To support either side of the discussion. Non-proof is not proof positive either right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's Present Some Evidence ...
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
To support either side of the discussion. Non-proof is not proof positive either right?
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Greetings Themadhair. Let's see what you have here in your post #1158. Thank you for being patient while my mind was playing with others.
) Don't you think that you should be the one to support your case?
Aside from that, actually several hours have been spent on Scientology although only through the Internet at this stage. Thank you for tweaking my interest. There is not much on such an experience that we speak of because of the secrecy but there does seem to be something - you might say the summum bonum of Scientology - in the final step of spiritual development; and of course at the highest level and secret. Although too early to tell, it seems that Scientologists believe the human is a spiritual being, that the divine is within each human, that the spirit goes through many stages of development to a final union with the Infinite or something. It does not seem inconsistent in overall view but we need to find someone who has experienced it to tell. No one seems to be at that level. You see, Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, spent some time in the East and got exposure to Buddhism and Taoism before he founded the church. Will keep searching if you will kindly spend 45 minutes on the introduction of the History of Mysticism free book that was linked in my post at least to understand better what has been proposed. If we find an experience very similar to the Mystic Experience and the conclusions are pretty consistent with it will you quit bugging me?
When asked what basis did you have for the Mystic Experience to make a determination that the two Scientologists had the same experience, you responded discussions with Muslims and Christians. The reason this is suspect is that the institutions and most Muslims and Christians do not believe the nonduality and their 'union with God' is defined differently. Unless one has an absolute line, a separation, between one's being and God it would be considered heretical. Nonduality is identity. Your chances of running into someone who considers themselves solely a member of those religions who has had this experience are pretty slim - not impossible but slim. The ones that have come to my attention consider themselves ex-.
You have a conventional perspective as most do in this thread. Would you say that your view of reality is something like you are a finite being within your skin totally within space and time, and that you are a subject with the universe outside you as object. Would you say this is your 'interpretation'? In nonduality there is a different perspective and it is part of the makeup of the being but it is dramatically different from the conventional perspective and it is not interpretation in my thinking.
Regards to you Themardhair,
a..1
Hey Dude, please note that the sentence you took out of context was from my recreation of your imaginary story. No one ever expected anyone to read three books in reality, but even if so, from most perspectives it does not 'work both ways.' Here's why. My post made a proposal which would involve some understanding of a fairly difficult experience so backup material was provided for the reader if needed. Do you see the difference in your charge for me to spend a lot of time to research examples to make your case against mine? (Particularly when there doesn't seem to be any?
) Don't you think that you should be the one to support your case?Aside from that, actually several hours have been spent on Scientology although only through the Internet at this stage. Thank you for tweaking my interest. There is not much on such an experience that we speak of because of the secrecy but there does seem to be something - you might say the summum bonum of Scientology - in the final step of spiritual development; and of course at the highest level and secret. Although too early to tell, it seems that Scientologists believe the human is a spiritual being, that the divine is within each human, that the spirit goes through many stages of development to a final union with the Infinite or something. It does not seem inconsistent in overall view but we need to find someone who has experienced it to tell. No one seems to be at that level. You see, Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, spent some time in the East and got exposure to Buddhism and Taoism before he founded the church. Will keep searching if you will kindly spend 45 minutes on the introduction of the History of Mysticism free book that was linked in my post at least to understand better what has been proposed. If we find an experience very similar to the Mystic Experience and the conclusions are pretty consistent with it will you quit bugging me?
This seems obvious to me, Themadhair, because there are other types of experiences that have feelings which might be interpreted similarly (although probably not the same). Also, do you not consider the descriptions of feelings from a subject to be interpretations?
Ah-hah. You have defined interpretation to include everything. My contention is that you have missed the real situation here by classifying everything as interpretation and then eliminating interpretation as valid for choosing the Experience to talk about. Maybe science can help you eventually. Brain waves and other aspects are under study also. This is irregardless of not being able to produce evidence that something has been left out.
My ploy to pull a Nonbeliever_92 on you did not work, so let me explain. One hopes that you are getting to know my posting better by now so that you do not get hung up on such points.
