Experiencing God

[sojourner]

I would be grateful if you would explain the nature of a theological claim.

A theological claim is more metaphorical and intuitive in nature. Theological claims are designed to help us make meaning of our life experiences, not to explain them or define them.

 

[Cephus]

It's also a religious hermeneutic. Not all conservatives are fundamentalists.

A lot of people try to pretend that all political conservatives are religious fundamentalists, it's important to head that off immediately. Lots of conservatives are atheists.

Interesting, but not cogent to my comment.

Why not? You said that clergy were a particular thing, I pointed out clergy that were not that thing. So while you can claim that some clergy are the way you described, certainly not all are.

I disagree. the only point at which I stop welcoming disagreement is when the disagreement isn't based in fact or reason.

But you believe things that are not based in fact or reason, wo how can that be?

For many liberals, it's simply not a question of "right" or "wrong."

Maybe better words might be "correct" and "incorrect" or "factually true" or "not factually true". That's really all I care about.

Xy doesn't make factual claims about the real world. It does make theological claims and mythological claims.

Of course it does. At the core, it claims that there's an objectively real God that interacts with the real world. That is a factual claim about the real world. It claims that there was a Jesus that rose from the dead. That is a factual claim about the real world. Unless you are claiming that there is no real God and there was no real Jesus, your statement is simply false.

How can one "back up" a mythic concept?

If you cannot back up a mythic concept. what rational reason do you have for believing in in the first place?

Of course it is. It's a theological claim,whose hermeneutic isn't based in empirical evidence.

Then what is it based on? Wishful thinking? Where do you get the information for your beliefs? How do you objectively test them? How do you determine if they are factually true or not? Or is it all just a made up delusion?

I've had people try it with me -- including you. It happens when people don't understand the nature of a theological claim, and conflate a theological proposition with an ontological argument.

That's because your ideas of a theological claim simply do not hold up when objectively examined. Your claims are no more reasonable or rational than people who claim that Bigfoot exists. Less so because you don't even have footprints.

You're correct, of course. Where we run into problems is (as I stated above), when theological claims are conflated with empirical fact.

But you keep coming back to believing something for which you can demonstrate no rational reason whatsoever. Just because you want something to be true, that doesn't make it so. Just because you wish it was true, that doesn't make it so. So how do you tell the difference between something you've just invented out of whole cloth and something that is actually true? You seem to have no explanation for that.

 

[Cephus]

A theological claim is more metaphorical and intuitive in nature. Theological claims are designed to help us make meaning of our life experiences, not to explain them or define them.

But you're not making any meaning of life experiences, you're just inventing meaning out of whole cloth. You can't show that the meaning you are making has any actual value, beyond making you feel good.

 

[sojourner]

Why not? You said that clergy were a particular thing, I pointed out clergy that were not that thing.

No, I didn't say they were a "thing." I said that we see who's serious and who's not.

So while you can claim that some clergy are the way you described, certainly not all are.

Doesn't make any difference. Part of the job of clergy is to notice those things. We all do it to a greater or lesser degree.

But you believe things that are not based in fact or reason, wo how can that be?

Because my beliefs don't supplant reality.

Maybe better words might be "correct" and "incorrect" or "factually true" or "not factually true". That's really all I care about.

No, it's really not about any of that. You only care about facts. Others of us care about what meaning can be made, that isn't necessarily of a "factual" nature, because it resides more in the intuitive and the creative aspects of human cognition.

Of course it does.

No. It doesn't. Some people within the religion may do those things, but not the theological constructions, themselves.

At the core, it claims that there's an objectively real God that interacts with the real world.

No it doesn't. It makes a theological claim about the cosmos/world, not a factual claim.

That is a factual claim about the real world.

No it's not. It's a theological claim.

It claims that there was a Jesus that rose from the dead.

The existence of Jesus is a factual/historical claim. The resurrection is a theological claim.

Unless you are claiming that there is no real God and there was no real Jesus, your statement is simply false.

I'm not making any sort of factual claim, other than my belief from the presented evidence, that a man named "Jesus" existed, and that he was some sort of religious figure.

If you cannot back up a mythic concept. what rational reason do you have for believing in in the first place?

Because employing such myths/avatars provides a vehicle for making meaning.

Then what is it based on? Wishful thinking?

