To the Anti-Religious

[Vile Atheist]

Not quite. I'm somewhere between pantheism and panentheism, so my God doesn't exist IN the natural world, it IS the natural world. Now, obviously, I can provide evidence of the natural world, but I don't see how I could go about proving that it adds up to God. That's not evidence, it's interpretation.

Interesting and to be honest, I didn't have pantheism in mind when I was typing that. But if you believe your god IS the natural world, what is the point of even believing in a deity? If we come from a deity supposedly and your deity is the natural world, then naturalistic explanations for the creation of life should be compatible with your beliefs, should they not?

 

[Storm]

Interesting and to be honest, I didn't have pantheism in mind when I was typing that. But if you believe your god IS the natural world, what is the point of even believing in a deity?

I believe it's a sapient organism.

If we come from a deity supposedly and your deity is the natural world, then naturalistic explanations for the creation of life should be compatible with your beliefs, should they not?

Indeed! Evolution is central to my theology.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Indeed! Evolution is central to my theology.

I've always found it interesting how evolution could be "central" to atheism, some theism, and those who lay in between.

 

[Storm]

I've always found it interesting how evolution could be "central" to atheism, some theism, and those who lay in between.

Well, I freely admit that I expand the concept beyond the science. Unlike the Creationists who coined the term, I believe in cosmic evolution.

Just to be clear, you're not attributing the whole "atheism is based on evolution" thing to me, are you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, the way I see it, all these hypotheses (spandrels fascinate me as well) fail to take into account the reality of mystical experiences, and that's a mistake. Now, when I say that, I don't mean that such experiences are objective proof of God, just that they happen. Anyway, all of these things strike me as logical pieces of the puzzle, but inadequate as solutions.

I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like he doesn't take mystical experiences as central to his theory or maybe even as necessary, but I can't see how they wouldn't simply reinforce the process he proposes.

Say a community of people believes what was described: spirits and dead relatives inhabit some invisible, supernatural realm that they're able to communicate with in a limited way. Then, along comes someone who claims to have experienced things from that supernatural realm... how does this present a conflict?


Going back a bit, though, I think that point about "decoupled conversations" is a good one. Speaking from personal experience, there have been times when I've thought about or imagined a conversation I planned to have with someone so vividly that I if I were more supernaturally inclined, I would've sworn I was interacting with a ghost sitting next to me... if it weren't for the fact that the person I was imagining wasn't dead, just far away.

 

[Storm]

I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like he doesn't take mystical experiences as central to his theory or maybe even as necessary, but I can't see how they wouldn't simply reinforce the process he proposes.

Say a community of people believes what was described: spirits and dead relatives inhabit some invisible, supernatural realm that they're able to communicate with in a limited way. Then, along comes someone who claims to have experienced things from that supernatural realm... how does this present a conflict?

You misunderstand me. I don't think it conflicts, I just don't think it's the whole story, either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You misunderstand me. I don't think it conflicts, I just don't think it's the whole story, either.

Dunno. For one thing, it would depend on how common mystical experiences are. If they happen very rarely, i.e. rarely enough that a whole society might not have any to draw upon, then anyone theorizing about how religious belief originated would have to explain how it happened without them.

Also, in general, I think that if we're explaining a widespread phenomenon like religious belief, it makes the most sense to look for a causal factor that's widespread as well. I don't think mystical experiences fit that bill - they're just too rare. I don't question that they're powerful for the people having them, but whatever instilled religious belief in whole cultures has to be powerful and compelling for everybody, IMO.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Dunno. For one thing, it would depend on how common mystical experiences are. If they happen very rarely, i.e. rarely enough that a whole society might not have any to draw upon, then anyone theorizing about how religious belief originated would have to explain how it happened without them.

Also, in general, I think that if we're explaining a widespread phenomenon like religious belief, it makes the most sense to look for a causal factor that's widespread as well. I don't think mystical experiences fit that bill - they're just too rare. I don't question that they're powerful for the people having them, but whatever instilled religious belief in whole cultures has to be powerful and compelling for everybody, IMO.

I am agreeing with you 99.9%. The only qualm I have with what you say is that you word it as if mystical experiences are legitimate, simply rare. My point is that they are illegitimate and the product of a powerful human mind.

 

[Storm]

I am agreeing with you 99.9%. The only qualm I have with what you say is that you word it as if mystical experiences are legitimate, simply rare. My point is that they are illegitimate and the product of a powerful human mind.

I'm assuming that by "legitimate," you mean correctly interpreted evidence of a God. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My point is that, legitimate or not, they happen, and contribute to God-belief.

 

[linwood]

The only qualm I have with what you say is that you word it as if mystical experiences are legitimate, simply rare. My point is that they are illegitimate and the product of a powerful human mind.

In what sense do you deem mystical experiences "illegitimate"?

Are you implying they are false, not truth?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am agreeing with you 99.9%. The only qualm I have with what you say is that you word it as if mystical experiences are legitimate, simply rare. My point is that they are illegitimate and the product of a powerful human mind.

Depends what you mean by "legitimate". I think that mystical experiences are actual experiences perceived by people. I wasn't trying to get into a discussion about their source.

As far as this discussion goes, when it comes to mystical experiences, I was only trying to draw a similar conclusion to yours about "decoupled conversations": people experience them, and many people who do experience them attribute them to supernatural causes.

 

[Vile Atheist]

In what sense do you deem mystical experiences "illegitimate"?

Are you implying they are false, not truth?

