'mystics' and there relgious experiences./?/ not buying it.

[Quintessence]

I haven't read one convincing anecdote of a religious experience by /seems either catholic, or some form of that, similar, meditative 'oneness', or whatever.//.

I'm not buying it.

You're not supposed to. Experiences are, by nature, personal. I wouldn't expect you to understand what sex is like for me either.

 

[Nakosis]

I for one know that it did happen, whether you believe it or not. Your opinion won't change that. What can't be proven can at least be experienced, and this is one of those experiences.

What you know is the experience happened. What you may not know is the mechanics behind the experience.

Like when you see a mirage, you actually see what looks like water. However once you understand the mechanics you can understand how to consciously reproduce the experience for yourself and others.

 

[Mycroft]

I for one know that it did happen, whether you believe it or not. Your opinion won't change that. What can't be proven can at least be experienced, and this is one of those experiences.

No. You believe it happened. But ultimately, you can't say definitively either way. Otherwise that's straight up intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

No. You believe it happened. But ultimately, you can't say definitively either way. Otherwise that's straight up intellectual dishonesty.

No I don't believe it happened. I know it happened. It's unwise to put words in other people's mouths and act as if you knew exactly what I saw and did, which, of course, you didn't. It's like if you told me you had an experience similar and I said. "No you only THOUGHT that you saw it.". Besides I don't have to prove anything to anybody. I know what happened and you and others won't understand it unless you do it. Than you'll know there's truth to it.

 

[Mycroft]

No I don't believe it happened. I know it happened. It's unwise to put words in other people's mouths and act as if you knew exactly what I saw and did, which, of course, you didn't. It's like if you told me you had an experience similar and I said. "No you only THOUGHT that you saw it.". Besides I don't have to prove anything to anybody. I know what happened and you and others won't understand it unless you do it. Than you'll know there's truth to it.

Prove it.

 

[Jumi]

What do you expect him to prove? That he had a "mystical" experience? You can have one of those and be not religious and not theistic at all.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Prove it.

...

I'm just going to assume you didn't read what I wrote. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. If I can't prove something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen or it doesn't exist. I'm not entirely sure why this concept is so difficult for others to grasp.

I suggest doing what other mystics have done. You'll find out that way.

 

[Mycroft]

If I can't prove something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen or it doesn't exist.

But without evidence or proof, nobody can take your claims as fact. People will just continue to assign it the label 'belief'.

It's 2015, not 1115.

 

[Mycroft]

What do you expect him to prove? That he had a "mystical" experience? You can have one of those and be not religious and not theistic at all.

Not being religious or theistic doesn't free you from the burden of proof.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

But without evidence or proof, nobody can take your claims as fact. People will just continue to assign it the label 'belief'.

It's 2015, not 1115.

Let's say you were abducted by aliens and it really happened.

I walk towards you and say "Prove it."

Would you say that you believe aliens took or you that you know aliens took you. You'd probably say that you know aliens abducted you, but you can't present undeniable proof. It still happened whether you presented proof or not.

 

[lovemuffin]

But without evidence or proof, nobody can take your claims as fact. People will just continue to assign it the label 'belief'.

It's 2015, not 1115.

Part of the point various people are trying to make is that the goal is not for it to be taken as "fact" in the same way that "It is raining outside" is a factual proposition. What mysticism challenges is the presupposition that reality may be reduced entirely to objectively determinable facts. On the other hand, the point that DavidMcCann made was that, in a more conjectural way, there is a large body of evidence in the history of human religiosity that points towards some kind of real phenomena underlying human mystical experience, however it may be understood.

 

[Mycroft]

Part of the point various people are trying to make is that the goal is not for it to be taken as "fact" in the same way that "It is raining outside" is a factual proposition. What mysticism challenges is the presupposition that reality may be reduced entirely to objectively determinable facts. On the other hand, the point that DavidMcCann made was that, in a more conjectural way, there is a large body of evidence in the history of human religiosity that points towards some kind of real phenomena underlying human mystical experience, however it may be understood.

Sure. I am not rejecting the actual experiences as having happened. But their happening doesn't immediately lend itself of any sort of supernatural dimension before we can exclude psychological and neurological phenomena. A discussion that's currently undergoing with Near Death Experience, for example.

 

[lovemuffin]

Right. as far as trying to find rational evidence for particular metaphysical theses, it's problematic. In both directions, I would suggest, and for different reasons. Mysticism doesn't disprove a physicalist or naturalist metaphysics, and that is fairly well demonstrated by the variety and contradictory nature of interpretations of those experiences, as well as by their subjective quality.

