A question for non-theists

[little_monkey]

Originally Posted by Chevalier Violet

As long as you predefine "evidence" as social, you're right, there is no evidence. And furthermore, as long as you make materialist and mechanistic assumptions, visions of god are just hallucinations. You are absolutely right on both counts. Moreover, you are reasonable to make such assumptions and see where they lead.

As you pointed out, many physical sciences, for mostly practical reasons, are based on these assumptions. I for one try a few different assumptions to see where those lead and what practical benefits we can find. Nobody ever said we had to make the same assumptions. FYI it is not an assumption of mine that god actually exists.

CV

By pointing out that evidence can be predefined as "social", you've raised the issue of what constitute evidence.

Let me take the case of a murder. Now it's possible that the detective working on the case that he might believe that my next-door neighbor has murdered his wife. But until he can provide convincing evidence, no judge/jury will convict my next-door neighbor. All the detective has might be construed as a hunch. It might inspire him, guide him in his investigation. But the day that he believes and wants everybody else to subscribe to his hunch, then he might raise a few highbrows. Perhaps, somebody in his circle might gently suggest that he either cools off or works at someting else. IOW, who would want to tolerate someone who constantly foister his views on others, just because of a hunch? People have a right to demand more than just a hunch.

[cheddarsox]

Originally Posted by Chevalier Violet

I'm confused by the word blind. To rephrase what you said, just because you see a mirage doesn't mean it's water. Doesn't mean you're blind right? Ok, so I'm just word nitpicky... I'm just trying to make sure I understand right.

What I mean is this. Maybe there is a supernatural realm out there and I don't have the mechanism to see it, the way blind people don't have a mechanism to interpret light as sight. It is possible that I don't experience these things because I am missing either the thing that senses them or a function in my brain to interpret them, thus rendering me spiritually "blind".

Originally Posted by Chevalier Violet

I hope you won't be offended that I don't see in your litany of very interesting experiences, any experience that strikes me right away as resembling a vision of god. Maybe that link will explain a bit why I think so, based of course on just words on a page and not enough information. CV

Well, I don't know what YOUR definition of 'god' is. If you are thinking of something specific, then I very well may not have had any experience with that specific thing, but I've had experiences that fit some people's idea of interaction with god.

Twice I heard an audible voice that, by the manner in which it spoke, and the circumstances in which it spoke, many people would have considered it to be god. I did see your list of what passed as a "vision", and I believe an audible voice met the criteria, but you are the only one who can decide that.

When I described those experiences to others, some said "yes, that's god all right" and others said it was probably a demon...so even among religious believers, there is not a consensus as to the source of the voice.

I saw Anubis and physically interacted with him. As far as gods go, he has a pretty distinctive appearance, so there was no doubt that it was him.

Many concepts of god don't have an "appearance" or image, you said sensing a presence fit the category. I've had that too. I seem to be unclear as to what passes muster and what doesn't.

Is there some way you can be more concrete with what you accept as a "vision"?

Originally Posted by Chevalier Violet

Ok, question for you: you said you're a pantheist (so not a non-theist), is this based on any of these mystical experiences? Just trying to find out more about what you've experienced.

I am a natural pantheist and it IS a non-theistic faith. There is no god, no being, no supernatural. The Universe (in it's totality) is the ultimate reality, but it is not 'god', and I don't interact with it like theists do with god.

Yes, my embracing my pantheism is the result of mystical experiences.

I was raised Catholic, and that is what I practiced as a child. But from the start, I had mystical pantheist experiences. I had no clue there were other religions or what they were about. I didn't know what I was experiencing was mystical or spiritual or anything, it was just what I knew. To me, religion, was Catholicism.

I didn't realize I was leading a "double life" lol.

Because what Catholicism taught did not match my personal experience, I came to the conclusion (when I was about 7 or 8) that it was like fairy tales or mythology, a set of useful teachings but not literally true. When I mentioned that to my mother, I was shocked at her reaction. I was shocked that she actually believed the stuff in a literal way, when it was so clear to me, that it was metaphorical.

I recall thinking, as a young child, when someone died, that the grown ups used the story about heaven, and us being able to see the people again someday in an effort to calm the children. I never imagined they believed it.

Still, I saw value in practicing religion, and Catholicism has lots of mystics, so there were things I could relate to. But it bugged me that I could not fit my experience of life into that framework.

Anyway, many years later...being very frustrated with having tried to make many varieties of Christianity "work", frustrated with life, I said "I'm done with it. THIS is all there is."

