Analysis of my first experiment: constructive comment welcome

[Chevalier Violet]

Hi everybody, thank you for all your thought, hard work, and efforts. I really appreciate your responses. Let's look and see what people said.

Only one atheist tried by PM, so this will be an analysis of the response of theists.

So to recap, I asked theists to try "seeing God" in a number of different forms - a block of cheese, a parrot, a man, and a woman. Storm pointed out that this is an experiment aimed at deists more than theists, and not very fair to pantheists and panentheists. This point is well taken, so let's look at some of the responses:

:sorry1: I can't visualize my God-concept at all.

One response had no visual representation of God.

Perhaps I'm confused, but I can't find the difficulty in imagining my gods and goddesses in different forms.

I'm with Feathers, I don't see it as all that difficult...

Two responses had absolutely no problem changing God's form.

I think the problem is with imagining God as something silly -- almost comical -- like a parrot.

Try a lion. It works with Aslan of Narnia. Yup, seems Godly.

...

eudaimonia,

Mark

Mark reports some difficulty "changing" God's form. So in other words, Mark reports that only certain objects can properly symbolize or represent God in Mark's mind. More on this later.

CV- i kind of had two reactions to the experiment.

one was "nah, i really can't see God as a parrot."

the other one was "oh wait, yeah, i can!"

insomuch as i believe that when one is kind of in a right place spiritually, whether one wishes to call it mindfulness, grace, or prayerfulness, the apparent barriers between "self", God" and "other" can burn away. leaving one, for example, free to enjoy God's presence and blessings while one is observing a parrot, eating cereal, or talking with someone on their porch.

so i can't really "see God as a parrot" but i can understand something of God with and in the parrot.

The overall thrust of this post seems to be a "no". Gracie appears only able to see God as a parrot in a special sense of the word. I don't want to be too overbearing with this interpretation, and Gracie please let me know if I'm mistaken.

It seems to me, and I may have misread this, that Gracie was unable to envision God as a parrot.

The second half of this post I believe means that Gracie obtained a state of harmony with the universe and inner peace. In this state, the barriers between self and God melted away, and Gracie was able to be in contact with God while going about her normal life.

This seems to me that either Gracie had a pantheistic moment, where all was divine. Or she found an ability to have a conversation with God and go about daily tasks at the same time.

So I believe we can categorize these responses as "I have no visual representation," "yes" and "no."

On another site I was posting on, a two Christians reported that a ball of light was the only way they could see God. The moment they tried to impose an image upon the ball of light, it was no longer "God" but an imagined image. But once they passively saw, the ball of light was God again.

My experience tends to match this latter case. I cannot impose an image on a vision of God, but when I let it passively happen, the image I see, if any, tends to be a ball of brightness.

Normal imagination:

Before we ask what these answers mean, let's remind ourselves the properties of normal imagination.

In normal imagination, if I want to imagine a cup, a cup appears very easily. I can change the shape, size, angle, speed. I can break it and put it back together.

If God were the product of normal imagination, we would expect God's image to be relatively permeable. Any conscious attempt to change this image would supposedly be easy.

Normal dream representation:

Representation in dreams is, highly variable. In my own dreams, characters never look like the people I think they are. My mom doesn't really look like my mom, even though I associate that person with her in the dream. Our mind is immensely creative: it throws us into bizarre landscapes, juxtaposes unlike objects, creates things we have never seen in real life.

Moreover, when we will it we can transform some objects into other objects. My sister had a lucid dream once where she turned a wallet into pure gold out of will.

All this would cause our hypothesis to be that if visions of God are the result of delusions, these delusions were be susceptible to voluntary change.

This creative power extends its reach to the hypnagogic state before sleep, and during delusions, drug-induced hallucinations. These visions rarely repeat in global content or even the content of individual objects. In other words, we dream about a wide and ever-changing variety of things.

If God were a delusion, we would therefore expect a wide variety in how people perceived God.

Here one objection raises its head, namely the notion of repeating dreams. Perhaps God is an example of a self-repeating dream. I don't see this as highly plausible as stated now: even in the clear minority of dreams which are self-repeating, they rarely repeat exactly. More to the point, if a large number of people have this self-repeating delusion, then we would expect its particular content to differ from person to person.

Many atheists raise the objection that certain delusional neurotics speak to imaginary people, imagine objects to be there that aren't, hear sounds that originate in their own mind. There seems to be no immediate objection to this line of reasoning. God could be real, or God could be a delusion, but there seems no way to shed further light on the question.

Indeed, this is the condition I find the world in now. We cannot think of a way to find any way to disentangle a very complex problem, and so we resort talking about something else.

My purpose with this experiment is to suggest another path out of the jungle: intersubjective verification.

Even among the insane, the precise content of their delusion varies widely: some imagine a friend, some imagine a plant. The more our representation of God meshes, the more likely it seems that this thing has a basis in reality.

Considering the immense creativity and breadth of imagination and dreams, widespread confirmation of the form of "visions of God" would seem damning evidence against the imagination model explaining visions of God.

Collective delusion:

This is Freud's explanation of visions of God. The founder of psychology, who claimed all dreams were the result of wishes, viewed God as the ultimate wish fulfillment: the Christian God is an omniscient, omnipotent "Imaginary Friend" who promised immortality, love, forgiveness, and a space in heaven.

Freud would view similarity of content of visions of God as a result of cultural definition. For instance, if everyone saw God as a robed father, this would be the result of Biblical imagery - a cultural suggestion entering minds. We would expect people of different cultures or beliefs to have different precise images of God.