Cultural/religious paradigms.

Where do you get the information for your beliefs?

From the community in which I was nurtured.

How do you objectively test them?

I test them mostly subjectively, because they are within the realm of the subjective. My objective testing is only to make sure they don't supplant reality. What works for me, I keep. What doesn't work, I discard.

How do you determine if they are factually true or not?

They're not "factually true." They are subjectively true, in that they provide creative and intuitive vehicles for making meaning of reality.

Or is it all just a made up delusion?

No, it's not "made up." Nor is it "delusional." The use of metaphor that makes sense to the community isn't "made up," although it is creative. The use of those metaphors isn't "delusional," if they help us to make meaning of the world.

That's because your ideas of a theological claim simply do not hold up when objectively examined.

They don't have to. Do dreams hold up to "objective examination?" Do philosophical stances hold up to "objective examination?" Do ethical struggles stand up to "objective examination?" No.

Your claims are no more reasonable or rational than people who claim that Bigfoot exists.

Of course they are, because I'm not making an ontological argument for God. That's what you're confused about. You think I'm arguing that "God exists." I'm not arguing that. At all.

Less so because you don't even have footprints.

I have the footprints of the sense I have of the world.

But you keep coming back to believing something for which you can demonstrate no rational reason whatsoever.

What do you mean by "belief?" Because I get the idea that what you mean by "belief" is that I believe "God exists." I don't.

Just because you want something to be true, that doesn't make it so.

I don't "want it to be true." But I find it to be true.

So how do you tell the difference between something you've just invented out of whole cloth and something that is actually true?

Because what is true resonates with the real world. What is invention doesn't.

You seem to have no explanation for that.

I have explained it -- you simply haven't been listening. Religious beliefs, and the religious figures (such as Christ and God) are forms and avatars that provide language for personal and shared experiences for which there is no language. That's all. Providing language to talk about the experiences provides meaning for the experiences.
"God," for me, is simply an avatar, if you will, that provides meaning for existence, love, relationship, and community. "Christ," for me, is an avatar for the fullness of humanity. I'm not saying that God is a being in a white robe with a long beard. I'm not saying that there's a being "in heaven." But seeing existence and humanity and our interrelatedness in those terms helps me to make deeper meaning of those things.

 

[sojourner]

But you're not making any meaning of life experiences, you're just inventing meaning out of whole cloth. You can't show that the meaning you are making has any actual value, beyond making you feel good.

What "value" should any meaning have? The value in meaning is if it fosters an integrative understanding for the individual or group seeking meaning. What's "whole cloth" about existence? Or relationships? Or love?

 

[Looncall]

A theological claim is more metaphorical and intuitive in nature. Theological claims are designed to help us make meaning of our life experiences, not to explain them or define them.

So, nothing to do with matters of fact. That's what I have thought for a long time.

However, you seem to be using a different notion of the word "theological" than I have encountered before. Please explain.

 

[sojourner]

So, nothing to do with matters of fact. That's what I have thought for a long time.

No, not nothing to do with fact. Theology does take under consideration the real world around us, It simply works on a different plane than "fact-finding." It works in the realm of "meaning-making" of those facts.

However, you seem to be using a different notion of the word "theological" than I have encountered before. Please explain.

Theology is simply "God-talk." I happen to work more in the realm of constructive theology, which is an ongoing construction of theological thought, open to interaction with other disciplines, including the social and natural sciences. It arises out of the systematic discussions of theology proper, soteriology, christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.

 

[Milton Platt]

It is the reason we rarely share our experiences with atheists.

The reason you do not share them with people who demand a reasonable level of evidence is because they have pointed out to you repeatedly that a subjective, unfalsifiable, untestable "personal experience" counts as evidence only to the person who had it at best. And there is actually no way even for that person to verify that it represents what they think it did. When you add to that the fact that adherents of other religions claim the same personal experiences with their respective gods, the claim becomes useless.

 

[sojourner]

The reason you do not share them with people who demand a reasonable level of evidence is because they have pointed out to you repeatedly that a subjective, unfalsifiable, untestable "personal experience" counts as evidence only to the person who had it at best. And there is actually no way even for that person to verify that it represents what they think it did. When you add to that the fact that adherents of other religions claim the same personal experiences with their respective gods, the claim becomes useless.

