Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Vile Atheist]

The mystic believes because of his experiences, too. It is evidence (evidence, it is) that gives us reason to believe (a truism).

I'd have no problems accepting it as evidence if

1) It was certain that the experience wasn't a result of pareidolia or another process of the mind and
2) The experience objectively pointed to a specific God.

 

[Willamena]

I'd have no problems accepting it as evidence if

1) It was certain that the experience wasn't a result of pareidolia or another process of the mind and
2) The experience objectively pointed to a specific God.

or if
3) you could identify with it.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Clearly, it gives you symbolism. If you're sympathetic at all, you could identify.

Edit: Did you see the movie "Signs"?

What does me being sympathetic have to do with interpreting symbols? Of course I sympathize with her. But where we live, the weather changes on the turn of a dime. This is a likely occurance where we live. That's Thunder Bay, Ontario lol...

Her experience seems to me to be the result of a deep desire to believe because it gives comfort (the last part she explicitly told me). So if she feels comfortable with that belief, it isn't a huge stretch of the mind to think her mind would make that experience to be a comforting one and reconcile that belief with her sorrow.

 

[Vile Atheist]

or if
3) you could identify with it.

If it was objective evidence I wouldn't need to "identify" with it. It would clearly point to a cause.

 

[Willamena]

I consider the experience of life and reality to be similar, if not the same in a lot of cases. But we experience reality because we observe an entity and conceptualize it. Thus we know it exists. It is a manifestation.

In an "experience" and I thought we were talking about religious experiences,

Hold there. . . isn't "God" the alleged creator of existence/reality/all that is? If so, then wouldn't a "religious experience" that defines all that is be that? If so, then wouldn't every "experience" define that (as it defines "what is")?

The alleged mystic experience proposes to be an experience of understanding "that". . .

That's a good thing to understand.

The mystic proposes to understands how the manifestation is knowing it exists, is knowing it (and not knowing it). You might be a mystic and not know it.

...the entity has been conceptualized (or though various psychological and neurological processes, agency has been detected where none exists, for example)...but the entity itself hasn't manifested itself.

But that's true of any entity, even one like "a physical universe." I'd even propose it is the purpose of an entity.

Except I didn't say "all" experiences...I said "experiences are mostly like the result of...". Obviously I don't know everyone's experience. But these processes of the mind I mention are the most rational and likely candidate as the explanation for any experience.

So if someone identifies another cause of their experience --perhaps sociological, psychological, or (god forbid) mythological --it wouldn't be "the most rational" candidate? Believing it's directly related to religion is more rational?

More importantly, what did those experiences say about the deity in question? Was it an objective deity (i.e. clearly the Christian God, or clearly a Hindu God)? How was this verified?

Ideally they say nothing about the deity --such is deity --but people don't always conform to the ideal.

 

[Willamena]

If it was objective evidence I wouldn't need to "identify" with it. It would clearly point to a cause.

If you identified with it, would be qualify as "objective evidence"?

 

[Vile Atheist]

If you identified with it, would be qualify as "objective evidence"?

I think we're having different ideas of what "identify with" means. So it might be best for you to explain what you mean by that.

 

[Willamena]

What does me being sympathetic have to do with interpreting symbols?

What doesn't sympathy have to do with interpreting symbols? If you approached an intersection with a "stop sign" not knowing what either the hexigonal shape, the word "stop" or the colour of red meant, would you "obey" or be sympathetic to it at all?

We don't learn symbols by magic (though many believe we do), we learn them by being sympathetic to others who use them.

Of course I sympathize with her. But where we live, the weather changes on the turn of a dime. This is a likely occurance where we live. That's Thunder Bay, Ontario lol...

No offense, but everywhere the weather changes on a dime (it's a myth that it's only about where you live).

Her experience seems to me to be the result of a deep desire to believe because it gives comfort (the last part she explicitly told me). So if she feels comfortable with that belief, it isn't a huge stretch of the mind to think her mind would make that experience to be a comforting one and reconcile that belief with her sorrow.

It seems to be a lot of things, but seeming isn't being, and whatever it appears to any of us, it is what it appears to her that should count the most.

That's just my feeling.

 

[Willamena]

I think we're having different ideas of what "identify with" means. So it might be best for you to explain what you mean by that.

Typos aside, if you can idetntify with an experience wouldn't it indicate that you had had an experience you feel is simliar to the one described?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Hold there. . . isn't "God" the alleged creator of existence/reality/all that is? If so, then wouldn't a "religious experience" that defines all that is be that? If so, then wouldn't every "experience" define that (as it defines "what is")?

The alleged mystic experience proposes to be an experience of understanding "that". . .

That's a good thing to understand.

The mystic proposes to understands how the manifestation is knowing it exists, is knowing it (and not knowing it). You might be a mystic and not know it.

You're working from the assumption that God is the creator of all things and then using your experience to justify it when it should be the reverse. Your objective experience should lead you (and therefore others) to believe in the existence of a God.