When asked what basis did you have for the Mystic Experience to make a determination that the two Scientologists had the same experience, you responded discussions with Muslims and Christians. The reason this is suspect is that the institutions and most Muslims and Christians do not believe the nonduality and their 'union with God' is defined differently. Unless one has an absolute line, a separation, between one's being and God it would be considered heretical. Nonduality is identity. Your chances of running into someone who considers themselves solely a member of those religions who has had this experience are pretty slim - not impossible but slim. The ones that have come to my attention consider themselves ex-.
The answer is simple, Themadhair. In my opinion, the nondual perspective is not an interpretation. It is part of the resultant being. You have not acknowledged anything about my comment that the being and awareness are additional criteria to identify the Mystic Experience.
You have a conventional perspective as most do in this thread. Would you say that your view of reality is something like you are a finite being within your skin totally within space and time, and that you are a subject with the universe outside you as object. Would you say this is your 'interpretation'? In nonduality there is a different perspective and it is part of the makeup of the being but it is dramatically different from the conventional perspective and it is not interpretation in my thinking.
Several of the above points apply to this.
Are you trying to shift the argument to a new point? You based your conclusion of conformational bias on the existence of the same experience without the same conclusion for which there doesn't seem to be good evidence, at least not yet.
Regards to you Themardhair,
a..1
Commoner
Headache
Exactly. Not only valid but necessary for the conditions of the individual's perspective holding them.
I must say that's more than a little disconcerting. There are a lot of whacky (or what I consider to be "whacky") people out there with really whacky ideas about god. Some are just strange, some are really destructive and dangerous. All of these views are valid?
I mean, I'm sure the individual concepts of god are important to the particular individual, but surely you don't want to generalize your concept of god that far? I don't think you can honestly say that and if you do think that, wouldn't that make "god" a pretty irrelevant word? Wouldn't you just want to replace it with "anything" or "something".
Take away the knowledge we have and we are completely the same now as we were (at least) thousands of years ago. Our brains work in completely the same ways - so it's not strange that people have the same experiences now as we did several thousand years ago. The "sensations" are the same - and so their descriptions should be the same, the conclusions, hopefully, differ. I mean, an epileptic still shakes about uncontrollably today as he would have a couple hundred years ago, but very rarely do we still burn them at the stakes for it.
Do you have evidence that it's "mystical"?
None of the described attributes of the "mystical experiences" lead to a "god" conclusion in any way - or at least, no more than a psychotic event could. Where is the connection between the experience and god? Where is the causal connection between an experience and claiming that it was god? How do you get from A to B?
I've often wondered, how the first person who claimed, let's say - that god was omniscient, came to that conclusion - what kind of an experience could justify that sort of claim? And for the concepts of "god" that I've encountered, I've never ever heard or read an experience that would actually make any such claim justified. Even if I take the word of the one explaining the experience completely at face value, no matter how bizare the story might seem to me, I have never stumbled upon a single thing in those experiences that would make such a claim justified. And so it is with any attribute people give to what they call "god".
As soon as you define "god" in any specific fasion, the concept fails miserably. So I think it's a very good idea, for those who wish to keep the concept alive, to keep "god" as vague and undefined as possible. That way, it can never be invalidated.
I also have another question about these experiences you're describing, I don't know if this has been addressed before or not. How do you know that the "transformative" nature is not the consequence of the interpretation itself? That is, how do you know that it's not only those who interpret the experience in a particular way then (as a direct consequence) experience the "transformative effect". Are you sure you haven't incorrectly disregarded other interpretations of the same experience, because they don't include this attribute?
Last edited:
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Actually, it still does work both ways. The fact that the experiences of an entire group of people strongly seem to have been excluded solely on interpretational grounds is bad enough, but that this is an direct challenge to the proposal for evidence constituted by commonality renders that it does indeed swing both ways.
Not really. The decision of whether you want to accept your own evidence, without proper evaluation of the huge gaping whole that I have pointed out, is entirely up to you. When it comes to this discussion, in terms of quality of sources, then we both come up short since no one (at least to my knowledge) has attempted to tackle the issue independently of the conformational bias problem outside of the field of neurotheology. That field is, currently, unable to provide answers.
Care to be more specific in your accusation here?
I believe I have already done so. When the only grounds you are realistically offering is solely due to the interpretational differences of those contradicting experiences it would seem the point has been well made.