No, the claim doesn't at all become "useless." The very fact that many people of different backgrounds have similar experiences bolsters the supposition that these experiences are, in fact, real experiences. They're just called by different names and serviced by different religious myths.

 

[Looncall]

No, the claim doesn't at all become "useless." The very fact that many people of different backgrounds have similar experiences bolsters the supposition that these experiences are, in fact, real experiences. They're just called by different names and serviced by different religious myths.

Or, given that we are all the same species, it might just mean that we are all subject to the same quirks and misfirings of our psychology. More is needed to establish that these experiences access anything external and real.

 

[sojourner]

Or, given that we are all the same species, it might just mean that we are all subject to the same quirks and misfirings of our psychology. More is needed to establish that these experiences access anything external and real.

They don't access anything external. They access the internal.

 

[Looncall]

They don't access anything external. They access the internal.

So it is just in their heads, then. No gods, then. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[sojourner]

So it is just in their heads, then. No gods, then. Thanks for clarifying.

"Just in their heads" implies "not real." The experience is real. It's simply an interior, rather than exterior experience, just as, say, an emotional experience (which is real, but not external).

"No gods" in the manner of some existent being. But since I'm making no ontological argument, your point here is moot.

 

[Cephus]

Because my beliefs don't supplant reality.

But they don't necessarily represent reality either.

No, it's really not about any of that. You only care about facts. Others of us care about what meaning can be made, that isn't necessarily of a "factual" nature, because it resides more in the intuitive and the creative aspects of human cognition.

Yes, there are certainly people out there who don't give a damn about reality. There are plenty of people who only care about emotional comfort and feeling happy. I don't respect those people one bit.

No. It doesn't. Some people within the religion may do those things, but not the theological constructions, themselves.

Then maybe you ought to describe what you mean by "theological construction" because I'm not seeing a difference.

The existence of Jesus is a factual/historical claim. The resurrection is a theological claim.

It is? Where's your objective evidence? There's a lot of disagreement on this one.

I'm not making any sort of factual claim, other than my belief from the presented evidence, that a man named "Jesus" existed, and that he was some sort of religious figure.

There are lots of people named Jesus. Heck, one of my gardners is named Jesus. I actually named a puppy Jesus way back when I was young and religiously incredulous. So what? The evidence for the existence of Jesus only comes from one book of mythology and there is no way to verify any of the content, we have no independent eyewitness accounts, even where we'd expect them, even where they ought to be. We certainly have no accounts of the miracles, making Jesus, at best, if he ever lived at all, a wholly human preacher with no magical powers and no direct connection to any gods. That means that any such belief is unsupported and thus irrational. It's like saying you believe in unicorns. I saw a video on YouTube that purportedly shows a unicorn. It's probably a horse with something strapped to its head, but the camera is so shaky you can never get a really good look. But even if it was real, even if it was a horse with a horn, that doesn't prove that it's a unicorn or that it has any of the magical properties that unicorns are purported to have.

Because employing such myths/avatars provides a vehicle for making meaning.

But why have this "meaning" if it doesn't correspond to reality? Is it just for emotional comfort?

From the community in which I was nurtured.

Which doesn't make it true.

I test them mostly subjectively, because they are within the realm of the subjective. My objective testing is only to make sure they don't supplant reality. What works for me, I keep. What doesn't work, I discard.

But by definition, they all supplant reality if they are not demonstrable in reality.

They're not "factually true." They are subjectively true, in that they provide creative and intuitive vehicles for making meaning of reality.

"Truth" is not the same as fact and truth isn't necessarily true.

No, it's not "made up." Nor is it "delusional." The use of metaphor that makes sense to the community isn't "made up," although it is creative. The use of those metaphors isn't "delusional," if they help us to make meaning of the world.

Of course it's made up. You might not have made it up yourself, but someone, somewhere, most likely collectively over a period of time, came up with the idea. Are you suggesting that people actually had direct and demonstrable experiences with these things that they believed? Or did they just make up stories to explain things they didn't understand? All gods, so far as we can tell, are just invented. The same goes for leprechauns and unicorns and fairies and demons and all the rest. It's all made up out of whole cloth by ignorant people who had no clue how the world around them worked. That's not the case today. There has never been a single event that has ever been studied and the answer turned out to be "God". Not one.

