Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[PureX]

Actually, our experiences aren't all that different when you look at them more closely.

The reason I interjected my experience with alcohol recovery into this thread was because I wanted a way to show how "faith" actually works for people, and that it usually works practically, not magically. The act of faith is logical and reasonable and natural, and that's why it works for us. But first, for the sake of people who feel as you do about "God", I had to define an "end of the rope" situation that would show how fixing yourself becomes impossible. I chose addiction because that's how I experienced that condition.

Addiction, by definition, defines a condition in which the addict has lost control over his own thoughts and behaviors regarding a specific set of actions. An addict, by definition, cannot "pull himself up by his own boot straps". Nor can he do it by self-will, self-knowledge, or logic and reason. If he could do so, he wouldn't be fully addicted.

On the other hand, addiction is a progressive illness and as such, there are degrees of helplessness involved one slides down it's slippery slope. And that means that some people can pull themselves out of an addiction if it has not become chronic. And indeed people do so all the time. It's difficult, sometimes very difficult, but it can be done.

I was not one of these. Like many alcoholics and drug addicts I wasn't able to even recognize my illness until it was chronic, and far beyond my ability to manage or cure. In fact, it was the shock of discovering just how completely unmanageable my condition was that finally got me to recognize it. But by then, it was too late. The "bottom" I experienced came mostly as a result of the hopelessness involved in it. Even as I called AA I had no faith at all that they could help me. I simply didn't know what else to do, and felt that I needed to do something.

It seems to me, after many years of observing others in recovery, that the way out for most people is that they have to first realize that as they are, they condition is hopeless. So they must stop being who they are, and become someone new. It's this becoming someone else, someone new, the person we would have been had we not strayed down the pathway of addiction that is the heart of 'recovery'. The man we 'recover' is the man we would have become were it not for the addiction. And recovery means finding out who that man was, and how he thinks and behaves.

I, the addict, needed to be "erased", to get to that man, and that's the hard part.

 

[Commoner]

The "feeling" of touch has an idea form in the mental "image" that "touch" provides us, the part we know and can recognize. That mental image is a distinct thing from the actual experienced touch, but the mental image is all we know of "touch". Without it, touch is experience-less. Our experience of a thing resides in the mental image of it provided of it.

Most people are comfortable with the idea that the "mind", while a different thing, is a not a separate or distinct thing from the body that is its operator. In the same vein, the "mind" is not a separate thing from the world it perceives. The sensation of "solidity" of ground under our feet, the perception of "distance" to a visible destination, the "sound" of a friend's voice and the "sight" of a friend's face are all idea-form: mental images. The world, as we each know it, is the world as we each know it. It has the form and shape of the mental images our brains provide it in perception and understanding. The sum of those mental images, at any given moment, is "mind".

To suggest that there is an idea world and a really-real world separate from each other --two distinct realities full of distinct entities: idea objects vs actual objects --as many do is illusory in upholding a "mind" distinct and separate from the body, and hence from the world.

It allows for fallacious ideas like solipsism, the idea that the individual is the only reality. The alternative is a "mind" that is very much a part of and integral to the world. One reality. For some it involves a process they recognize as "eliminating the subject/object divide" that keeps mind's idea-objects separate and distinct from actual, really-real, objects (though for me it's more like putting the divide in its proper perspective).

From the perspective of a mind that is integral to the world, there is no significant distinction to be made between the idea of a thing and the thing itself, as the idea was produced in perception of the thing itself. The inverse is also true, that the thing itself, for us, is the idea of the thing. For some to think that suggests a really-real world that is "not real" is a clear indication that they hold an image of the reality that is of the two realities variety, not one.

Just some thoughts.

No, there is no "idea world" that I know of. The distinction is not between "things that physically exist" and "things that are ideas". The distinction is between ideas that ultimately represent something else and ideas that are only ideas. "Mental images" exist, of course - they are as physical as anything else. What they represent does not necessarily exist. My mental image of a chubby man with a red suit and white beard exists (whatever it is, chemicals, some electricity, etc...), but he does not - not outside my "mind" and not outside my brain.

