A question for non-theists

[Sunstone]

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.

If you know what to look for, you can pretty much spot people who've been changed by mystical experiences. But it's very hard to describe in words what to look for -- as hard as describing in words why something is beautiful.

 

[Alceste]

If you know what to look for, you can pretty much spot people who've been changed by mystical experiences. But it's very hard to describe in words what to look for -- as hard as describing in words why something is beautiful.

I sometimes call it "sparkle". There was a great series on the BBC where you can actually see it happen to the host (a rural Anglican preacher who starts out painfully sparkle-free) when he spends a couple weeks alone in a Christian hermit cave in the desert. Extreme Pilgrim, it was called. I think it was 3 shows - he spent time in a Buddhist temple, a Hindu festival and finally the oldest Christian monastery in the world.

A person with sparkle is generally relaxed, amused, intrigued and amazed.

 

[Sunstone]

I sometimes call it "sparkle". There was a great series on the BBC where you can actually see it happen to the host (a rural Anglican preacher who starts out painfully sparkle-free) when he spends a couple weeks alone in a Christian hermit cave in the desert. Extreme Pilgrim, it was called. I think it was 3 shows - he spent time in a Buddhist temple, a Hindu festival and finally the oldest Christian monastery in the world.

A person with sparkle is generally relaxed, amused, intrigued and amazed.

I like that word "sparkle" and your description of such people as generally relaxed, amused, intrigued, and amazed.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

This is one reason I prefer to call such experiences "transformative experiences" or "mystical experiences", rather than "visions of God".

I believe I have also noticed over the years that there are many different kinds of such experiences.

 

[doppelganger]

This is one reason I prefer to call such experiences "transformative experiences" or "mystical experiences", rather than "visions of God".

I think this is the main reason chicks dig you, Phil.

 

[Sunstone]

I think this is the main reason chicks dig you, Phil.

Damn! I'm out of frubals!

 

[Alceste]

This is one reason I prefer to call such experiences "transformative experiences" or "mystical experiences", rather than "visions of God".

I believe I have also noticed over the years that there are many different kinds of such experiences.

Yeah, I would agree. Not only experiences that are inherently different, but also a wide range of culturally determined reactions and interpretations that magnify the differences andor confound any effort to determine which experiences were the same or similar.

Which is why I mostly just talk to bats and butterflies.

 

[blackout]

Originally Posted by Sunstone
This is one reason I prefer to call such experiences "transformative experiences" or "mystical experiences", rather than "visions of God".

I think this is the main reason chicks dig you, Phil.

The "Transformative Experiences" bit really did it for me anyway. :flirt:
Now where's that Swoon thread....

 

[blackout]

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.

Very Well Said! :rainbow1:
I"m all out of frubals right now, but will catch you later.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

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.

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

 

[Sunstone]

Which is why I mostly just talk to bats and butterflies.

You too? Damn! I was wondering where the bats and butterflies I talk with got all those exciting ideas.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

This is one reason I prefer to call such experiences "transformative experiences" or "mystical experiences", rather than "visions of God".

I believe I have also noticed over the years that there are many different kinds of such experiences.

That's for sure. I am looking for a very specific type of mystical experience! But I agree, there are almost infinite types of mystical experiences.

I think this is the main reason chicks dig you, Phil.

Damn! I'm out of frubals!

LOL, I love your senses of humor. (and damn it, nobody tell me if they weren't kidding!!!)

Yeah, I would agree. Not only experiences that are inherently different, but also a wide range of culturally determined reactions and interpretations that magnify the differences andor confound any effort to determine which experiences were the same or similar.

Which is why I mostly just talk to bats and butterflies.

I would say that culture influences but does not determine. But you're right, it's a mess. I hope my latest response clarifies what I mean.

I have said this before, visions of god are a unique mental process that cannot be explained in terms of the basic mental building blocks that we know. It is part experience, part recognition, part interpretation. Don't think that my words on a page are going to explain to you what this experience is and exactly what I'm looking for. I'm just hoping that people who have experienced it and recognized it will know what I'm talking about. That's my goal.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I sometimes call it "sparkle". There was a great series on the BBC where you can actually see it happen to the host (a rural Anglican preacher who starts out painfully sparkle-free) when he spends a couple weeks alone in a Christian hermit cave in the desert. Extreme Pilgrim, it was called. I think it was 3 shows - he spent time in a Buddhist temple, a Hindu festival and finally the oldest Christian monastery in the world.