They don't have to. Do dreams hold up to "objective examination?" Do philosophical stances hold up to "objective examination?" Do ethical struggles stand up to "objective examination?" No.

If someone is claiming their dreams are representative of objective reality, yes, they would have to. Dreams have been studied exhaustively and nobody has ever found a shred of evidence that they are more than movies that go on in our heads and have no further objective meaning. And yes, philosophical stances that seek to make claims about the real world do need to stand up to objective examination. There are lots of theists who, failing to present any empirical evidence for their claims, turn to philosophical arguments because they think they're no longer on the hook for making unjustified claims. But when you take a vague philosophical claim and pretend that gives you license to hop, skip and jump to an unsupported claim about your particular god, that's not acceptable. And ethical struggles? Maybe. Depends on the exact struggle and the exact claims being made.

Of course they are, because I'm not making an ontological argument for God. That's what you're confused about. You think I'm arguing that "God exists." I'm not arguing that. At all.

By believing it is true at all, you are inherently making that claim, unless you are saying that you know that your god isn't real, but you believe in it anyhow, you are still making an inherent claim. And nobody sane believes that way. Belief is not subject to the will, you can't just decide to believe something, you have to be convinced somehow and if you are convinced, you are stating that you believe the proposition is true.

I have the footprints of the sense I have of the world.

But the world doesn't prove the god. We have natural explanations for pretty much everything and at no point does it look like any supernatural entities were involved. What you're really pulling here is the argument from ignorance. You don't understand it, therefore God. It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

What do you mean by "belief?" Because I get the idea that what you mean by "belief" is that I believe "God exists." I don't.

You certainly want Jesus to be true, you've already said that. You haven't said enough about your beliefs, on purpose, I suspect, to be able to say much more.

I don't "want it to be true." But I find it to be true.

No, if you found it to be true, you could present the evidence that convinced you for outside evaluation. Scientists find things to be true, then it goes through the peer-review process to evaluate those claims. Religion doesn't do that.

I have explained it -- you simply haven't been listening. Religious beliefs, and the religious figures (such as Christ and God) are forms and avatars that provide language for personal and shared experiences for which there is no language. That's all. Providing language to talk about the experiences provides meaning for the experiences.
"God," for me, is simply an avatar, if you will, that provides meaning for existence, love, relationship, and community. "Christ," for me, is an avatar for the fullness of humanity. I'm not saying that God is a being in a white robe with a long beard. I'm not saying that there's a being "in heaven." But seeing existence and humanity and our interrelatedness in those terms helps me to make deeper meaning of those things.

So they're imaginary placeholders for ideas that you want to hold. You know that you are in the tiny minority of people when it comes to your position on religion, right? Most people really do believe that all of these things are actually real.

 

[Cephus]

"Just in their heads" implies "not real." The experience is real. It's simply an interior, rather than exterior experience, just as, say, an emotional experience (which is real, but not external).

"No gods" in the manner of some existent being. But since I'm making no ontological argument, your point here is moot.

The subjective interpretations of the experiences are real. Whether or not the experiences happened as they interpret them, that's another matter.

 

[sojourner]

But they don't necessarily represent reality either.

They're not designed to do that. They;'re designed to bring meaning to reality.

Yes, there are certainly people out there who don't give a damn about reality.

No, I didn't say I "didn't give a damn about reality." I said that meaning isn't necessarily of a factual nature.

There are plenty of people who only care about emotional comfort and feeling happy.

I'm sure there are, but those people aren't necessarily cogent to the discussion.

Then maybe you ought to describe what you mean by "theological construction" because I'm not seeing a difference.

A theological construction is simply a way of talking about God. In constructive theology, knowledge from other disciplines, including the social and natural sciences are brought into the discussion. Of its own, a theological construction is fairly neutral.

It is? Where's your objective evidence? There's a lot of disagreement on this one.

The evidence for the existence of Jesus only comes from one book of mythology and there is no way to verify any of the content, we have no independent eyewitness accounts, even where we'd expect them, even where they ought to be.

The evidence comes from several texts -- not "one book." There's no way to verify any of the content of any ancient text portraying any ancient figure. But the texts are such that they are histories, not mythologies. Histories generally don't make up characters out of whole cloth.