The distinction between objective and not objective is not, as I have already pointed out, that one is related to something objective and the other is somehow not. In the end, everything is "object related", especially for those of us who have a strong suspicion that the world we live in is completely deterministic. What makes something objective is not a disconnect from some ethereal world of ideas, it is a disconnect from the particular brain that is interpreting it. It is how we distinguish the ideas that represent something outside ourselves and those that do not. This is what impartiality is - this is how we determine which ideas accurately represent a particular thing outside our brain and which do not and are simply a “misfiring” of our interpretational faculties - what we consider "not really-real".

 

[PureX]

This became rather lengthy, and was at least partly off topic, so here I am. Forgive the intrusion. I've no problem continuing this (if needed) in the regular forum, or simply letting it lie after this response. I just didn't want to clutter up the place.


While I appreciate your story in more detail, you seem not to have responded to much of what I said. Excepting of course, that I was likely not as 'chronic' as you had become, and that that may explain everything. But I will respond to your current post regardless.

"Actually, our experiences aren't all that different when you look at them more closely."

They never really are. Only our solutions differed significantly.


"...a way to show how "faith" actually works for people, and that it usually works practically, not magically."

Also as, I presume, a way to demonstrate your evidence for a god, the reason for your op. We are speaking of faith in god working as your evidence aren't we?

I countered by showing that if someone in a very similar situation takes a very different approach (no god or faith) with the same success (long term sobriety), it shows that no god or faith was necessary to do so, weakening your case as to it being evidence for a god.
It is only evidence that those addicted to substance can recover, with or without god or faith.

Magic? Well, a rose by any other name. Supernatural, mystical, magical - all the same to me. All nonexistent and irrelevant to my life. God, by any meaningful definition I've ever heard, would indeed be 'not natural'. Supernatural.

An invisible, intelligent, transformative power coming from without, would classify as magic to me. The steps would require at least those few qualities in the god they insist you must believe in, to even make it to number three (I would argue even to make it to number two, minus the semantics around the tables).

I've often wondered how many atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, etc. AA and NA have sent back out into the street, because of the absolute requirement that you believe in god to achieve success. That is truly depressing. They won't all be as fortunate as I have been. Fortunately, there are alternatives now, as someone mentioned earlier. What, I wonder, do you make of those programs? No god there. Are there no true, chronic folks at those meetings either? Would you further reduce 'god' to simple community?


"The act of faith is logical and reasonable and natural,..."

I suppose that depends largely on your definition of faith, as much as I hate to play with semantics. My simplified understanding of faith is 'belief without evidence'. I think that's a fairly common definition.
I would not view belief without evidence as logical or reasonable. Perhaps natural in some situations, but there is no logic in, or reason to, believe in something without evidence.


"Addiction, by definition, defines a condition in which the addict has lost control over his own thoughts and behaviors regarding a specific set of actions."

I don't find this an unreasonable definition. Though from that definition, it certainly doesn't follow that they cannot 'regain that control', only that they have lost it at some point.


"An addict, by definition, cannot "pull himself up by his own boot straps". Nor can he do it by self-will, self-knowledge, or logic and reason. If he could do so, he wouldn't be fully addicted."

Whereas this is complete nonsense. Sadly, it's one of the very dangerous myths that the likes of AA and NA espouse. There is no meter to indicate that one is 'fully addicted', that can only be self reported in the end. It is meaningless. By your definition, only if you need god to escape, were you truly (or 'chronically') addicted? I certainly hope not.


"...some people can pull themselves out of an addiction if it has not become chronic."

chronic;
1. Referring to a health-related state, lasting a long time.
3. The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics defines a chronic condition as one persisting 3 months or longer.

Yep, I was certainly chronic by its medical definition. Your arbitrary use of the word chronic holds little weight. It seems only to mean that 'you couldn't do it on your own', therefor you were chronic. We've established that. Many people think they cannot, and I understand that. Many other people can, and do. Thus, why I took issue with your persistent use of 'we' in your posts as if your personal experience applied to all, which it clearly does not. Not with addiction, not with faith, not with god.


"...it was the shock of discovering just how completely unmanageable my condition was that finally got me to recognize it."

Indeed. When one stands at the edge of their existence, everything once known to them stripped away, sick in mind and body, and teetering on the edge of death - whether by the drug or their own hand - that tends to open one's eyes.

At that point, you fail to realize, not everyone needs god or faith to make it back. Many do, you apparently did, and that is all fine and good. But to presume that everyone needs that is self delusion, and perhaps unbeknownst to you, it's rather insulting to those that have been there. You trivialize and marginalize their (my) experience by assuming as much.


