of course, from one perspective. Every word we use for anything is a descriptor, and yet there is something that is being described in god/nameless/nothing/void/chaos/sea/emptiness/energy/light/love --whatever words are used. Depending on a person's understanding, to place any name on it, even the name God, is meaningless, hence some religions don't (and why I put it in quotes).

How does this not argue against the interpretation being offered by theists? That the experience is similar shouldn’t be surprising. We all experience the same emotions, and we may in fact be hard wired for such emotions. People who were born blind will still smile when happy for example. Given the similarity of experience shouldn’t be surprising when this context is considered, why do these folks still regard this similarity as evidence for their interpretation (particularly given the inherent conformational bias)?

First I want to note a reminder that I am referring just to the 'experience' described by Robert (A1O1) in #526, and supporting that conversation. Perhaps I do not understand what you're asking. The theist wouldn't (couldn't) deny the interpretation of another of the experience if they recognize that they are promoting an essentially similar cosmology.

I’m of no religion and I don’t recognise ‘it’ as god. I’ve talked to others who also didn’t recognise it as god. So why are you implying a universal recognition here of it being god when this clearly isn’t the case?

Universal amongst those who recognize it (the 'experiencers').

 

[PureX]

Without a conscious entity capable of perceiving and experiencing them, they cease to exist. Is that what you're saying about god?

The concept of a "mountain", or a "valley", or a "river" will also cease to exist when the conscious entities capable of perceiving and experiencing them cease to exist. But that doesn't make mountains or valleys or rivers any less real. Ultimately all there is, is energy expressing itself, and we experiencing and conceptualizing and labeling it.

 

[themadhair]

First I want to note a reminder that I am referring just to the 'experience' described by Robert (A1O1) in #526, and supporting that conversation. Perhaps I do not understand what you're asking. The theist wouldn't (couldn't) deny the interpretation of another of the experience if they recognize that they are promoting an essentially similar cosmology.

What I am trying to raise is that people who describe experiences remarkably similar to Robert’s don’t always support a similar cosmology. That these experiences are being interpreted in light of the respective theologies (or lack thereof) would seem to me a strong case for arguing conformational bias.

Universal amongst those who recognize it (the 'experiencers').

I’m drawing a distinction between the experience and the interpretation given to that experience. The experience seems to be universal, but not the interpretation. Doesn’t that undermine the use of such experiences as a support?

 

[PureX]

What I am trying to raise is that people who describe experiences remarkably similar to Robert’s don’t always support a similar cosmology. That these experiences are being interpreted in light of the respective theologies (or lack thereof) would seem to me a strong case for arguing conformational bias.

But how could it be any different? If I live in culture and language "A", and have an experience similar to a man living in culture and language "C", do you expect me to conceptualize it and describe it using the culture and language of "C"? Of course not. I will naturally conceptualize it and define it according to that which I know. And so will mister "C". But this doesn't mean we didn't experience the same thing, it just means that our experience of that thing was unique to our own culture and language and intellect. And so naturally will be our conclusions.

Doesn’t that undermine the use of such experiences as a support?

No, just the opposite. It would be like that old saying that, "God meets us wherever we are". Or that "God will appear to us in whatever manner we can understand".

 

[themadhair]

But how could it be any different? If I live in culture and language "A", and have an experience similar to a man living in culture and language "C", do you expect me to conceptualize it and describe it using the culture and language of "C"? Of course not. I will naturally conceptualize it and define it according to that which I know. And so will mister "C". But this doesn't mean we didn't experience the same thing, it just means that our experience of that thing was unique to our own culture and language and intellect. And so naturally will be our conclusions.

So do you agree with the charge of conformational bias then? Particularly when people having the same experiences reach vastly different conclusions than ‘goddunit’.

No, just the opposite. It would be like that old saying that, "God meets us wherever we are". Or that "God will appear to us in whatever manner we can understand".