And then I had a mystical experience that allowed me to put down metaphorical faiths and live what I had known and believed my entire life. A few years down the line, I discovered that what I believed is called pantheism and that there are lots of us out here.

Originally Posted by Chevalier Violet

Again, very interesting point. I've never compared god's complexity with an imaginary character. I'll have to think about that one. I believe my interactions with god have been probably less complex, but very different. I'll have to think about it: with the help of my trusty new imaginary pal. I wonder what his name will be

CV

I had a friend who went through AA. She was a bitter atheist (not saying all are, but she was) and had a big issue with the idea of a higher power. But her sponsor assured her her higher power didn't have to be the Christian god, so she made up her own deity, assigned traits to it and prayed to it...and said it did her a lot of good. Shocked the pants off her. She assumed that because one concept of god had failed her, that all concepts were equally useless, but discovered that is not the case.

I never tried that "experiment" because I'm pretty cool with the Universe as ultimate reality, but based on my experience with imaginary friends, and powerful attachments to some inanimate objects, I think I can understand the general idea.

[cheddarsox]

CV,

I read the link you provided...interesting conundrum.

More interesting as a non-theist...who lives in a mostly theist world. I know what most people mean when they say someone saw or heard god, and I guess that is what I was addressing in earlier posts, things which fit the cultural criteria of a "vision" or "experience" of god.

But as a Natural Pantheist, who has no god...and then reading what YOU are seeking experiences on...things get more confusing.

In your link, you say that for pantheists everything is god. That is true for some pantheists, but in my experience, it is not the norm.

Many pantheists (I was tempted to say most, but I don't have statistics, so I'll play it safe) don't even use the term god. It's too loaded, and in many cultures is understood to be a being and that doesn't fit at all what we believe and experience, so we jettisoned the term.

We have not yet come up with a common term for what we DO believe and experience, but again...many pans shy away from the term "presence" either, because it is so easily misunderstood to mean the presence of a being.

I never look at my computer screen and think "I'm looking at god", that is a way oversimplified presentation of my beliefs, and that is what causes a great deal of misunderstanding between people of varied faiths.

If I allow such a simplification to stand, unchallenged, then I invite people to continue to misunderstand my faith, so I don't challenge to be a pain in the a**, I challenge because I want people to see that there are other ways of conceptualizing.

Many people simply think pantheism is substituting "Universe" everywhere they would use "god" in their own religion, and it is nothing like that, it is a completely different understanding and relationship, a thing of it's own.

Can I explain it, no, not easily, that is where the experience part comes in. I've been a practicing pantheist for more than 15 years and it is a continually deepening spirituality and understanding of my relationship to self, others and the Universe.

So, is my computer screen god, no, it IS a part of the Universe which is ultimate reality. It is part of a system, and I am a part of it too. We are not the same, but we interact together according to an order that is beyond us.

The computer screen is part of ultimate reality. That may not seem profound, but to me, it is. Pantheism is about becoming aware of complex relationships. Some major differences between it and other faiths is the basic perspective of humanity's role in things. Many faiths do start from an unspoken standpoint that humanity is the reason for the existence of the Universe. Pantheism does not.

The Universe is.

not, the Universe is a stage for humanity.

very different understandings.

I exist because the Universe exists, it doesn't exist because of me.

Every time I experience the Universe with that understanding, I am experiencing something mystical. The more years and the more intention with which I practice my faith, the more often I experience the "truth" of things...the more often I experience myself and everything around me as part of an ultimate reality.

so, if what you are seeking is experiences of recognition, that is what passes for a pantheist's experience of such.

The term god won't find it's way in, because it doesn't exist. I don't see god, or hear god, or smell god. I experience myself as part of the energy go round. God is too small a concept to have any place in things. It is a scribble cramped into the corner of an immense canvas of reality. It's a concept that needs to be served, in a reality that needs nothing.

Some times, people ask me don't I miss all the things I had when I practiced a "normal" religion. I say no, I gave up god and gained the universe. I had a narrow, self centered focus, and now...wow! It's not about me, it's not about me living forever, or getting saved, or even about humanity, it's about something so much beyond that.

And I am not just comparing it to monotheistic faiths. Many religions are based on the assumption that it's all about humanity.

Pantheism is very very different. So I guess our mystical experiences will be very different as well.

cheddarsox

[Chevalier Violet]

Originally Posted by cheddarsox

CV,

I read the link you provided...interesting conundrum.

More interesting as a non-theist...who lives in a mostly theist world. I know what most people mean when they say someone saw or heard god, and I guess that is what I was addressing in earlier posts, things which fit the cultural criteria of a "vision" or "experience" of god.

