A question for non-theists

[blackout]

I completely agree with this. Completely. So far as I know, "God" is an interpretation derived from one's culture. To say that one's experience is of "God" is to say no more, really, than one has interpreted one's experience as being of "God". These experiences do not actually come labeled as "God".

I concur, except to add that one's interpretation/notion/idea/knowledge of "God"
is not necessarily derived from one's culture.
Some of us "source" our understanding of God only from within.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm a strong skeptic of people who claim they''ve had visions. I believe there is a strong correlation between "having visions" and "wanting attention".

Who have you been hanging out with? Most of the people I've known who have had visions are rather reluctant to discuss them -- especially off line. You seem to have encountered a whole different set of people from the folks I've encountered.

What proof do you have of these visions...

What proof do you have of eating a hamburger last night for supper?

 

[Sunstone]

I concur, except to add that one's interpretation/notion/idea/knowledge of "God"
is not necessarily derived from one's culture.
Some of us "source" our understanding of God only from within.

To me, it's extremely problematic to assert that "some of us source our understanding of God only from within."

 

[blackout]

To me, it's extremely problematic to assert that "some of us source our understanding of God only from within."

In what way do you find that problematic Phil?

 

[Sunstone]

In what way do you find that problematic Phil?

For one thing, it seems that once you begin interpreting an experience --- and you begin interpreting an experience the moment you start thinking about it -- then you begin interpreting it at least in part in symbols derived from your culture. Even just to say "the experience was of god" is to make an assumption that people from some cultures would be likely to make, while people from other cultures would not be likely to make. "God" is not an experience, but an interpretation of an experience.

 

[blackout]

For one thing, it seems that once you begin interpreting an experience --- and you begin interpreting an experience the moment you start thinking about it -- then you begin interpreting it at least in part in symbols derived from your culture. Even just to say "the experience was of god" is to make an assumption that people from some cultures would be likely to make, while people from other cultures would not be likely to make. "God" is not an experience, but an interpretation of an experience.

Thanks for the clarification.
I'll be back later to converse,
takin' the kids to the pool.:rainbow1:

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I completely agree with this. Completely. So far as I know, "God" is an interpretation derived from one's culture. To say that one's experience is of "God" is to say no more, really, than one has interpreted one's experience as being of "God". These experiences do not actually come labeled as "God".

I concur, except to add that one's interpretation/notion/idea/knowledge of "God"
is not necessarily derived from one's culture.
Some of us "source" our understanding of God only from within.

Yeah, I agree that culture is a very powerful factor. I don't believe it is a determining factor - the most popular examples of this are people from other cultures who convert to Christianity and people from the west who convert to Buddhism or Islam.

But at the end of the day, I do believe that culture powerfully shapes the actual perceptions we have during religious experiences, for instance visions of god. I think it is pretty much the most important factor. I have always been interested in the psychological process of conversion. It is still a mystery, at least to me.

I think that may be part of what our friend "the UV rays" is getting at, though I will not put words in her mouth.

It's an excellent point though. My plan is to start a thread about the elements of religious perception after this poll is over. That has always interested me.

Love,
CV

 

[Alceste]

It's good to know what you thought I was saying so that I can clarify things.

You make a good point that by capitalizing the word "God" in vision of God, I am kind of implying a friendly judeo-christian deity. That's my mistake - I'm not sure why I've never felt comfortable with "vision of god", but I think you're right. That would be better than the capitalized "vision of God." Sorry about the confusion.

Thanks for the clarification. I was actually trying to draw attention to what the phrase "vision of god" or "vision of God" (same thing, really) implies, regardless of your intentions. And particularly for non-theists or atheists, which is who you seem most curious about. A non-theist or atheist would unavoidably interpret that particular phrase to discount their own experience, even if theirs was identical to that of a theist.

Most of what you are describing is not inconsistent with my own experience. I can confirm the universe appeared to be sentient, and I felt hooked into it in a very unusual way. There appeared to be multiple levels (infinite levels) of communication happening simultaneously, and my ordinary spark of awareness was expanded as if into a vast sea of light. I would still describe it as an experience of god-consciousness, the only difference being that the god I connected with was myself as far as I have reason to believe. It was really big me, encompassing everything.

I like to think that I left the question as open as possible so that people could fill in their own definition or experiences. To be honest, I still think I did a rather good job, though obviously you disagree, of leaving the question open to different types of experience.

I think you did a pretty good job too, if you are only interested in hearing from people who have had a profound mystical experience they conceptualize as a relationship with an external sentience. If you want to hear from people who had the exact same experience (from a psychological / physiological perspective) but don't externalize the consciousness they experienced, you've ruled them out by bringing an external deity into the question, as it puts an arbitrary boundary between "inside" and "outside" that does not exist for people who have experienced god-consciousness as an infinitely expanded version of their own awareness.

Many psychologists have been studying peak experience for a long time. You're right that I would have a larger group to work with. What kind of study would you recommend - "have you ever had a peak experience?" I'm not sure how I would study it or what it would show - hasn't everybody had a peak experience?

No, not that kind.