As a general rule it would seem (at least in my experience) that the life changing affirmation akin to the Mystic Experience occurs relatively early in a Scientologists path. It may even be the hook that reels some people in. It should also be noted that FreeZoners (and Ive heard this from some CoS Scientologists too) dont consider Scientology to have any actual beliefs. They approach it in a manner where they feel they have knowingness (which in some cases may be connected to their shift in perspective).
It seems that doing the TRs (Training Routines) and the introductory auditing (both Scientology and Dianetic) are where the experience actually happens. I have not heard of any cases from ex-members (and the FreeZoners I know go more for the Dianetics than the higher levels) of such experiences while doing the higher levels.
And for note I think it very unlikely that Hubbard did any research into Buddhism and/or Taoism in the far east.
Direct link to said book is here.
I added it to my to-read list when you first posted it. At present there are currently only three books in front of it. Antiquity of Man (just started it today), Academy level 0 and (if it arrives) Advanced Procedure and Axioms.
Bugging you? This is a debate/discussion forum. You presented a particular item that I feel has a major hole in its reasoning. If I had a better demonstration of that hole that I could reach for and present I would have done so.
Yes I do. Maybe I should probably elaborate on one of the tools I like to use when analysing certain topics. I call this particular tool the ask the alien troglodyte.
In order to attempt realising the nature of reality objectively, I take given propositions and then ask whether a fictional alien troglodyte (who has never interacted with humans) would reach the same conclusion. Let us assume that this alien troglodyte has had one of these experiences. I take it as a given that it would never conclude Jesus or Allah or Thor or anything like that since those are conceptions it has never heard of nor been exposed to. But, assuming this alien troglodyte has the same capacity for human thought and experience, it may be quite prone to the anthropomorphising that we humans often do. It is not unreasonable to believe that such a creature could conclude the existence of a universal consciousness, but it is also not unreasonable to attribute that conclusion to the inherent anthropomorphising that comes with the human thought process. In the absence of such tendencies to anthropomorphise the conclusion of consciousness becomes less likely.
So where am I going with this? By using thought experiments like the above I come to the realisation that the human thought process, in and of itself, can readily conclude a concept that may be termed god independently of whether such a thing coincides with reality. The only question that remains is to answer what is the catalyst for such experiences. And it is here that the source for the interpretational bias becomes clear. The theological culture (or lack thereof I suppose, but I use this term very broadly here) that precipitates such experiences give those experiences their interpretation. This is why I put forward the charge of interpretational bias.
Any conclusion or supposition that does not directly and unambiguously follow from an experience is interpretation. Think about it.
This would be somewhat more believable if the selection process didnt choose on the basis of interpretation. I believe this point regarding the tautological nature of the selection process has been well made in previous comments.
And pointing out an entire belief system that has been ignored for consideration doesnt show this .how exactly??
I tend not to ignore points that have direct relevance to the crux of a discussion.
Only if you start culling on the basis of interpretation again. In which case the conclusion is, for all the reasons pointed out previously, a meaningless tautology.
I would have thought this was obviously wrong. But not so obvious apparently.
I have actually. They are part of the interpretational selection that I have been objecting to all this time
Pretty much, although it is more of an extrapolation than an interpretation in some ways.
This doesnt really wash with me, and goes back to something Ive discussed with PureX earlier in this thread. Different people may hold different opinions, but when those opinions are compared against reality they may not prove to be equally valid. Some opinions can, however, be both true and opposite (eg: glass half full and glass half empty). Since this topic is whether the mystic experience constitutes evidence for this dramatically different perspective the actual truth value of this perspective doesnt actually matter.
No. It is exactly the same point Ive been making since post one applied to the context you brought up.
I dont believe I have told you the reason why I reached the conclusion I have. The support I provided for that conclusion were for the purposes of discussion. If you wanted to know original source for my conclusion then youd pretty much have to live my life.