So if I had such an experience and attributed it to the normal functioning of the human mind that wouldn’t clash at all with your interpretation? Or if a Scientologist has such an experience and attributed it to distant memories his/her thetan experience on their whole track in the distant past that wouldn’t clash with your interpretation?

 

[Commoner]

No, just the opposite. It would be like that old saying that, "God meets us wherever we are". Or that "God will appear to us in whatever manner we can understand".

Or that god is whatever.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The concept of a "mountain", or a "valley", or a "river" will also cease to exist when the conscious entities capable of perceiving and experiencing them cease to exist.

Right, but the physical structures themselves will still exist. Love, beauty, and justice do not exist as anything other than experiences/concepts. You're comparing apples and the taste of oranges.

But that doesn't make mountains or valleys or rivers any less real.

Why would it? They have an objective existence apart from conscious perception. Love, beauty, and justice do not.

 

[Willamena]

I’m drawing a distinction between the experience and the interpretation given to that experience. The experience seems to be universal, but not the interpretation. Doesn’t that undermine the use of such experiences as a support?

Surely successful interpretations are understood?

 

[themadhair]

Surely successful interpretations are understood?

And if two 'successful interpretations' of similar experiences reach two different conclusions?

 

[Willamena]

And if two 'successful interpretations' of similar experiences reach two different conclusions?

Example?

 

[themadhair]

Example?

Scientologists who attribute their experiences to an incident in the past on their time track rather than to god. I already mentioned this.

 

[PureX]

So do you agree with the charge of conformational bias then? Particularly when people having the same experiences reach vastly different conclusions than ‘goddunit’.

Such bias exists in EVERYTHING. We all interpret our experience of reality according to our past experiences of reality. And we express those experiences to others using whatever vocabulary we have.

So if I had such an experience and attributed it to the normal functioning of the human mind that wouldn’t clash at all with your interpretation?

Not really. "God" would speak to you in whatever manner you could comprehend. If you don't believe that God exists, then God would use a manner of communicating with you that you could accept, like that "still quiet voice" or the "second mind" that people often talk about. Or maybe if you're closed off tight enough, you simply won't be able to comprehend God at all.

Or if a Scientologist has such an experience and attributed it to distant memories his/her thetan experience on their whole track in the distant past that wouldn’t clash with your interpretation?

I don't interpret for others. God is to them whatever God is to them. God is to you whatever God is to you. God will reach out to you in whatever guise you are willing to accept Him. If you believe you lived past lives, then perhaps it's through such "memories" that God will speak to you.

 

[Willamena]

Scientologists who attribute their experiences to an incident in the past on their time track rather than to god. I already mentioned this.

You had mentioned about their interpretations being in the context of their ideologies. I not sure I understand what you're asking, though and I'm sorry for being slow. I think I'll just get back to work and see if someone else can answer your questions adequately, and perhaps tackle it tonight.

 

[themadhair]

Such bias exists in EVERYTHING. We all interpret our experience of reality according to our past experiences of reality. And we express those experiences to others using whatever vocabulary we have.

So do you admit that conformational bias is very real factor that casts doubt on the use of these experiences to support any ideology?

Not really. "God" would speak to you in whatever manner you could comprehend. If you don't believe that God exists, then God would use a manner of communicating with you that you could accept, like that "still quiet voice" or the "second mind" that people often talk about. Or maybe if you're closed off tight enough, you simply won't be able to comprehend God at all.

From this it appears that ‘god’ is merely a placeholder for experiences rather than an actual thing that exists to cause such experiences. At least this is how your words are reading to me.

God is to them whatever God is to them.

So god, as a concept, doesn’t exist outside the minds of those who concoct that concept. This seems to be what you are implying.

 

[Commoner]

I don't interpret for others. God is to them whatever God is to them. God is to you whatever God is to you. God will reach out to you in whatever guise you are willing to accept Him. If you believe you lived past lives, then perhaps it's through such "memories" that God will speak to you.

Strange how that works for god. Wouldn't that kinda hint at the notion that god is our invention.