Let me give you an example - my first vision of god was pretty judeo-christian, and I had a vision of God talking to me and showing me heaven. In the vision God introduced himself as God. In another vision, I saw how the very fabric of the universe was alive and sentient - this was pantheism - and how god was woven into me and the world.

The experience I'm talking about would be similar to the latter. I have also had lucid dreams similar to the former, and some friendly banter with an imaginary God who unlocked a stuck door for me.

Does that make more sense? That's why when people ask me to define a vision of god more specifically, I say that's a "no." From a non-theist point of view, that probably seems arbitrary or lacking in specificity.

Yes, it does. From my non-theistic perspective, if a God walked into this room right now and said "Hey, I'm God" and performed all kinds of miracles, I still would not necessarily define it as a vision of God. It could be anything, really. A psychotic episode, a false memory, an alien, a ghost, a concentration of magnetic forces acting on my synapses, even a god. He could walk out of the room and you could walk right in and say "Hey, did you just have a vision of god?" and I would have no choice but to say "I don't know, but it's very unlikely."

 

[Magic Man]

What proof do you have of eating a hamburger last night for supper?

Do you want me to show you the proof...?

 

[fantome profane]

Chevalier Violet, I was wondering if you were familiar with the works of Michael Persinger and his “God Helmet”? His research indicates that it is possible to create paranormal experiences by applying magnetic fields to the temporal lobes. People wearing this helmet have reported experiencing dislocation, bi-location, aliens, ghosts of dead relatives and even having experiences of “God”.

My question to you is would someone who had such a technologically induced experience of “God” qualify as a yes in your study? What do you make of the varied experiences that people have? How do you feel about the implications of a neurological explanation?

God helmet

Michael Shermer Out of Body Experiment

Neurotheology - With God In Mind

This Is Your Brain on God

 

[blackout]

For one thing, it seems that once you begin interpreting an experience --- and you begin interpreting an experience the moment you start thinking about it -- then you begin interpreting it at least in part in symbols derived from your culture. Even just to say "the experience was of god" is to make an assumption that people from some cultures would be likely to make, while people from other cultures would not be likely to make. "God" is not an experience, but an interpretation of an experience.

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing.
(and that may have been my mistake innitally.)

Certainly we all share the "basics" of one culture or another,
in that we live in it,
we share the same "language" (though not necessarily the same meanings),
we shop in the same stores (more or less) out of need and what's available.

I guess I meant before that no one, no religion, no teacher, no doctrine, (no culture)
has formed for me my own personal experience/interpretation/understanding of "god".
Everything in existence is a potential symbolism for me,
and I find my own creative, personal (and sometimes very clever) meanings in them.
Life is more a puzzle than a map.
And my puzzle (while wholly unique) reveals pictures
common/identifiable to all who live in my "culture",
yet the meanings behind those images
are a story of such profound and ineffable meaning,
that words will never convey it.

It's late, and I still have no idea weather I'm addressing what you said or not.

Sorry if the above was nothing more than my own rambling.

 

[crystalonyx]

1.Who have you been hanging out with? Most of the people I've known who have had visions are rather reluctant to discuss them -- especially off line. You seem to have encountered a whole different set of people from the folks I've encountered.



1.What proof do you have of eating a hamburger last night for supper?

1.If you've encountered a "lot" of people that have had visions you definitely hang out with a different kind of crowd than me.

2. Nothing you'd want to see.

 

[Sunstone]

1.If you've encountered a "lot" of people that have had visions you definitely hang out with a different kind of crowd than me.

I'm 51 years old. I've met lots of people over the years. More than you might suppose have had mystical experiences. Mystical experiences are not that uncommon. What's uncommon is someone who isn't at least somewhat reluctant to talk about his or her experiences -- especially off line, in the "real world".

 

[crystalonyx]

I'm 51 years old. I've met lots of people over the years. More than you might suppose have had mystical experiences. Mystical experiences are not that uncommon. What's uncommon is someone who isn't at least somewhat reluctant to talk about his or her experiences -- especially off line, in the "real world".

So you seem to have a gift of bringing out these "mystical experiences" in people?

 

[Alceste]

So you seem to have a gift of bringing out these "mystical experiences" in people?

I don't know about him, but I can pretty much spot people who have them. Even (possibly) strangers walking down the street. They are fairly common, and I would agree with Sunstone they're not the first thing people are likely to bring up in casual conversation. A little careful probing is usually necessary.

 

[logician]

I don't know about him, but I can pretty much spot people who have them. Even (possibly) strangers walking down the street. They are fairly common, and I would agree with Sunstone they're not the first thing people are likely to bring up in casual conversation. A little careful probing is usually necessary.

I'll be honest, I was a Christian for quite a number of years as a youth, and the number of people I met who claimed to have a mystical experience with god I could count on one hand. I did meet one woman who claimed to be a witch that could cast spells. Very scary person.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Thanks for the clarification. I was actually trying to draw attention to what the phrase "vision of god" or "vision of God" (same thing, really) implies, regardless of your intentions. And particularly for non-theists or atheists, which is who you seem most curious about. A non-theist or atheist would unavoidably interpret that particular phrase to discount their own experience, even if theirs was identical to that of a theist.