But that's true of any entity, even one like "a physical universe." I'd even propose it is the purpose of an entity.

How has God manifested? Experiences? You'll have to make a causal connection.

So if someone identifies another cause of their experience --perhaps sociological, psychological, or (god forbid) mythological --it wouldn't be "the most rational" candidate? Believing it's directly related to religion is more rational?

I said the exact opposite. I said the psychological processes are the most likely explanation and therefore most rational. We pretty much understand these processes of the mind and can examine the experience described and determine if any were a factor. Versus just jumping the gun and saying Goddidit without justification for it. How do you know if a deity was the cause of the experience?

Ideally they say nothing about the deity --such is deity --but people don't always conform to the ideal.

I'm confused here. So what do they say? Pretty much everyone I've talked to attributes their experience to a deity.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Typos aside, if you can idetntify with an experience wouldn't it indicate that you had had an experience you feel is simliar to the one described?

I'll agree with that, then. I would have described that as the manifestation of a concept. In other words our observations of an entity agree with our concept of that entity. Our experience of an apple means that we observe an entity that agrees with our concept of an apple and thus call it an apple.

I thought you meant a lot more by "identify with" than you actually meant. So noted and apologies for the confusion.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No offense, but everywhere the weather changes on a dime (it's a myth that it's only about where you live).

But I didn't claim it was only where I lived. And if anything, you've lent more weight to the possibility it was just a coincidence.

And how can it be a "myth" if you admit it happens everywhere?

It seems to be a lot of things, but seeming isn't being, and whatever it appears to any of us, it is what it appears to her that should count the most.

That's just my feeling.

I agree in the sense that her experience would be most significant to her. But I disagree in the sense that if these sorts of religious experiences are going to be used as evidence for anything, they can be subjective.

If someone describes an experience to me, to my friend Bob, and to my grouchy neighbour, we should all be able to reason to similar, if not the same conclusions.

 

[Copernicus]

Do we have evidence that the 9/11 terrorists acted on the basis of 'mystic experiences?' From the perspective of many, every religious experience leading to action is not mystic and they did not act on that basis. In fact, most religious experiences would not be called mystic experiences.

Perhaps you are the sole judge of what counts as a "mystic experience", but I doubt it. You need to propose some criteria by which one can distinguish a religious experience that counts as "mystic" from one that does not. I suspect that those who died in committing their act of mass murder would have some very strong opinions on whether their experiences counted as such. Of course, they are dead, and I'm certainly not going to make their case for them. You won't either, but what standing do you have to argue against them? On what basis do you deny their religious opinions?

 

[Vile Atheist]

What doesn't sympathy have to do with interpreting symbols? If you approached an intersection with a "stop sign" not knowing what either the hexigonal shape, the word "stop" or the colour of red meant, would you "obey" or be sympathetic to it at all?

We don't learn symbols by magic (though many believe we do), we learn them by being sympathetic to others who use them.

I remember I started to answer this, but it looks like I missed it :S. I'm going senile.

The symbol of a stop sign conveys a message to me. It's communication. It tells me to stop. The symbol has significance because I recognize the value and importance of obeying the instruction it gives me.

But how do we know these "religious experiences" are significant? If they have value, and if they do, what that value is? How do we interpret their message?

 

[linwood]

You need to propose some criteria by which one can distinguish a religious experience that counts as "mystic" and one that does not.

That`s a good question.

What defines "mystical"?

Personal revelation during an altered mental state?

I`m not sure that works, it sounds kinda crazy but then again that may help it work.

 

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Copernicus
You need to propose some criteria by which one can distinguish a religious experience that counts as "mystic" and one that does not.


That`s a good question.

What defines "mystical"?

Personal revelation during an altered mental state?

I`m not sure that works, it sounds kinda crazy but then again that may help it work.

No offense, but that is precise what atonomous attempted to do in post #526.

Or this might help (or not):
YouTube - Leonard Cohen: The Stranger Song

 

[Commoner]

So, let me summarize that.

From one perspective, Commoner, there is one God, God is God. The many 'sides of the same coin' come about from the different perspectives that humans apply to interpreting God. Some human perspectives come from very limited world views while others come from sophisticated views encompassing many aspects. The concept of God has to come out differently. Because of the many interpretations of the concept 'God' some more modern theologians and teachers of spirituality have introduced additional terms to signify God but that narrow the interpretations humans would make. In the 1960's in the US we had the 'God is dead' theologians attempting to kill off some of the 'wrong' concepts in their world views. During that time period, late 1960's, this new way of thinking about God became real for me through the works of the Christian Dr. Paul Tillich, Professor of Theology and Philosophy and author of many books. In one of his books he introduced the God above God and the 'Ground of Being' as that God.

1. There is one god.

(are you saying that ALL concept of god are valid?)