On the other hand, to use your example, as I understand it, research into NDEs demonstrates some close correlation between certain brain states and certain reported experiences. It's been a while since I read anything on this but I think that's true. And lets imagine that those correlations are even further developed scientifically. Does this disprove that the experiences have some transcendent referent? To my mind, the answer is no, it only disproves the most simplistic and naive kind of metaphysical "supernaturalism". It seems perfectly to be expected that states of experience have to have correlates in physical brain states. I think that's conclusively demonstrated by what we know of minds and brains.

What is not known, and what may not even be provable in this fashion, is that those physical states are exhaustive and that, once described, everything is known. Reductive physicalism as metaphysics can't really be proven in an exact way, any more than supernaturalism can be, although the latter seems rather infeasible. Rather, physicalism is argued towards abductively. It can be demonstrated perhaps that nothing else is needed for a description of physical function, and principles of parsimony can be appealed to on that basis (Occam's razor and the like), but as with mystical experience, the immediacy of the subjective quality of our own experience is something that doesn't seem to easily yield to this kind of functional, scientific analysis. Or at least, such analyses seem plausibly to leave something out, which is no less immediately "real" to us.

 

[Jumi]

Sure. I am not rejecting the actual experiences as having happened. But their happening doesn't immediately lend itself of any sort of supernatural dimension before we can exclude psychological and neurological phenomena. A discussion that's currently undergoing with Near Death Experience, for example.

I see, this was what I was looking for. Mystical experience is a broader category that doesn't necessarily include anything supernatural.

 

[Nakosis]

From the movie "Contact"

Panel member: Doctor Arroway, you come to us with no evidence, no record, no artifacts. Only a story that to put it mildly strains credibility. Over half a trillion dollars was spent, dozens of lives were lost. Are you really going to sit there and tell us we should just take this all... on faith?

[pause, Ellie looks at Palmer]

Michael Kitz: Please answer the question, doctor.

Ellie Arroway: Is it possible that it didn't happen? Yes. As a scientist, I must concede that, I must volunteer that.

Michael Kitz: Wait a minute, let me get this straight. You admit that you have absolutely no physical evidence to back up your story.

Ellie Arroway: Yes.

Michael Kitz: You admit that you very well may have hallucinated this whole thing.

Ellie Arroway: Yes.

Michael Kitz: You admit that if you were in our position, you would respond with exactly the same degree of incredulity and skepticism!

Ellie Arroway: Yes!

Michael Kitz: [standing, angrily] Then why don't you simply withdraw your testimony, and concede that this "journey to the center of the galaxy," in fact, never took place!

Ellie Arroway: Because I can't. I... had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision... of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater then ourselves, that we are *not*, that none of us are alone! I wish... I... could share that... I wish, that everyone, if only for one... moment, could feel... that awe, and humility, and hope. But... That continues to be my wish.

I think this is how many who have had such experiences feel. A self authenticating experience. An inability to "prove" such an experience to anyone else doesn't prevent that person from accepting the reality of it.

 

[oldbadger]

Most of those facts is based on science.

Most of those facts is all about God. We just call it science.

And anyway we know how created the universe: EA( or better known as Enki) one of the Babylonian Gods.

Let me get this right. A Babylonian God created our Universe, and all those Galaxies? And what about the Universes adjacent to ours? God is pretty big.

And "miracles" happen to everybody no matter who you believe in, or even if you believe at all.

Yep. No argument there.

 

[oldbadger]

There are billions of planets in the Goldilocks zone ( at a suitable distance from the sun for life to develop ) so I'm not sure what your point is here, or how it relates to the OP.

Yeah? There are? Wow! How miraculous!

PS have you voted yet?!

Thursday for me. The old way. I like doing the X thing on the piece of paper!

 

[Desert Snake]

Its not for sale, its something that you already have but also something that you may be ignorant about, its who you truly are, and this can be experienced of who you truly are, once you have experienced this, you will never be the same again.

No it isn't. I know that it isn't ''who I am''. Or, 'truly are'.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have to experience it to understand it. I've had experiences but I can't prove it. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do what they do, and you'll find the proof.

As in, join a church with a not so savory past, go to a monastery, and contemplate on ...dunno, statues of saints, or something? Then, great. I have an experience. This doesn't make the anecdotes that I find unbelievable any more likely. What ''proof'', anyways? Weren't some people talking about an 'imposter' that shows up as Jesus? What if that is what people are getting, a demonic trick?

 

[Desert Snake]

Why would it matter if you did, or didn't?

I'll keep this in mind, next time I'm reading one of your comments.
Ditto!