I think you're right that I need to put more emphasis on the meaning of vision that implies "hallucination." Because that is exactly how I'm using the word in this context. Because you are non-theists, you obviously believe it is a delusion, but what I'm asking is, have you ever experienced this delusion.

Keeping in mind, it is not what people experience but what they believe (and how they explain what they've experienced) that makes people a non-theist.
It is very difficult to explain the labeling process - that is, how do we know what we're experiencing is what people call "god"? How do these experiences get labeled? One thing is for certain: if you talk to people who experience god in a deistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, or panentheistic way, they "just know." Immediately. Certainly. That is god. It is next to impossible to explain to a non-theist who has never experienced such a thing how you know or how it is labeled. It is not labeled like "oh it looks round, red with a green stem, and delicious. It's an apple." You ever think about this question, how do people know? How do they recognize that what they're experiencing is what others call god?

If you delve into it, people just know. It's weird. People have very divergent experiences, but ultimately, people do not recognize god visually nor most do not through an introduction like I had.

You may disagree with this latest line of reasoning. But it is on that basis that I am able to tell you that, for one, your experience itself does not seem to have been identitical with that of many theists. It wasn't "self-identifying."

Most of what you are describing is not inconsistent with my own experience. I can confirm the universe appeared to be sentient, and I felt hooked into it in a very unusual way. There appeared to be multiple levels (infinite levels) of communication happening simultaneously, and my ordinary spark of awareness was expanded as if into a vast sea of light. I would still describe it as an experience of god-consciousness, the only difference being that the god I connected with was myself as far as I have reason to believe. It was really big me, encompassing everything.

To my mind, and maybe you disagree: that seems to be an expansion of your own consciousness. I have felt things like that before. I have had many types of pantheistic and panentheistic experiences, and they are different from that.

That said, that sounds like a really neat experience. I wish I felt like that more often.

I think you did a pretty good job too, if you are only interested in hearing from people who have had a profound mystical experience they conceptualize as a relationship with an external sentience. If you want to hear from people who had the exact same experience (from a psychological / physiological perspective) but don't externalize the consciousness they experienced, you've ruled them out by bringing an external deity into the question, as it puts an arbitrary boundary between "inside" and "outside" that does not exist for people who have experienced god-consciousness as an infinitely expanded version of their own awareness.

Thanks. And you're right, I have excluded expansions of people's own consciousness out. That may be because in my experience an expansion of consciousness and a vision of a pantheistic or panentheistic god really are quite different. Although, I don't recall putting a boundary on "inside" and "outside" (unless you're referring to capitalizing that "g" on God) - in pan-xx-theistic terms, there is no boundary, you feel as though you are part of god. But not so much that you are large and the universe is part of you. That feels different - both are fun though.

No, not that kind.

You're talking about the expanding of consciousness thing? So what kind of experiment do you think would be interesting for that?

The experience I'm talking about would be similar to the latter. I have also had lucid dreams similar to the former, and some friendly banter with an imaginary God who unlocked a stuck door for me.

Although I said that dreams of god do not count, that is still a pretty significant dream.

Yes, it does. From my non-theistic perspective, if a God walked into this room right now and said "Hey, I'm God" and performed all kinds of miracles, I still would not necessarily define it as a vision of God. It could be anything, really. A psychotic episode, a false memory, an alien, a ghost, a concentration of magnetic forces acting on my synapses, even a god. He could walk out of the room and you could walk right in and say "Hey, did you just have a vision of god?" and I would have no choice but to say "I don't know, but it's very unlikely."

Like I said earlier, I need to put more emphasis on the dictionary definition of "vision." And it is pretty unusual for a person to purposefully use a word two ways, or ambiguously. You of course can use the term "vision of god" however you like. But what I am referring to is the perception of god, whether or not this is based in reality. I'll refer you to dictionary.com's definition of vision, which lists it both as seeing something that is real and akin to a hallucination.

In other words, if God walks in and shoots hoops with you, that is a vision of God. You perceived something that resembled God to you - and like I said, for my purposes it is a vision of god whatever the cause. So the way I'm using the word it's a vision of god even if it's "a psychotic episode, a false memory, an alien, a ghost, a concentration of magnetic forces acting on my synapses, even a god." Does that make more sense?

I didn't edit this post very carefully - I may come back and take back some stuff that I said

 

[fantome profane]

One thing is for certain: if you talk to people who experience god in a deistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, or panentheistic way, they "just know." Immediately. Certainly. That is god.

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”.

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?

 

[doppelganger]

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”.

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.

 

[Alceste]

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”.

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 noticed that as well. It's similar (logically, I mean, not the message itself) to the argument "I just know the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God". It also reminds me of Descartes' least shining moment - his proof of God. "God exists because a perfect, omnipotent being would never have created men who would falsely perceive things that do not exist."

I think we need to establish whether "just knowing" it is what people call "god" that you are perceiving is part of Chevalier's criteria for what constitutes a "vision of god", or whether two people can have an identical vision of god except that one "just knows" it WAS god and the other says "ah, so that's what people call god" but still suspects it is just an fascinating quirk of human psychology.