In contemporary spirituality, which tries to take one to direct personal experience of God, the leaders and teachers have brought additional terms, all referring to the same, out into the public eye. Permit me to offer a list of these terms to give a better idea of what we are talking of in #526: God, Ground of Being, Source, Brahman, TrueSelf, Consciousness-itself, Being-itself, Absolute, Infinite, Tao (in my view), Buddha-nature, Allah, and others and all referring to the same. Plotinus (CE 205-270) taught that there is a supreme totally transcendent One. The term used is not important except to get the interpretations of others more closely focused on what is meant. [these terms have been mentioned by Ben d and myself in other threads so this list may be expanded within 24 hrs. by editing.] At this point one suspects that all the atheists and all the theists have separated. That leaves only the 0.1% of those who have discovered this amazing perspective on reality so let me close.

There is one god...many names to decribe god - none really saying anything to me unfortunatelly.

Much to my amazement the experience of #526 can be found albeit with varying descriptions as the source and aim of each of the major religions. In one published writing in English about Hinduism found by me over forty years ago the following was written as the definition of Enlightenment: the being realizes identity with the Source of all being.

Yes, all religions are similar. All mythology around the world, through different times, places and cultures, is also remarkably similar. People are remarkably similar - our brains work in the same way and have worked in the same way for many thousands of years. An epileptic attack in Sweden today is similar to an epileptic attack two hundred years ago in China. So what?

There is no characteristic, no matter how much you want to think there is, that makes the mystical experiences any more "god" than any other psychotic event or series of them.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Perhaps you are the sole judge of what counts as a "mystic experience", but I doubt it. You need to propose some criteria by which one can distinguish a religious experience that counts as "mystic" from one that does not. I suspect that those who died in committing their act of mass murder would have some very strong opinions on whether their experiences counted as such. Of course, they are dead, and I'm certainly not going to make their case for them. You won't either, but what standing do you have to argue against them? On what basis do you deny their religious opinions?

Good point. You are quite right to call me down on this, Copernicus, if that is the way my post is being interpreted. No offense, but my intention was just to raise a question on your previous post (below) that defined 'mystical experience' as the fundamental basis for these examples of mass murder and serial killing. Without defining 'mystical experience' my position right or wrong would be that in the case of the terroists we just do not know what type of religious experience was involved, and in the case of son of sam we know that psychosis was involved which means that it is not a mystical experience.

Psychosis .. literally means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People suffering from psychosis are said to be psychotic.
People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and thought disorder. This may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the daily life activities.

Mysticism .. is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. .... Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic.

We know what a mystic experience is not, it is not a psychotic experience.

.... But the fact is that lots of people have had mystical experiences that were obviously delusions. The 9/11 terrorists went to their deaths believing that their mystical experiences justified their acts of mass murder. The Son of Sam serial killer had a mystical life-changing experience when he heard voices in his head ordering him to kill people. And then there have been true believers--devout Christian fundamentalists such as Dan Barker and Bart Ehrman. Do you think that these people lacked your mystical experience? How could you possibly know? Do you think that you know what was in their minds before they became apostates?

There seems to be a significant difference in our basis for mystical experience here, Copernicus. See, for me if it is a delusional or psychotic experience it cannot be a mystical experience. For you, it can. Perhaps the difference comes because we have presuppositions on whether the mystic experience is real or unreal?? My presupposition for this thread is that the experience is real. Do you have an open mind that it could be real? (be honest :angel2

As Willemena notes, the subject experience for this thread is defined in #526. It is a very specific instance put under your labels of 'mystic experience.' My post labeled it 'the Mystic Experience.' From the myriad of possibilities under the Wikipedia definition one would select for this Experience - Mysticism .. is the realization of identity with God through direct experience.. and is nondualistic. There is no loss of touch with reality and this Mystic maintains all perspective and is able to function in a dual or nondual environment. The nondual perspective gives a new dimension that puts one into oneness with all and seeing the divine within all. Such action as murder is totally incosistent with this manner of being.

Regards,
a..1

 

[nonbeliever_92]

yeah... still no evidence

 

[autonomous1one1]

So, let me summarize that.

1. There is one god.
(are you saying that ALL concept of god are valid?)

Exactly. Not only valid but necessary for the conditions of the individual's perspective holding them.

There is one god...many names to decribe god - none really saying anything to me unfortunatelly.

Yes, unfortunately.

Yes, all religions are similar. All mythology around the world, through different times, places and cultures, is also remarkably similar. People are remarkably similar - our brains work in the same way and have worked in the same way for many thousands of years. An epileptic attack in Sweden today is similar to an epileptic attack two hundred years ago in China. So what?

What you indicate seems irrelevant to what has been put forward in this thread. Do you think that man's awareness and consciousness has remained the same for the last several thousand years?

There is no characteristic, no matter how much you want to think there is, that makes the mystical experiences any more "god" than any other psychotic event or series of them.

Do you have evidence that The Mystic Experience is psychotic?

Regards, a..1