[FONT="]Thank you for responding, Commoner. Your responses are challenging for me as are those from some others in this thread. [/FONT]Some excellent questions.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]One set of terms seemingly of increasing popularity that is considered synonymous with God is being-itself, the ground of being and the power of being. They are meant to point to the foundation of what is and to the sustaining power and substance of all that exists. The foundation is not only the source for the things that are, but also for all the categories of finitude space, time, cause and effect, substance, etc. that limit things. As the source for them, it is not contained totally within them and transcends existence. [/FONT]
Good one. How does one know that the Mystic Experience is mystical? Because it is in the title? Haha. Seriously, you in your post below, and Copernicus as well, seem not to be able to distinguish between the Mystic Experience and a psychotic experience. From my view the psychotic person has a degree of loss of touch with finite reality and the mystic never loses touch with finite reality. Of course from your perspective, one realizes that if one proposes God Is you must consider it a loss of touch with reality. [/FONT][FONT="] If you are sincere on this though, we could discuss it further, but permit me to continue on the Mystic Experience [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yes, from the perspective of Oneness they are all valid and necessary, and this includes your view of atheism. It is valid and necessary for you at the present moment; it is wonderful as long as it does no harm to others. From Oneness, all is God, God is in all, and all is in God. This does not mean that harming others and doing destruction should be condoned, not be controlled and prevented as is possible. Do not be disconcerted. Oneness is a more powerful and rewarding view to all than could be possible to put into words in this thread.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]God really is the best term that applies here, Commoner; at least from the nondual perspective. God is not a thing within the universe alongside other things and the terms anything or something cannot be used to point to the same reality. Perhaps a closer look at another term used to point to the same reality will help clarify - one of those terms that really didnt say anything to you. [/FONT]
[FONT="]One set of terms seemingly of increasing popularity that is considered synonymous with God is being-itself, the ground of being and the power of being. They are meant to point to the foundation of what is and to the sustaining power and substance of all that exists. The foundation is not only the source for the things that are, but also for all the categories of finitude space, time, cause and effect, substance, etc. that limit things. As the source for them, it is not contained totally within them and transcends existence. [/FONT]
[FONT="]What is the point here, Commoner? Hasnt it been indicated that the Mystic Experience has come to us from over 2000 years ago? Thank you for agreeing that it is possible and indicating that consciousness has not changed. This latter is very consistent with those contemporary teacher/guides of spirituality who base some of their teaching on consciousness.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Good one. How does one know that the Mystic Experience is mystical? Because it is in the title? Haha. Seriously, you in your post below, and Copernicus as well, seem not to be able to distinguish between the Mystic Experience and a psychotic experience. From my view the psychotic person has a degree of loss of touch with finite reality and the mystic never loses touch with finite reality. Of course from your perspective, one realizes that if one proposes God Is you must consider it a loss of touch with reality. [/FONT][FONT="] If you are sincere on this though, we could discuss it further, but permit me to continue on the Mystic Experience [/FONT][FONT="]This is a most excellent question, Commoner. Your question gets to the heart of the Mystic Experience itself because the experience is God; God is the experience. The Experience itself is actually ineffable in that it really [FONT="]cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any other means than direct experience. It is a direct affect and effect in the awareness of consciousness and different from any other experience presenting a different way of experiential knowing. It is above space and time and beyond subject/object structure or processes. The Experience (that also might be called awakening and other terms) involves a direct shift of perspective and sense of self into nondual Oneness. And, what is written here are only conceptualizations that point to the Experience. Most who are smarter and wiser do not attempt to describe the Experience to others except perhaps in wise paradoxes (view of the same from the nondual and the dual perspectives), metaphors, parables, myths, etc. See, the problem here is trying to conceptualize from the nondual perspective into the finite dualistic perspective so that others with conventional perspectives can capture a glimpse.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]Another set of most excellent questions, Comoner. You can add omnipotent and omnipresent. Also, how could someone come up with love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, or the Kingdom of Heaven is within you if they were human (which you have to assume). At one time these too were puzzlement to me along with the many sayings around the world from awakened ones like in Taoism the 10000 things and I are one. The Experience gives understanding to them all. For examples: using the concept ground and power of being, Omnipresent is readily understood, right?; omnipotent, or all powerful, is seen as all of the power in the universe, in its source and sustenance; and to explain omniscience, explained for the dualistic mind, God contains all minds and all ways of knowing in the universe.[/FONT]
[FONT="]We only explain within our capabilities and there is never an intention of being vague and undefining to avoid being invalidated.