We certainly have no accounts of the miracles, making Jesus, at best, if he ever lived at all, a wholly human preacher with no magical powers and no direct connection to any gods. That means that any such belief is unsupported and thus irrational. It's like saying you believe in unicorns

Did I purport to make a factual claim about any of that? No. I said that I made a factual claim about the existence of a man called Jesus who was a religious leader.

But why have this "meaning" if it doesn't correspond to reality?

It does correspond to reality, because it seeks to make sense of the real world.

Which doesn't make it true.

It's not a matter of "true" in the sense of "factual." Remember: we're not making ontological claims here.

But by definition, they all supplant reality if they are not demonstrable in reality.

Not true. Because they'e not making ontological or factual claims -- they're making theological claims.

Of course it's made up. You might not have made it up yourself, but someone, somewhere, most likely collectively over a period of time, came up with the idea. Are you suggesting that people actually had direct and demonstrable experiences with these things that they believed? Or did they just make up stories to explain things they didn't understand? All gods, so far as we can tell, are just invented. The same goes for leprechauns and unicorns and fairies and demons and all the rest. It's all made up out of whole cloth by ignorant people who had no clue how the world around them worked. That's not the case today. There has never been a single event that has ever been studied and the answer turned out to be "God". Not one.

You're still arguing against an ontological claim. We're making no such claim. There's a difference between something that's "made up" and something that's created to to fill an intuitive need about our experiences. You can't just lump leprechauns in with God. For one, leprechauns are put forward as existent beings. That's not the argument we're making for God. How many times must I explain this to you?

If someone is claiming their dreams are representative of objective reality, yes, they would have to.

No they wouldn't. They would have to if they claimed their dreams were reality. But representations don't have to hold up to objective examination.

And yes, philosophical stances that seek to make claims about the real world do need to stand up to objective examination.

And the fact claims of religions are, likewise, examined objectively. But theological claims, not being objective in any way (other than, say, love as a desirable trait, or hope as a desirable trait) simply aren't subject to objective examination, since the claims aren't particularly ontological claims.

By believing it is true at all, you are inherently making that claim

The only fact claim is that it makes meaning for me and for others. Look at it this way: if a man named George signs all his documents "George," but everyone calls him "Lucky," he can make the claim that his nickname is "Lucky," even though there's not a shred of objective evidence that that's the case. It's not his name, but it's what he's called. For me, "God" is the same sort of proposition. "God" is what I (and others) call "existence," or "being," itself. It needs no "objective verification."

unless you are saying that you know that your god isn't real, but you believe in it anyhow, you are still making an inherent claim.

I didn't say "God isn't real." I said "God isn't an existent being." God is as real as the universe, just as "Lucky" is a real nickname for George.

Belief is not subject to the will, you can't just decide to believe something, you have to be convinced somehow and if you are convinced, you are stating that you believe the proposition is true.

The meaning that I have for my myself and the world around me is true for me.

But the world doesn't prove the god.

My sense of the world does.

We have natural explanations for pretty much everything and at no point does it look like any supernatural entities were involved.

When did I ever claim that "supernatural entities were involved"??? How many times have I said that God isn't an existent being? How many? Why do you keep arguing a non-existent point??

What you're really pulling here is the argument from ignorance. You don't understand it, therefore God. It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

Nope. Ignorance isn't the impetus. I understand "it" as well as the next person. It may mean something different to me, or have different significance. But I understand it.

You certainly want Jesus to be true, you've already said that.

No, I said that I was making a fact claim about his existence in history.

You haven't said enough about your beliefs, on purpose, I suspect, to be able to say much more.

I've laid it out for you till I'm blue in the face. I can't help it if you won't see it.

No, if you found it to be true, you could present the evidence that convinced you for outside evaluation. Scientists find things to be true, then it goes through the peer-review process to evaluate those claims. Religion doesn't do that.

Truth isn't always a fact claim or an ontological claim. Sometimes, truth is a theological, ethical, or emotional claim.

So they're imaginary placeholders for ideas that you want to hold.

Kind of. That's a little simplistic. They're imaginative placeholders. They're placeholders that mean something to me. They not like algebraic variables.

You know that you are in the tiny minority of people when it comes to your position on religion, right?

There are more of us than you know.