Mostly, but not entirely. By illegitimate, I mean there is no direct causation and correlation between a spirit entity and the "experience" you have. The probable matter is that the whole "experience" is a product of brain chemistry.

There may be "legitimate" experiences, such as they are supported by evidence, but I certainly have never heard of them. I just don't buy into the whole "experience" thing.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Depends what you mean by "legitimate". I think that mystical experiences are actual experiences perceived by people. I wasn't trying to get into a discussion about their source.

As far as this discussion goes, when it comes to mystical experiences, I was only trying to draw a similar conclusion to yours about "decoupled conversations": people experience them, and many people who do experience them attribute them to supernatural causes.

On that, I do believe you are correct. And that was certainly the point Dr. Andy Thomson was trying to get across.

 

[linwood]

Mostly, but not entirely. By illegitimate, I mean there is no direct causation and correlation between a spirit entity and the "experience" you have. The probable matter is that the whole "experience" is a product of brain chemistry.

Understood and agreed.

There may be "legitimate" experiences, such as they are supported by evidence, but I certainly have never heard of them. I just don't buy into the whole "experience" thing.

You will once you have one.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You will once you have one.

That may or may not be the case, though. Keep in mind, I used to be a Baptist fundamentalist, so I know what it is like to have these experiences.

Hopefully not being long-winded and off-topic...

My most memorable "experience" came when I accepted Jesus Christ. (Holy Hell that feels weird typing now). My goal was to pursue His message relentlessly, leading a moral life, forgiving others, not being preachy, being merciful. I took all the positive reinforcement of the Bible, rejected the negative and led my life in that manner.

To be honest, it was euphoric. I "saw" Jesus in the poor I helped. I "saw" Jesus in the people who wronged me. When I learned of Humanism, I realized that I don't need to "see" or "feel" Jesus in anything in order to be a moral person. In fact, Jesus is highly irrelevant when it comes to morality. The whole "experience" became largely empty.

So thus, I counter that you may one day arrive at the realization your experiences weren't what you initially thought they were.

 

[linwood]

So thus, I counter that you may one day arrive at the realization your experiences weren't what you initially thought they were.

I`m pretty sure I know what they are/were.

I`m a strong materialist atheist so I hold no delusion that these experiences are anything more than chemical interactions in my mind.

It`s just that chemical interactions can be so very interesting.

 

[Storm]

That may or may not be the case, though. Keep in mind, I used to be a Baptist fundamentalist, so I know what it is like to have these experiences.

Hopefully not being long-winded and off-topic...

My most memorable "experience" came when I accepted Jesus Christ. (Holy Hell that feels weird typing now). My goal was to pursue His message relentlessly, leading a moral life, forgiving others, not being preachy, being merciful. I took all the positive reinforcement of the Bible, rejected the negative and led my life in that manner.

To be honest, it was euphoric. I "saw" Jesus in the poor I helped. I "saw" Jesus in the people who wronged me. When I learned of Humanism, I realized that I don't need to "see" or "feel" Jesus in anything in order to be a moral person. In fact, Jesus is highly irrelevant when it comes to morality. The whole "experience" became largely empty.

So thus, I counter that you may one day arrive at the realization your experiences weren't what you initially thought they were.

You're not off topic, but what you describe isn't what I was referring to. I'm talking about the trance states studied by neurotheology, not just nice feelings accompanying religiosity.

Does that help, or would you like more information?

 

[Sunstone]

That may or may not be the case, though. Keep in mind, I used to be a Baptist fundamentalist, so I know what it is like to have these experiences.

Hopefully not being long-winded and off-topic...

My most memorable "experience" came when I accepted Jesus Christ. (Holy Hell that feels weird typing now). My goal was to pursue His message relentlessly, leading a moral life, forgiving others, not being preachy, being merciful. I took all the positive reinforcement of the Bible, rejected the negative and led my life in that manner.

To be honest, it was euphoric. I "saw" Jesus in the poor I helped. I "saw" Jesus in the people who wronged me. When I learned of Humanism, I realized that I don't need to "see" or "feel" Jesus in anything in order to be a moral person. In fact, Jesus is highly irrelevant when it comes to morality. The whole "experience" became largely empty.

So thus, I counter that you may one day arrive at the realization your experiences weren't what you initially thought they were.

It's interesting what you consider to be a mystical experience. But where's the mystery?

 

[Vile Atheist]

You're not off topic, but what you describe isn't what I was referring to. I'm talking about the trance states studied by neurotheology, not just nice feelings accompanying religiosity.

Does that help, or would you like more information?

It does clear up what you mean by "experience".

And no, I've never been in a trance-like state before, unless you count my relentless insomnia.

I see where you are going with the neurotheology. But I just don't see a point in it. I guess I'm just having trouble visualizing what exactly is the motive behind your beliefs. It seems like to me, from what you've told me of your beliefs, you may as well be an atheist.

 

[Storm]

It does clear up what you mean by "experience".

Yeah, I really wish there was more accurate terminology....

I see where you are going with the neurotheology. But I just don't see a point in it.

In this context, I'm just saying it's a piece of the puzzle.

I guess I'm just having trouble visualizing what exactly is the motive behind your beliefs.

Well, when I was quite young I had an intense and transformative theophany (spontaneous trance state). I know, on a primal, totally unscientific level, that that was God, and I've been obsessed with figuring out what that means ever since.

It seems like to me, from what you've told me of your beliefs, you may as well be an atheist.

LOL! Far from it.