[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]More excellent ones. The transformation comes first and is often sudden and then one must figure out what happened. The conceptualization comes afterwards. Concerning your last question, the transformation is part of the experience so if the experience is the same how could it be without this attribute?
[/FONT]
Greetings my friend Themadhair. My apologies for giving you so much with the need for comment. Perhaps in the future only one or two items will be addressed at a time to keep our efforts more manageable. You do seem to do better than my mind can handle, however.
There is one item to mention up front. The 'bugging' comment was meant totally in jest and in reality there is no bugging. Must have seemed pretty poor to you but your professional response put it correctly in place.
One other item that should have been mentioned by now which will not have any bearing on your comment but is important for a more complete picture. My post #526 was only meant to give the idea of the Mystic Experience and there are many instances of the Experience, similar conclusion, not covered. At this time there are many websites devoted to this and teacher/guides that are passing it on to thousands. This does not even include surveys in other countries, India for example. If any interest, check my posts in the thread on Enlightenment by MysticSang'ha or the one on Oneness by YmirGF for some pointers to individuals.
Following up on your suggestion for me to find the same experience with different conclusions within Scientology turns out to be very difficult, perhaps impossible for an outsider. There is too much conflicting information on the internet. You have already discounted some related beliefs that were found and there really doesn't seem to be much on experiences or goals. Perhaps your suggestion of FreeZoners is the only chance. On the Internet, Scientologists discredit FreeZoners and it is mentioned that FreeZoners are reluctant to give names because of thoughts of reprisals. True? Will the information from the conference on the west coast be made available publicly?
Regards,
a..1
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Hard to say but I wouldnt hold your breath on it. Until the CoS goes down the FreeZone will remain amorphous and disjointed. The fact that some high ranking defectors from the CoS led by Marty Rathburn are trying to personal army the FreeZoners into taking down the CoS probably doesnt help matters. So much fun with a full scale war being fought away from public eyes.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
still no evidence.
Greetings friend nonbeliever_92. How do you define "purely subjective"? If memory serves, there is an epistemology that separates subjective experience that is totally within the subject versus one that has an origination from some external source in order to deal with its theories of knowledge. For example, the taste of honey is a subjective experience that would have an external tie in that the honey comes from external sources. Does that come into play in your thinking here?
Regards,
a..1
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Love, anger, any emotion or experience really is subjective.
Commoner
Headache
Autonomous1one1, you're so polite, it's almost hard to argue with you!
But I'll try anyway.
Well, harm others from who's perspective? If someone thinks I'll be burning in hell unless he stops me from drinking coffee, should he stop me, or should he let me burn in hell? If there is no objective way to determine which views are valid and which are not, who is to say what is harmful? Does the majority oppinion determine that? Does the individual's opinion (the one who's being harmed) determine that?
Imagine the opposite situation. You're a medical doctor and a family with a sick baby comes to you seeking help. You are positive that the baby has a fatal disease, for which there is a simple cure (ten days of antibiotics), but the family refuses the treatment because of their beliefs - in fact, if you force them to treat the baby, they will all have to commit suicide. Should you force them to let you treat the baby?
I don't think all positions are (equally) valid. The reason to consider other positions is because our position might be wrong (and we are often wrong), but not because there is no correct position. There is an objective reality and we can distinguish between valid and invalid concepts. Don't you agree?
[/FONT]
You know, I remember a quote from Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle", which I sometimes find useful: "...any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan."
In other words, if you can't explain something in simple terms, you probably don't understand it yourself. These descriptions of god you give are so abstract and full of assumptions, that they are completely useless to me - which is strange, since I am used to solving really complex, abstract problems on a daily basis. It leads me to believe that you are either deliberately vague or simply unable to explain your concept of god in your own words.
But I'll try anyway.
[FONT="]
Well, harm others from who's perspective? If someone thinks I'll be burning in hell unless he stops me from drinking coffee, should he stop me, or should he let me burn in hell? If there is no objective way to determine which views are valid and which are not, who is to say what is harmful? Does the majority oppinion determine that? Does the individual's opinion (the one who's being harmed) determine that?