But as a Natural Pantheist, who has no god...and then reading what YOU are seeking experiences on...things get more confusing.

In your link, you say that for pantheists everything is god. That is true for some pantheists, but in my experience, it is not the norm.

Many pantheists (I was tempted to say most, but I don't have statistics, so I'll play it safe) don't even use the term god. It's too loaded, and in many cultures is understood to be a being and that doesn't fit at all what we believe and experience, so we jettisoned the term.

We have not yet come up with a common term for what we DO believe and experience, but again...many pans shy away from the term "presence" either, because it is so easily misunderstood to mean the presence of a being.

I never look at my computer screen and think "I'm looking at god", that is a way oversimplified presentation of my beliefs, and that is what causes a great deal of misunderstanding between people of varied faiths.

If I allow such a simplification to stand, unchallenged, then I invite people to continue to misunderstand my faith, so I don't challenge to be a pain in the a**, I challenge because I want people to see that there are other ways of conceptualizing.

Many people simply think pantheism is substituting "Universe" everywhere they would use "god" in their own religion, and it is nothing like that, it is a completely different understanding and relationship, a thing of it's own.

Can I explain it, no, not easily, that is where the experience part comes in. I've been a practicing pantheist for more than 15 years and it is a continually deepening spirituality and understanding of my relationship to self, others and the Universe.

So, is my computer screen god, no, it IS a part of the Universe which is ultimate reality. It is part of a system, and I am a part of it too. We are not the same, but we interact together according to an order that is beyond us.

The computer screen is part of ultimate reality. That may not seem profound, but to me, it is. Pantheism is about becoming aware of complex relationships. Some major differences between it and other faiths is the basic perspective of humanity's role in things. Many faiths do start from an unspoken standpoint that humanity is the reason for the existence of the Universe. Pantheism does not.

The Universe is.

not, the Universe is a stage for humanity.

very different understandings.

I exist because the Universe exists, it doesn't exist because of me.

Every time I experience the Universe with that understanding, I am experiencing something mystical. The more years and the more intention with which I practice my faith, the more often I experience the "truth" of things...the more often I experience myself and everything around me as part of an ultimate reality.

so, if what you are seeking is experiences of recognition, that is what passes for a pantheist's experience of such.

The term god won't find it's way in, because it doesn't exist. I don't see god, or hear god, or smell god. I experience myself as part of the energy go round. God is too small a concept to have any place in things. It is a scribble cramped into the corner of an immense canvas of reality. It's a concept that needs to be served, in a reality that needs nothing.

Some times, people ask me don't I miss all the things I had when I practiced a "normal" religion. I say no, I gave up god and gained the universe. I had a narrow, self centered focus, and now...wow! It's not about me, it's not about me living forever, or getting saved, or even about humanity, it's about something so much beyond that.

And I am not just comparing it to monotheistic faiths. Many religions are based on the assumption that it's all about humanity.

Pantheism is very very different. So I guess our mystical experiences will be very different as well.

cheddarsox

Cheddarsox - I don't have time right away to read and respond to both posts, but I will take the time this week to read and respond to everything. Just wanted to let you know that I forgot about the anubis thing, that definitely counts as a vision of god as far as I'm concerned. Also, if you heard voices and had the impression they came from god (like I mentioned in the link - but you're right, that it's a pretty interesting conundrum - for instance, not everyone hears voices. Though on the other hand, many theists agree that we are often in touch with god somehow or another through most of our lives without being aware of it).

From what little I skimmed I learned a good deal about naturalistic pantheism. This is the first I've heard of it, so please forgive my ignorance. I will read your post in its entirety later this week, and will do some reading on pantheism so that I can modify my language to better honor your beliefs and this use of the word pantheism I wasn't aware of.

Thanks so much for sharing your point of view with me, not to mention your interesting experiences.

Best wishes,
CV

[Chevalier Violet]

Originally Posted by little_monkey

By pointing out that evidence can be predefined as "social", you've raised the issue of what constitute evidence.

As you pointed out, I would not define evidence as necessarily social, although that is a type of evidence. I do believe in personal evidence - that is a form of evidence. That said, you are right to not be persuaded by another's personal evidence. That is exactly as it should be.

Let me take the case of a murder. Now it's possible that the detective working on the case that he might believe that my next-door neighbor has murdered his wife. But until he can provide convincing evidence, no judge/jury will convict my next-door neighbor. All the detective has might be construed as a hunch. It might inspire him, guide him in his investigation. But the day that he believes and wants everybody else to subscribe to his hunch, then he might raise a few highbrows. Perhaps, somebody in his circle might gently suggest that he either cools off or works at someting else. IOW, who would want to tolerate someone who constantly foister his views on others, just because of a hunch? People have a right to demand more than just a hunch.