A person with sparkle is generally relaxed, amused, intrigued and amazed.

I like that word "sparkle" and your description of such people as generally relaxed, amused, intrigued, and amazed.

That is neat. Thanks for sharing.

 

[blackout]

I am trying very hard to follow this.
Everytime I think I'm understanding,
then you turn a corner,
and I'm lost again.

Like here....

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.

So if you are a nontheist, and it is necessary for you to RECOGNIZE that your "vision" is of God/god, but you don't "recognize" (a) God... how is it EVER possible for you to have a vision of God? It seems like you have set up an impossibility as defined by your own terms.

 

[blackout]

As a Panenthiest, God manifests
(speaks, becomes visible)
in anything and everything, yes.
(as I was shown/taught in a transformative epiphony)

But that is according to my own recognition,
as you have said.

If a non-theist were to say he "recognized" God in an experience,
would he not then BE a theist, AT LEAST within the space of that recognition?
By default? (regardless of what he/she chooses as a label?)

 

[fantome profane]

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.

I am not debating you in the sense that I am trying to defeat your argument. I am not sure I even know what your argument is, and I don’t have an argument myself. What I am trying to do is try to clarify what it is you are saying. I am trying to do this first and foremost so that I can understand you. It seems very interesting and I would like to understand it better. And secondly I admit that it seems to me that your approach would be more effective if you could clarify a few concepts. So let me ask you one question, and please try to answer in as few words as possible while still explaining what you feel needs to be understood.



You said in one of your posts:

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.

What I want to know is what is this statement. Is it:

• The conclusion you have reached
• The conclusion you expect that you will reach
• A requirement to be part of the study
• A premise that you need to establish
• A premise that you have decided to assume.
• or something else

Don’t misunderstand me. The statement can be anyone of these and your argument can still be valid. But it cannot be all of these. So which is it?





I also think it may help if I tried to explain my position very briefly. I am a pantheist. So when you describe the pantheist point of view as “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.” This is something that I completely agree with. And I have had mystical experiences of this kind of thing (you are wrong I am not taking the term vision too literally, my experiences were not visual, but I have no problem calling them visions). But the thing is that I have made a decision not to use the “g-word” to describe my experiences. When I had my first “peak experience” I experienced “that which cannot be named”. How would this kind of experience fit into your protocol?

 

[crystalonyx]

"That's for sure. I am looking for a very specific type of mystical experience! But I agree, there are almost infinite types of mystical experiences."

Really? What makes you the expert? And what are these inifinite types?

 

[Alceste]

"That's for sure. I am looking for a very specific type of mystical experience! But I agree, there are almost infinite types of mystical experiences."

And what are these inifinite types?

I'd explain, but it might take all day...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My background is in philosophy of science and epistemology.

There are very few non-theists who have had a vision of God and who continue to be a non-theist. I am the only one I know. I'm starting to wonder if I'm completely alone.

So, that's why I'm asking: Have any of you ever had a "vision of God"?

What do I mean by a vision of God?

Well, if you need to ask, it's pretty unlikely you've ever had one. My visions of God were blatant. I had a clear feeling afterwards of "oh, that's what people call God." There was no question. In fact, the thing introduced itself as God.

But a few guidelines:

A "vision of God" (for the purposes of my research) is:

-waking
-sober, perceived from a normal state
-not perceived materially through normal five senses
-literal and direct (not a sign, omen, or act)
-there was perceptive content: a sight or presence felt

Anybody? Anybody at all?

My theory has always been that what divides non-theists and theists is not gullibility, wishful thinking, logic - although these are related in other ways. What really divides atheists and theists, and you'll hear both sides say this very often, is actual experience.

I am not concerned here with the question of the reality of this perception of God. The point is, a minority of believers in the west have never had a "vision of God" and I have only ever met one atheist who had experienced God. And then he became a theist about a week after talking to me.

Let me know - please respond, even if you have NEVER had a vision of God.

Thanks so much.

Chevalier Violet

PS I am still working on exercises that may help non-theists experience a vision of God. Unfortunately, most think I'm trying to convert them and many non-theists head for the hills.

Don't know what to tell you. Could really be all in your mind. Not sure how one could "experience a god" but maintain he it does not exist.

Some say they experience it by getting some sort of burning feeling in the chest. I call it gas.....:areyoucra

My experience is that I'm completely sure he is the "sock monster".......

 

[crystalonyx]

I think mystical experiences can be relegated to psychological processes of the brain, under natural or created stress, or other types of "stimulation".