Imagine the opposite situation. You're a medical doctor and a family with a sick baby comes to you seeking help. You are positive that the baby has a fatal disease, for which there is a simple cure (ten days of antibiotics), but the family refuses the treatment because of their beliefs - in fact, if you force them to treat the baby, they will all have to commit suicide. Should you force them to let you treat the baby?
I don't think all positions are (equally) valid. The reason to consider other positions is because our position might be wrong (and we are often wrong), but not because there is no correct position. There is an objective reality and we can distinguish between valid and invalid concepts. Don't you agree?
[/FONT]
You know, I remember a quote from Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle", which I sometimes find useful: "...any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing was a charlatan."
In other words, if you can't explain something in simple terms, you probably don't understand it yourself. These descriptions of god you give are so abstract and full of assumptions, that they are completely useless to me - which is strange, since I am used to solving really complex, abstract problems on a daily basis. It leads me to believe that you are either deliberately vague or simply unable to explain your concept of god in your own words.
Last edited:
Commoner
Headache
[FONT="]What is the point here, Commoner? Hasn’t it been indicated that the Mystic Experience has come to us from over 2000 years ago? Thank you for agreeing that it is possible and indicating that consciousness has not changed.[/FONT]
I believe you were trying to point out that there is a special significance in the "mystic experience" because of its consistency throughout history and cultures. I simply pointed out, that our experiences (those based on actual events and also those we consider delusional or imaginary) are consistent because of the way our brains work and because that has not changed for many thousands of years. So you can't draw any more significance on that basis as you can from myths, mental illnesses, our affinity for sweet food or our fear of the dark. They are equally (in)significant.
[FONT="]
Well, the truth is, from your description of it, the "mystic experience" does not differ from a psychotic event, so how could I distinguish one from the other. If you describe a car to me and claim it's something else, I'll still think you were describing a car, until you point out the difference. I really don't think you've done that.
It's not that I necesarrily find the concept of "god" absurd, it's the claim that the thing you're describing is somehow indicative of "god" that I find absurd. Just as I don't find a "car" or a "plane" absurd - but if you describe a car and claim it's a plane, I'll certainly have a problem with that.
[FONT="]
Ah, so basically - you simply "know it". Well, you see - that's not enough for me. Not only is it not enough for me that you know it, it would not be enough for me to know it. I know many things that are false. When I make a good bet playing poker and the other player wins the pot, I know got incredibly unlucky. But I also know that's false - I wasn't unlucky, I simply lost despite having a higher probability of winning. The distribution of cards was random, there was no greater force determining the outcome, the universe was not "against me".
A schizophrenic knows there is a black hole in the middle of the room, even though he might be a physics professor who also knows that it's completely impossible. Our minds play tricks on us, it's not enough to be convinced of something - we must also have a rational, objective reason in order to claim something as truth - even if we're only trying to "convince" ourselves of that truth.
But, unlike you, I understand (or, I can imagine) how someone came up with it - that's easy. But if I believe that someone was really, honestly convinced by it and that this conviction came from an experience - I can't imagine what kind of an experience that could be. I can imagine a lot of experiences that would, in my mind, not have justified the claim. For instance (going back to omniscience) - if a being were to appear infront of me and accurately predict events in my past in in my future (something really specific), I might interpret that as the being having some sort of knowledge that goes beyond my own. But that would not even scratch the surface of "omniscience". In order for someone to make that kind of a claim and to be justified in making it, he would have to be omniscient himself - in order to know exactly what the being is capable of knowing, the extent of it, etc. And I have yet to find someone who can claim that. And so it is with all "extravagant" attributes of god.
[FONT="]We only explain within our capabilities and there is never an intention of being vague and undefining to avoid being invalidated.
But imagine for a moment god doesn't exist. How could you be anything more than vague if you wanted to avoid god being shown as not plausible.
I don't think it's a conscious effort, but I do think that it's an unconscious defence mechanism - to keep "god" vague and dynamic in order to keep it alive. I know this might sound like a strange comparison to you, but I consider it a bit like the person who has invested a lot of money in a pyramid scheme but can't seem to stop with the payments even after realizing he's probably thrown all his money away. He's just too heavily invested and if there's even a glimmer of hope that he might still get the money back, he'll continue paying and throwing more money down the drain.