That's a pretty good description of scientific intuition, actually.

We're miscommunicating about what I mean by social evidence (or social demonstrations of that evidence).

First, let's keep in mind that there is no such thing as evidence independent of a field of inquiry. Therefore, because different fields of inquiry study different things, what constitutes evidence is different in each.

A mechanical physicist needs extremely precise measurements as evidence, whereas the historian needs little more than a quote from a diary to justify some grand theories. We believe many, many historical things - for good reason - that wouldn't hold up in court, for instance, at all.

As you noticed, it's as if certain fields of inquiry won the lottery and others are just cursed with perpetual problems. Mechanical physicists have concrete socially-observable objects to play with. Those lucky punks, right? Historical events cannot be recreated at all. So we historians are stuck with diary voyeurism.

If you're like me and you are curious what this phenomenon many call "god" is all about, I get no evidence that is socially observable (at least it is seldom reported to have been socially observed). Two people cannot view it in the same way at the same time. In other words, there is little social evidence.

What I mean by social evidence is an object like an apple that can be viewed by multiple people at the same time. Another type of social demonstration is the persuasive essay or the mathematical proof.

Visions of god cannot be socially demonstrated. They are personal evidence, not social evidence. That is their nature. It makes them difficult to study and corroborate, but it is worth a try to skeptically investigate them.

But you are bang on correct to doubt that anyone will be able persuade you that god exists with words, those little ants walking across your computer screen.

If you're looking for arguments that would persuade other people, you're quite simply studying the wrong thing. Maybe law is more suited to that.

I've been arguing for quite a while that the only argument for or against god is the experience itself. Yet so few on this forum are practically-minded - that is, interested in expanding their own perception. The theists are probably worse than the non-theists on that point, actually, since many have all the answers they need. They seek little else.

In any case, arguing between people who have had and who haven't had a vision of god is generally a complete waste of time. The experience itself is beyond description for the haven't-had's anyway.

Does that make more sense what I mean by social evidence?

CV

[Chevalier Violet]

Originally Posted by cheddarsox

CV,

I read the link you provided...interesting conundrum.

More interesting as a non-theist...who lives in a mostly theist world. I know what most people mean when they say someone saw or heard god, and I guess that is what I was addressing in earlier posts, things which fit the cultural criteria of a "vision" or "experience" of god.

But as a Natural Pantheist, who has no god...and then reading what YOU are seeking experiences on...things get more confusing.

In your link, you say that for pantheists everything is god. That is true for some pantheists, but in my experience, it is not the norm.

Many pantheists (I was tempted to say most, but I don't have statistics, so I'll play it safe) don't even use the term god. It's too loaded, and in many cultures is understood to be a being and that doesn't fit at all what we believe and experience, so we jettisoned the term.

We have not yet come up with a common term for what we DO believe and experience, but again...many pans shy away from the term "presence" either, because it is so easily misunderstood to mean the presence of a being.

I never look at my computer screen and think "I'm looking at god", that is a way oversimplified presentation of my beliefs, and that is what causes a great deal of misunderstanding between people of varied faiths.

If I allow such a simplification to stand, unchallenged, then I invite people to continue to misunderstand my faith, so I don't challenge to be a pain in the a**, I challenge because I want people to see that there are other ways of conceptualizing.

Many people simply think pantheism is substituting "Universe" everywhere they would use "god" in their own religion, and it is nothing like that, it is a completely different understanding and relationship, a thing of it's own.

Can I explain it, no, not easily, that is where the experience part comes in. I've been a practicing pantheist for more than 15 years and it is a continually deepening spirituality and understanding of my relationship to self, others and the Universe.

So, is my computer screen god, no, it IS a part of the Universe which is ultimate reality. It is part of a system, and I am a part of it too. We are not the same, but we interact together according to an order that is beyond us.

The computer screen is part of ultimate reality. That may not seem profound, but to me, it is. Pantheism is about becoming aware of complex relationships. Some major differences between it and other faiths is the basic perspective of humanity's role in things. Many faiths do start from an unspoken standpoint that humanity is the reason for the existence of the Universe. Pantheism does not.

The Universe is.

not, the Universe is a stage for humanity.

very different understandings.

I exist because the Universe exists, it doesn't exist because of me.

Every time I experience the Universe with that understanding, I am experiencing something mystical. The more years and the more intention with which I practice my faith, the more often I experience the "truth" of things...the more often I experience myself and everything around me as part of an ultimate reality.

so, if what you are seeking is experiences of recognition, that is what passes for a pantheist's experience of such.