 

[sojourner]

The subjective interpretations of the experiences are real. Whether or not the experiences happened as they interpret them, that's another matter.

It's all interpretation in interior work.

 

[sojourner]

So they're imaginary placeholders for ideas that you want to hold. You know that you are in the tiny minority of people when it comes to your position on religion, right?

Here's a quote that Windwalker has on his signature line:
"A mystic is not one who sees God as an object, but is immersed in God as an atmosphere.
~Ken Wilber"
I'm not the only person who doesn't imagine God as an existent being. This is a great way to put it. For me, God is the "cloud of all existence." We live, we have being. What meaning can we make of that? In what way is our existence special? In what way is existence, itself, special? I imagine the existent principle as "God." The universe is God's physical body. We are all interconnected parts of that universe. So, God is as imminent as the very air I breathe. Each breath I take is life. It's not something that needs to be examined objectively -- indeed, cannot be examined objectively. But it has meaning that defines how I make sense of myself and others in the world. It makes a difference in how I treat others and the world. And that meaning cannot be "proven" to be "false," because that meaning is true for me.

 

[Cephus]

It's all interpretation in interior work.

Which again, doesn't make any of it true.

 

[Cephus]

A theological construction is simply a way of talking about God. In constructive theology, knowledge from other disciplines, including the social and natural sciences are brought into the discussion. Of its own, a theological construction is fairly neutral.

A god which you have no good reason to think actually exists. You can no more talk about God than you can talk about Harry Potter, except in terms of the stories from which you draw your ideas.

The evidence comes from several texts -- not "one book." There's no way to verify any of the content of any ancient text portraying any ancient figure. But the texts are such that they are histories, not mythologies. Histories generally don't make up characters out of whole cloth.

It comes from four anonymous sources, clearly not from eyewitnesses, which directly contradict each other. Ancient histories were never just histories, there are tons of examples of historians breaking into descriptions of gods and dragons and monsters in the middle of their supposed historical narratives. That's why modern historians look for multiple independent sources that agree on the details and why so much of ancient historical lore is simply unreliable. History, to ancient people, wasn't a separate and distinct discipline, it was a part of mythmaking and storytelling.

Did I purport to make a factual claim about any of that? No. I said that I made a factual claim about the existence of a man called Jesus who was a religious leader.

One that you can't back up. You're welcome to believe it, I just don't think you can prove it.

You're still arguing against an ontological claim. We're making no such claim. There's a difference between something that's "made up" and something that's created to to fill an intuitive need about our experiences. You can't just lump leprechauns in with God. For one, leprechauns are put forward as existent beings. That's not the argument we're making for God. How many times must I explain this to you?

Are you saying that God isn't an existent being? Note, you didn't say a physical being, you said an existent being. So does God not exist at all?

The only fact claim is that it makes meaning for me and for others. Look at it this way: if a man named George signs all his documents "George," but everyone calls him "Lucky," he can make the claim that his nickname is "Lucky," even though there's not a shred of objective evidence that that's the case. It's not his name, but it's what he's called. For me, "God" is the same sort of proposition. "God" is what I (and others) call "existence," or "being," itself. It needs no "objective verification."

Sure he does, he can bring in tons of eyewitnesses who can testify that they call him Lucky. Unless you're going to concoct a story where it's all a big conspiracy, where nobody ever called him Lucky in public and they're all going to deny that they did it, it's very easy to prove that people call him that.

I didn't say "God isn't real." I said "God isn't an existent being." God is as real as the universe, just as "Lucky" is a real nickname for George.

Then just like you can prove that Lucky is his nickname, you ought to be able to prove God exists.

The meaning that I have for my myself and the world around me is true for me.

There's no such thing as "true to me". It's either true or it is not true. You can't decide that something that you claim exists in factual reality is real for you and not for other people.

My sense of the world does.

Then your sense of the world is factually incorrect.

When did I ever claim that "supernatural entities were involved"??? How many times have I said that God isn't an existent being? How many? Why do you keep arguing a non-existent point??

You keep saying God is as real as the universe, and since the universe exists, God must also exist, otherwise God is just a figment of your imagination. You can't have it both ways.

I've laid it out for you till I'm blue in the face. I can't help it if you won't see it.

And I've pointed out where your reasoning is fallacious. I can't help it if you don't care.