Well, but that is a completely unfounded assumption as far as I can see - that the interpertation comes after the transformation. Do you have any objective grounds on which to base that assumption?
You can't even "sense" the experience until you interpret it at a basic level. I mean, if you touch something hot, you only move your hand after you've interpreted the sensation as heat.
Of course, there can certainly be a part of the interpretation that comes later (let's say interpreting that it was god), but the basic interpretation must have come first - in order to have an effect at all.
Now, with a very clever use of "experience" as being the subjective interpretation itself - not any aactual event, you can try and get around this. But then you can't use the "experience" to point to anything outside itself.Let me clearify;
Imagine two people, one is afraid of spiders and the other likes them. You subject them both to the same conditions - you make them hold the spider in their hands. One will feel fear and might suffer some long lasting effects from it - some people develop really strong phobias when subjected to such a stressful event, but the other person wont really find the experience significant.
If you define "experience" as what they felt - then you can dismiss the second person, since there was no significant effect on him and you can place a very high significance on the "experience" of the first person. But in reality, they experienced the same event - having to hold a spider in their hands.
And if you, the researcher, didn't understand why it had such an effect on one person and not the other, you might consider that something else must have happened to the first person - something "special" must have occured. In my opinion, that's what you are doing.
Except, of course, when they're objective.
We experience "the way our brains work," so to claim that experiences are a result of "the way our brains work" is tautology.
So what is "God" that it isn't this? How are you distinguishing between the mystic experience and "God"?
Physicist Erwin Schrödinger also knows there's a black hole in the middle of the room, but people don't question his sanity (just the opposite).
I'm quite sure that your accepting the "mystic experience" based on others' words isn't a part of any formula for "truth".
So basically the strength of your argument against the argument for the experience is "I can imagine what it's like and imagine how it's not justified."
Ultimately, with practice, the mystic is omnisicence itself:
"There is nothing that Buddha does not know. Because he has awakened from the sleep of ignorance and has removed all obstructions from his mind, he knows everything of the past, present, and future, directly and simultaneously."
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
First of all...
I would like to apologize to the posters on this thread for my earlier, unseemly behavior.
Started out like crack cocaine. Monkey always gonna hit the button that dispenses more coke, and sure enough; I'm a monkey. Yet, I'd been alive thirty-two years, spent most of that time as a "respected artist;" and it was ash. Simply put, drawing her = joy, drawing other stuff = not; so I took a nice long spin down the joy highway... something like "six thousand hours of staring into her eyes..."
But while the hand and eye join to manufacture art, the stupid brain manufactures thought... I had conceived of a whole concept of conception before I did any actual conceptualization, if you know what I mean; but since I grew up around Christians, that's the god she replaced. Then god showed up...
I ain't talking about god, I'm talking about Gwynnie... I had to laugh at this part: And I would be careful about how you use "Gwynnie" because that girl owns me. The main reason for my recent exuberance was finally being able to imagine her not being embarrassed by my antics if she should ever hear of my name.
But, yeah; I'm on it. The Book of Gwynnite began as hundreds of pages of rants about how much I love her, and how much I hate everything else; and now, the next draft is sitting in my head - like four pages with maybe a paragraph or two each, reads like poetry; and I only have to mention My Sweet Everything one time. I'm learning.
Now then, god. I met the cat, he ain't like anybody thinks; it's all good. Oh, and I use terms like "god, cat," and "he?" I could have said, "macaroni, cheese," and "Jean Nate..." what I mean is "other," and "other" = other... like no other.
Commoner
Headache
I agree, but that wasn't the point. We not only experience the way our brain works, we also understand how the brain works, we measure it, we disect it. The point was, we have basically the same cpu as we did a thousand years ago.
Then how am I distinguishing between a psychotic event and "god"? God isn't really my problem. If you wish to call the mystic experience god, that's your call, I just find it unnecessary.
I believe he was actually pointing out the absurdity of the notion. My point was more of a practical nature, not to do with black holes in particular.
No, the actual strenght of the argument came from the realization that no one has presented a justified reason for the claim. That I can't think of an experience that would justify the claim is simply an observation. But anyone is free to present one.