The term god won't find it's way in, because it doesn't exist. I don't see god, or hear god, or smell god. I experience myself as part of the energy go round. God is too small a concept to have any place in things. It is a scribble cramped into the corner of an immense canvas of reality. It's a concept that needs to be served, in a reality that needs nothing.

Some times, people ask me don't I miss all the things I had when I practiced a "normal" religion. I say no, I gave up god and gained the universe. I had a narrow, self centered focus, and now...wow! It's not about me, it's not about me living forever, or getting saved, or even about humanity, it's about something so much beyond that.

And I am not just comparing it to monotheistic faiths. Many religions are based on the assumption that it's all about humanity.

Pantheism is very very different. So I guess our mystical experiences will be very different as well.

cheddarsox

All right, after doing some research, I've concluded that by "pantheism" I meant classical pantheism. I hope you don't mind translating my remarks that way. You could probably substitute panentheism just as well. The main idea is that, unlike for naturalistic pantheism, god is the fabric of the universe. By this definition, we are looking at god all the time, but usually not realizing it. And by a vision of god, I do mean a recognition of god in the universe that is hard to describe.

Cheddarsox, I am now a fan of naturalistic pantheism. I like the phrase "feel-good atheism", but it is, I think, a far more beautiful humanism. Thanks for sharing and clarifying those points.

I'm not sure if my conundrum is any closer to finding a solution. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to experience a vision of god and not realize it. It seems like it should be possible, but I'm forced to confess that a vision of god is really more like a recognition.

CV

[little_monkey]

Originally Posted by Chevalier Violet

I've been arguing for quite a while that the only argument for or against god is the experience itself.

CV

This is another round-about-way to say that the investigation of God is scientifically off-limits.

A cynic would say that you are grasping at straws.

But more to the point, a legitimate question is: how do you know that what you experience is God, and not some chemical imbalance in your body, or some more other tangible explanation?

Secondly, if this investigation is off-limits -- iow, the only answer is: I know in my heart of heart that I've experienced God-- then with no means to support this claim, aren't you deceiving yourself?

[cheddarsox]

Originally Posted by little_monkey

But more to the point, a legitimate question is: how do you know that what you experience is God, and not some chemical imbalance in your body, or some more other tangible explanation?

Secondly, if this investigation is off-limits -- iow, the only answer is: I know in my heart of heart that I've experienced God-- then with no means to support this claim, aren't you deceiving yourself?

I think we first have to define the term "god"...because people use it in many different ways.

Example, a few weeks back we went to a Smashing Pumpkins concert. That morning my daughter posted in her blog, "Tonight, I am going to see God", referring to Billy Corgan. Now, she is under no dillusion that Billy is the creator of the Universe,or that he has supernatural powers, she was using that term for him because of the impact his art has had on her life personally.

To some people the experience of sublimity IS god, they don't assign other "powers" to it other than that, so, to them, it makes no difference if others feel or experience the same thing at the same time, etc. They are not delluded, they are simply using a different definition of god...ie, what they consider to be a Divine experience.

At that same concert, I had experiences of sublimity, of amazing connection, understanding and ineffable joy, the sort of things one might expect in an encounter with God/a god. It was indistiguishable, to me, from any other "holy" experience I've ever had.

Sometimes non religious types don't understand that religious types do use the term god in many ways, and actually understand the difference in meaning. Not everyone who says they've experienced god, thinks they creator and they sat down for a chat. And the same confusion occurs between people of different religious belief systems, they often think that people of another faith understand "god" in the same way they do.

So, in any discussion, it's a good idea to agree on just what the term "god" represents for the duration of the discussion.

I do think that the experience of god has to do with chemicals in the body, as do all our experiences, but an inbalance? Just a differently seasoned soup than the one I experience in traffic on the way home from work, but perfectly natural. Humans have the ability to have those types of experiences as the result of evolution. Some sense they come from without, others believe they come from within, I expect that it's a mixture of outside stimuli and and internal response, but not pathologic or unbalanced.

It is on the same spectrum as all our other experiences. Maybe more like falling in love than doing the dishes, but not "way out there". People form strong attachments and have powerful reactions to all sorts of things, based on personal chemistry and experience. If I say I am in love with my husband, does it make sense to argue that I am not, that I am deluded, because I can't find seven other people who get the same chemical reaction as I do when he walks into a room?

No, I am in love with my husband, it's a personal thing.

when people experience god, it's a personal thing, but just as true. When they start claiming that everyone else needs to as well....then it's jumped the shark.