fantôme profane;1219476 said:
I just realized something. Aren’t you self selecting for the kind of answer you want? You are saying that people who have these kind of visions “just know immediately, certainly, that it is god”. But how are you defining “these kind of visions"? It seems to me that you are defining “these kind of visions” as being the ones were people “just know”. Isn’t that circular? Isn’t just the same as saying that people who have these kind of visions have these kind of visions, and that people who just know immediately that it is “God” will just know immediately that it is “God”.
I'm not sure what you think a circular argument is - or maybe you misunderstand my reasoning. You're right that I'm making criteria for inclusion - but that doesn't necessarily make the poll circular.
For instance, I'm not defining visions of god as a dream, god seen in a dream. I am defining it as a self-evident, waking experience that is not induced by chemicals or extreme circumstances. You're right that in a sense I'm predefining what I will find based on assumptions. That is a problem in all criteria for inclusion. But unfortunately, criteria for inclusion are necessary. So you're right, like all investigations of the world, this one is partially circular. I appreciate you pointing that out because it helps me know my own research better.
Before you respond to this part, please read the reason I included this criterion, which is in the next paragraph.
I am not defining it that way to be arbitrary - I define it that way because I believe self-labeling is one of the elements of the experience itself. I will explain why below. But for now I want to point out that you're right that I'm neglecting some very interesting lines of investigation because of my assumptions. You're bringing up interesting questions that I can't investigate now but I would love it if you would.
One thing before I continue - I'm not trying to claim this is the perfect investigation. Most investigations of the world partially use circular reasoning. That is very much the norm in science. As much as we would like, as Newton tried to do, to list all our assumptions at the beginning and reason from there, philosophers of science have, for the past century, been rejecting that as a possibility. All investigations are partially circular. They are based on the millions and millions of assumptions we make in every day life. Those assumptions make language possible, for instance.
So I think that pointing out that my investigation is flawed is a valid thing to do. I also think I'm ok with that, unless you find a flaw that is really, actually a fundamental flaw. You may believe that you have. Below I will explain a very large problem that I'm having that I believe forced me into an imperfect method of investigation. If you can find a better way, that would be truly awesome.
If someone were to say to you that they had one of these kind of visions but did not immediately recognize it as “God” would you not just say that it is not the same kind of vision?
I hear the problem you're raising. Maybe people experience god but may not label it that way. You're absolutely right. That actually happens every single day.
In other words, by asking non-theists (who will interpret experience in a non-theistic way) and asking them if they interpret experience in a theistic way, that seems circular. And from a non-theistic perspective, I can understand why it seems that way. And perhaps I cannot convince you or doppelganger that it's not. You should both believe what you think is right.
I'd like to make one thing clear before we go on. I don't think I am having this problem with you, DG, or UV. I just want to make sure you understand this though. If any of you are here to "debate" with me, I'm not interested. Please just let me know and I won't respond to your posts any further. I'm interested in solutions, research, and in action. I would love it if this discussion led to a better experiment - or to YOU doing a different experiment than I'm doing.
Here's the problem I see - I would love it if you could think of a solution for me. Again, I'm not interested in being right or wrong - I'm interested in learning and doing the best research possible.
Let's look at the world from a pantheistic point of view. For the pantheists, everything is god. The computer screen you're looking at, that's god. Your hands that are typing is god, your consciousness, part of god. So with this definition, people have "visions of god" all the time. If you neglect to define a vision of god as self-labeling or a "recognition", it's completely meaningless. Every day, people are constantly having a "vision of god" - they just "don't recognize" it's a vision of god.
If I take away the self-identifying bit, there is no criteria for inclusion. Every single experience we have, every day, without any exceptions, would be fair game. Then this whole poll tells you didely squat. (PS that would be circular reasoning. We ask people if they have visions of god every day, they say yes or no. And whatever they say, we say well they are seeing a vision of god every day they just don't recognize it. We would prove our pantheistic assumptions.)
That's why a vision of god, for my purposes,
has to be self-identifying. It has to be a recognition. If you're just looking at your monitor, but you don't realize you're looking at god, for me, that has no meaning. Everybody does that. What does that mean? How is that interesting? From the pantheistic point of view, there has to be a recognition of god for it really to be a vision of god.
Also, I suspect you are putting too much weight on the visual aspect of the word vision. That is probably a result of my own carelessness. I'm learning what people need to know to understand. Let's look at this from a monotheistic point of view. Most visions of god have actually very little to do with what you would call sight or visual-like perception. Most monotheistic visions of god have more to do with feeling and noticing a presence. That presence is always there to be felt, all the time, for all of us. If you say "oh well I had a vision of god I just didn't recognize it," again, that is completely meaningless because most people, even theists, are doing that for most of the day, every single day.
In fact, one of the characteristics of the first vision of god that most people have is a realization that "duh, this is so obvious. It's been in front of my face for years." They connect the dots and realize all the time the perception had been right there, but they hadn't recognized it. So you're right, people are "seeing god" all the time. Part of that first "vision of god" is a recognition - both in the present and looking back into the past.
So can you think of any ways I can include experiences that don't include recognition - but still have this inquiry be meaningful? Thanks, I know you'll think of a solution.
Again, I am not claiming that god truly exists, but simply that, if you ask pretty much any person capable of having a vision of god, they will tell you that the experience is pretty much ever-present. A vision of god is really just a recognition. So the misunderstanding is very natural - it is partially carelessness on my part and partially the fact that this stuff is next-to-impossible to express to somebody who hasn't experienced it.
Keep in mind that Sunstone and I have both had visions of god, yet retain our nontheism. So you may believe I'm looking for something impossible or circular - but it is just rare.
The last thing I want to emphasize is that recognition is related to but different from interpretation. If I thought they were the same, I would agree that circular reasoning motivates this thread. But I've been trying to emphasize from the beginning, what I'm looking for is people who have an experience that they immediately and certainly recognize as "the perception people call as god", but retain their non-theistic interpretation of it.
I'm looking for people who recognize but do not accept.
doppelgänger;1219554 said:
Yes. That's the fundamental semantic problem with this whole inquiry (and the one on the other threads - "Purple Couch. .." and "A note that will pain atheists") that I've been pointing out for more than a year now.
I would love to have your help finding a solution to the problem I outline above (and I could say much more). I have replied to your post at purple couch - I thought I had answered the problem you saw. Let me know.
PS Was that an "I told you so"? I'm just teasing,
Love,
Chevalier Violet