If the mystic becomes omniscient, that should be really easy to demonstrate. Until then...
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Oh, what is greater than all? Expectation.
Can god create a rock he cannot lift? If the believer "expects" he can, god cannot lift his big ol' rock. If the believer "expects" he cannot, god will pull an Atlas. God doesn't have to be omniscient to be god, he just has to be smarter than us.
Can god create a rock he cannot lift? If the believer "expects" he can, god cannot lift his big ol' rock. If the believer "expects" he cannot, god will pull an Atlas. God doesn't have to be omniscient to be god, he just has to be smarter than us.
Commoner
Headache
Oh, what is greater than all? Expectation.
Can god create a rock he cannot lift? If the believer "expects" he can, god cannot lift his big ol' rock. If the believer "expects" he cannot, god will pull an Atlas. God doesn't have to be omniscient to be god, he just has to be smarter than us.
Exactly.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
(Well, if the mystic can hijack this thread and run it off the rails... oh, I have read post #526; and the preliminary results are in: mystic experience =/= evidence for god... Purex, I'm not cutting you off; I'm saving you from yourself. Feel free to return the favor sometime.
)Do numbers exist? One plus one equals two, right? Well, I hold up one finger in front of the monitor, then raise the next in line; and come up with 1+1 = 11. Now the science types like to try and confuse a person with excessive verbiage or technical jargon, and say what I just did was "confusing a symbol for its referent." But what I actually did - was count. One finger... one finger... one-one finger. Come on, now... any hot-blooded young stud will tell you 1+1 = 3, if not 18 to life.
Besides, I'm a mathematician; I got secret knowledge. whisper numbers don't really exist /whisper Actually, it's no secret with a little bit of consideration. Where do numbers come from? What are they for? Would anyone be surprised to learn that the first form of mathematics was accounting?
Really. What's -17? Debt. Pure and simple. What about god? Where does god come from; more importantly, what is god for?
Personally, I like science. I mean, I really, really like science... but it'll get just as dumb as religion if not maintained with vigilance. I read that we have evolved from some type of proto-monkey, and heard others complain about having primates in the family tree (and that's all I still have in my family tree, so I am biased towards evolution); but I listen, and I wondered. Where did intelligence come from? So I read some more, and I found an hypothesis that was acceptable to me - from robotics. See, these fellas were trying to make a robot walk like a man. One foot in from of the other, doesn't seem too difficult; until one realises one foot has to be off the ground before it can go in front of the other. Then one runs into problems like center of gravity, dissonance, timing... before one just puts wheels on the bot.
I mean, I look like a monkey; often act like a monkey. Evolution was never offensive to me, but when other people raise a legitimate concern about the science I support; I just go and learn more science. But what I really like about science is the scientific method. This is actually an open invitation for all to experience the joy and wonder of scientific discovery, to make observations and hypothesize... which is actually more of that jargon I mentioned earlier. It basically means; open your eyes, and take a guess.
I mean, if this is science; why aren't more of these science types doing it? A person can't mention god without some... "religious nut" jumping up, demanding evidence, looking for proof... I'm not even going to mention the "l" word... I mean, help me, Gwynnie!
OK, I'll be the monkey. Competition for resources drove my family out of the trees, and now we're scampering in the weeds. Only, the weeds are tall; and I'm so very small. So I keep trying to stand up to see over the grass. And every time I look over thataway, there's a lion. And it's getting bigger... no, it's getting closer. So I work on standing up, moving in an upright position; and running like hell. A little time goes by, and I'm getting long in the tooth; yet my family remembers how I peeked over the grass, how I lead the charge away from danger, so they have been able to excuse my age. Besides, I'm always good for a story.
Then one day, lightning strikes. All the animals screw, it's pouring rain, there's lights in the sky, they refuse to stay there, and they refuse to be quiet about it. We're hiding in the bushes, the young bucks are restless with the forced inactivity, and the little brats are frightened out of their collective gourd. Who gets blamed for it? The useless old coot, that's who. Now, the stern matriarch is giving me the look that says the stewpot may yet be my next bed. What do I do? I use the tools that served me well in the past. I run my neck. Pound my chest like, "me big chief," point to the sky like there's something there to point at, and growl...
Godidit. God.