As to what you didn't really respond to;

-I did in fact reach the 'end of my rope', as I am the only one who could possibly determine this. I did not need to 'look elsewhere' (i.e., to god) to gain my sobriety. How might you explain this?

-Your comment "Just because that has not yet happened to you doesn't mean that it won't." was not explained to me.

First of all, the 'end of my rope' situation did happen to me, as I've explained. What didn't happen was the need arising for a god to rescue me.

It sounded rather dark and foreboding, with perhaps just a tinge of hope on your part that I may fail, thus vindicating your own need for god to escape the same situation. What is it you meant by this?
And yes, that was a rather stark comment, but this tone underlies much of what you say.

-My comment "That 'transformative power' theists speak of is within us, not without. I am living testimony to this fact.", I found especially relevant. How might you explain this, since no god or faith was involved?
Do you believe people can undergo a life changing transformative process without the aid of faith or god? If so, why would such a process then be evidence of a god?

-My entire response to "How do you know that God didn't help you?" seems to have gone unnoticed. Perhaps you simply got your answer and let it be?

You should understand, that a couple of the people in my life that I care very deeply for, are 'lifers' in AA/NA. I would never disparage their participation in these groups, as it has given them comfort.

In return though, they do not presume that everyone else would necessarily have to follow that path to find recovery, as you repeatedly do.
They do not question the depths of my lows, or the path I chose after. What worked for them worked for them. What worked for me, worked for me. You seem unable to grasp this. This is the only reason I've pursued this.

I find it arrogant, presumptuous and a bit mean spirited that you have this need to downplay another's lows, in order to justify your path involving faith and god.

This is what is wrong with so many religions, as well as the step groups which are entirely based on the god's of those religions. The followers must keep themselves enclosed in the bubble of their choosing, with their group think and their mantras, insisting that the path they have chosen is the only one, lest their 'faith' in that path be questioned.

Some dogmatist Christians insist there is no such thing as an atheist, that they must believe somewhere deep down that god exists, because they themselves are incapable of realizing the atheist's reality.

Some insist that atheism must be a religion, because they themselves cannot conceive of living without theirs.

Some insist that morality must be god-given, and that atheists have no morals, because they themselves cannot conceive of being responsible for their own actions or living without having their morality dictated to them.

And you, it would appear, cannot believe that someone could have possibly have been as 'bad off' as you were, and escaped it all without the use of faith or god, because you, yourself, could not. That is not a reasonable position to hold.

It's all very much the same, and it's rather disappointing. No true Scottsman, no true Christian, no true addict.

Oh, and I've no objection to your posting any of this in the forum if you so choose. All good.

peace

This was posted with permission from private messages ...

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately, due to a niece's birthday party, I didn't finish my post yesterday ... sorry.

I was hoping to point out how and that addiction recovery is a "transcendent" experience, and that it's this ability to transcend the self that is the soul of the recovery.

As an addict I was hopelessly addicted to alcohol. I have no doubts about this because I tried everything I could think of and everything I'd ever heard of to quit drinking on my own and failed every time, miserably. It was the building dread and hopelessness of this consistent failure that finally got me to recognize that I was really and truly and hopelessly addicted to a behavior that was destroying my life. There wasn't going to be no thinking my way out of it. There wasn't going to be no bootstrap pulling my way out of this. In fact, there was no way out. And it was the very shock and horror of this realization that finally "broke me". I had no more options. I was doomed to a life of always feeling sick, of constant self-humiliation, of social ostracism, and of a painful death, alone. And I knew it was no one's fault by my own.

The man I had become could not stop drinking. That man still can't stop drinking. Fortunately, I am no longer that man. That was the way out, but I didn't know that way existed at the time. I didn't know that it was possible for a human being to transcend himself, and become someone new, and different, and whole, again.

This is what they taught me in AA: that such a miracle could happen, and they showed me how. But I had to be "broken", first. I had to be willing to let go of any and all ideas of doing things my way, because my way was the addict's way. My way had to come to a complete end. I had to be willing to turn myself over to a group of strangers who knew, at least collectively, how to transcend themselves, and who could show me the way.

