“The Dawkins’ scale”

[George-ananda]

So why bother believing in a concept that is probably wrong?

Because after due consideration I have come to believe there are advanced spiritual masters who have actually experienced and sensed beyond what the average person can sense and experience. I learn from them like I learn chemistry from professors. It is not something I came up with on my own.

 

[Nakosis]

Because after due consideration I have come to believe there are advanced spiritual masters who have actually experienced and sensed beyond what the average person can sense and experience. I learn from them like I learn chemistry from professors. It is not something I came up with on my own.

I started out seeking answers to experiences I have had. Like seeing a chemical reaction and then trying to learn what caused it.

If you trust them, and I'm not saying you shouldn't. For me I found that a lot of the folks I trusted, later on my trust was misplaced. So for me it's trust but verify for yourself and don't bet the farm unless it's something through your own experience you've verified.

Also I have experienced things that I believed supported some of these ideas about God. I can accept very easily why some of these folks would accept these encounters as a divine experience from God. I did. However, now I question the reliability of the subjective experience.

I've developed a skeptical mind, that's all. I can enjoy the beauty of the experience and then I question it.

 

[George-ananda]

I started out seeking answers to experiences I have had. Like seeing a chemical reaction and then trying to learn what caused it.

If you trust them, and I'm not saying you shouldn't. For me I found that a lot of the folks I trusted, later on my trust was misplaced. So for me it's trust but verify for yourself and don't bet the farm unless it's something through your own experience you've verified.

Also I have experienced things that I believed supported some of these ideas about God. I can accept very easily why some of these folks would accept these encounters as a divine experience from God. I did. However, now I question the reliability of the subjective experience.

I've developed a skeptical mind, that's all. I can enjoy the beauty of the experience and then I question it.

I understand your concerns regarding believing what you have not experienced for yourself. But even if you did experience something beyond the natural it is common to later doubt yourself.

As for me, I have studied the paranormal and various esoteric literature and multiple eastern/Indian spiritual masters and I believe it all dovetails to the worldview I accept as the most reasonable worldview beyond reasonable doubt (but short of something I can prove).

 

[Nakosis]

I understand your concerns regarding believing what you have not experienced for yourself. But even if you did experience something beyond the natural it is common to later doubt yourself.

As for me, I have studied the paranormal and various esoteric literature and multiple eastern/Indian spiritual masters and I believe it all dovetails to the worldview I accept as the most reasonable worldview beyond reasonable doubt (but short of something I can prove).

Ok, I understand your position on this and you've provided me references before.

So then, just a question. Have you experienced anything remotely similar to what these spiritual masters describe?

 

[George-ananda]

So then, just a question. Have you experienced anything remotely similar to what these spiritual masters describe?

No, but I have come to believe (after studying certain masters) that there are more advanced souls than me.

 

[Nakosis]

No, but I have come to believe (after studying certain masters) that there are more advanced souls than me.

Yes, me too.

 

[Kirran]

@George-ananda, you often mention such masters. Might you give some examples? Cheers.

 

[George-ananda]

@George-ananda, you often mention such masters. Might you give some examples? Cheers.

Satya Sai Baba, Shirdi Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Ramakrisha, Prahmahansa Yogananda, etc,. and the long list of ancient sages/seers of the Vedic tradition.

 

[Kirran]

Satya Sai Baba, Shirdi Sai Baba, Vivekananda, Ramakrisha, Prahmahansa Yogananda, etc,. and the long list of ancient sages/seers of the Vedic tradition.

All very wise and insightful men. Thanks for expanding.

A guru (small g) of mine is very much associated with the teachings of Vivekananda and the Ramakrishna Mission.

 

[Yazata]

The image in the first post didn't display for me, so here's the Dawkins Scale (as described on Wikipedia)

1. strong theist. 100% probability of God.
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%.
3. Leaning toward theism. Higher than 50% but not very high.
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%
5. Leaning toward atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low.
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability but short of zero.
7. "I know there is no God."

I think that the scale is simplistic. My biggest complaint is that the word "God" can be defined in more than one way.

On one end there are the metaphysical functions of the sort associated with the traditional "theistic proofs". First cause, ground of being, source of cosmic order and so on. Kind of a 'Deistic' concept of God.

On the other end, there's the highly personalized deities of the sort one finds in the Bible, Quran and Bhagavad Gita.

When it comes to the metaphysical questions, I think that the questions are both profound and real. I'm inclined to think that they do ideally and potentially have answers, even if I'm reasonably certain that human beings don't know what the answers are. (And probably never will, hence my agnosticism.) I'm less inclined to dismiss them as pseudo-problems in the manner of some philosophers.

So... if we define "God" in this 'Deistic' way, I guess that I'd rate myself as 3., "leaning toward theism". Of course I realize that Dawkins was thinking of the personal deities and the more metaphysical "Source of Being" or "Ultimate Explanation of Being" concept never crossed his mind.

And if we define "God" as a personal deity, particularly one of the ones supposedly "revealed" in
"sacred scripture", I'd have to call myself a "de facto atheist, number 6.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Just interesting differing views...

I see it this way, God is a concept. To say God is this or that presumes we have knowledge of what/who God is. So there maybe something there, but I think it is a mistake to conceptualize it by calling it God.

So I lack a belief in a conceptual God or any God that man could possibly conceive of, including myself of course.

I guess basically that if there is a God, whatever we humans think it is, is probably wrong. So why bother believing in a concept that is probably wrong?

Meister Eckhart said:

“God and the Godhead are as distinct as heaven and earth.”

“If I were not, God would not be God.”

"When I go back into the ground, into the depths, into the well-spring of the Godhead, no one will ask me from where I came or where I went. No one will miss me, for there God unbecomes."

"... for before creatures came into existence, God was not God. He was what he was. When creatures came into existence, God was not God in himself, but he was God in creatures."

Etc.