What they call the "higher power" in AA doesn't refer to the traditional God that most of us were taught about in our respective religion classes. In fact, AA very carefully avoids discussing religion, and does not dictate god-beliefs of any kind to anybody. I have seen people asked to leave AA meetings who would not refrain from "preaching" their religious beliefs. The higher power in AA is their collective ability to help people get and stay sober, through a set of behavioral steps and traditions that they have found to work. And if you read these steps and traditions, what you find are practical procedures that if followed in earnest, will enable a person to transcend himself. And they work.

You must have had some sort of a similar experience. You must have transcended the man you were in someway, that allowed you to get free of him and become someone new. I realize your experience was somewhat unique in that you had somehow tangled up a search for god with your slide into addiction, and so you had to jettison that search as part of your addictive self. But from my perspective, all that says is that the idea of God that you were then pursuing wasn't working for you. That happens to people. But it doesn't mean that a different idea of God wouldn't.

 

[Commoner]

Do you guys think it's possible to facepalm hard enough to seriously injure yourself?

I think I'd better get an MRI.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Do you guys think it's possible to facepalm hard enough to seriously injure yourself?

I think I'd better get an MRI.

I once facepalmed so hard that I went blind in one eye for a week.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

(Still no evidence.)

 

[Commoner]

Is this the official "bump and old thread" week?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Of course.

 

[adi2d]

I just finished reading the gazzillion comments on this thread. Long on words short on evidence. Anybody have any evidence that could point to God being more than a concept?

I know this is old thread. Just wondering if any of the writers are still here and if their views are still the same. Some of them seemed to be trying to convince themselves mor than others

 

[Sleeppy]

I just finished reading the gazzillion comments on this thread. Long on words short on evidence. Anybody have any evidence that could point to God being more than a concept?

I know this is old thread. Just wondering if any of the writers are still here and if their views are still the same. Some of them seemed to be trying to convince themselves mor than others

The infinite energy and information required to form and maintain an ever-expanding universe..

Almighty and All-Knowing..

How's that?

 

[adi2d]

The infinite energy and information required to form and maintain an ever-expanding universe..

Almighty and All-Knowing..

How's that?

The statement itself can't be shown to be true. Infinite energy? Ever expanding universe? Not shown to be a fact afaik.
Almighty and all knowing are concepts. Again not reality afaik

 

[Sleeppy]

The statement itself can't be shown to be true. Infinite energy? Ever expanding universe? Not shown to be a fact afaik.
Almighty and all knowing are concepts. Again not reality afaik

As far as I know, scientists say the universe expands from an infinite mass, about as small as an atom. Infinite mass necessarily means infinite energy and information. Hence, Almighty and All-Knowing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

1. The idea of God works for most people most of the time. Ideas that work for us on a regular basis tend to be taken as accurate.

Wrong? The concept of god is a tailored answer for things we don't "know". It works for me to assume that the earth is rotating because ghosts are pushing it. It isn't true but it works.

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".

Order of nature is a myth in a lot of ways. We have laws in which things function. It isn't evidence of a god.

3. Energy can express itself as consciousness (take ourselves as an example), again, forcing us to consider that a consciousness could in turn express itself as energy (in much the same way as matter and energy are interchangeable). If so, all of existence could well be the "mind of God, expressed", just as the ancients claimed.

This is an interesting ,albeit moot, point. But innacurate. Electricity doesn't have a consciousness but we have a series of vastly complex electrical and chemical responses within the most complex structure we've ever discovered, our brains. But it is not the electricity that is the root of that "conciousness".

 

[Sha'irullah]

Proof of god's existence is not in proof but in intuition. There is no proof for something that exists outside of the very universe itself. Any interactions it makes are made void because of its seemingly ludicrous existence.

 

[adi2d]

Proof of god's existence is not in proof but in intuition. There is no proof for something that exists outside of the very universe itself. Any interactions it makes are made void because of its seemingly ludicrous existence.

No proof and no evidence.

If God interacts with our universe there should be evidence

 

[jmn]

Proof of god's existence is not in proof but in intuition.

So just abandon reason then.:run:

 

[Philomath]

Honestly there is no evidence or proof for God's existence.

 

[adi2d]

Honestly there is no evidence or proof for God's existence.

Then no reason to believe? I can't believe RFers are going to let that statement stand











Honestly this was like a good book. I hate to see it end

 

[Sleeppy]

The evidence is everything that exists. Who or what you blame, according to the evidence, is up to you.