One way the data could contradict this is if visions of God were profoundly different than the model offered. For instance, if a number of Christians reported that they normally saw God as a woman this would seem to contradict this theory.

Also I would like to mention that at this point I long for the simpler universe of the atheist; I really and truly wish that I couldn't see God any time I wanted. My credentials on this point, I believe, are unbeatable. I probably wish God didn't exist more than many atheists. Whatever that thing is is bugging me right now - I just met a gorgeous Christian girl who doesn't want to hold hands until marriage. Isn't that insane? That's just a personal note.

Let's get back to the subject at hand.

--cont'd--

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Analysis:

So if the question was "can you alter your vision of God" the people divide into two encampments of equal size: the "yes" camp and the "no" camp.

Two of the yes' can see God as anything. One yes can see it as a lion. Two no's can see God as a ball of light but can't impose an image. One did not reporting being able to see an image.

One didn't see God as a deity at all, and thus had no visual representation.

How do we insert this data that we have into the debate going on today?

The atheists claim that visions of God are delusional, products of the imagination or wishful thinking, or a desire to see.

The theists claim this perception is of something real, as out there as anything else. A perception of something exterior to the mind.

Please keep in mind that I am not interested in the God of any particular organized religion, but rather I am doing my best to investigate God using the world's religions as a trampoline to launch my investigation. This is not a question of Christian truth, but a question of existence or non-existence of some entity.

We have only a very limited ability to test who is right. In our times, God doesn't appear to a group of people very often. God is something we perceive in our hearts. If God is a product of the mind as the atheists say, then we would expect one of two contradictory scenarios:

Either 1.) Representations of God would vary widely because they are all the product of invention. The apple in my mind is red, another man's is green.

2.) Every representation of God would be the same because this representation would be culturally constructed. So if the Bible portrays God as an old man, all Christians will see God as an old man. But members of a different culture may have a different image for God.

As we saw, those who answered that yes, they could shape God into any form can be easily dismissed by the atheists into category one: they are just imagining God so they can give this vision any form they choose. A parallel they no doubt see would be my imaginary friend when I was six, it took various shapes according to the moment, such as a transformer and a Godzilla-like monster.

As for people who said "no, I can't change God's form," this is a far more difficult group to dismiss. We cannot change God's form without removing the "God-ness" of the perceptual object (possibility one above). This would seem to dismiss the possibility of simple imagination.

Nor does our vision of God mesh with an understanding of God found on television or in the Judeo-Christian tradition (possibility two). We would expect from this tradition to see God as a white man, whereas in reality, we view it as very difficult to imagine God as a man. A ball of light is all we can perceive God as.

Now some would object that even though we all have the same understanding of the word apple, some imagine a green one and others imagine a red one. In other words, our understanding of God could be culturally constructed but with personal variation. This is a combination of possibility one (pure imagination) and possibility two (cultural transmission). From this hypothesis we would expect that some will see God as an old man, but some will invest characteristics. For instance, one will see God wearing sandals, another will see God with a long beard.

Here, it is not immediately evident why we would see God as a ball of light rather than a man. Or why we would be unable to alter this delusional image.

The only recourse left to the atheist is to simply dismiss us as crazy, a singular cases of three people that just happened to have matching delusions. This post is vulnerable to this argument because of the small number of participants. I would simply ask anyone to participate before criticizing.

Finally, if God exists, how can some change its form and others not? I believe some would object that the diversity of answers in and of itself seems evidence that God is a figment of the imagination.


One answer that certainly some Christians would suggest is that those who imagined God are just imagining things. I personally despise this line of thinking, and believe that if this something I see is real, then certainly it will be just as real as that which others see.

Is there any explanatory model that can account for the data we have?

One comes to mind, but it is so convenient I have to believe it the product what Freud would call my ego. I have likening finding a vision of God as like noticing a new detail in a house one has lived in all one's life. I never really noticed the wallpaper on the wall in my stairwell until I was about 14, and for me at that time it was a revelation. It was something I had always looked at but never seen.

This is what having a vision of God was like for me. I felt like I was noticing something I had never taken the time to notice before.

At first I tried to see God as a man as represented in religious books. But as time wore on, it's as if my eyes came into focus, the shifting imagery halted, and I could only see God one way from then on. Visions of God under this explanatory model would be like adjusting the focus on a camera. I am suspicious of this viewpoint because it places myself at the very top of this explanatory model - which may very well be the case, but it so common to put oneself at the top of one's universe that I am suspicious.

Perhaps Comet's insightful post can help us here.

Well, I'm not a theist nor an atheist. So, I'm not sure I can play..... but I will anyway!

To go off of what Feathers said on the first page:

I think that which is GOD or the Gods or God can speak to people in different ways. It may be a voice or a vision of a God/God, or it could be beyond words or seeing a "being". Sometimes you need not see God or have it speak to you in words.....

I think it can be more of a KNOWING or "seeing" or understanding or feeling. It has nothing to do with looking at it or hearing it speak. Just my 2 cents :run:

This post makes many excellent points. I can't even begin to agree with them all. For now this notion that people understand God in different ways has a very common and acceptable parallel in cognition: the metaphor. Nothing is more common than using different metaphors to explain one thing. It seems to me this notion of metaphor can explain the similarities and differences we have perceived: it is just different people understanding one thing in different ways.

One final way of understanding this phenomenon is polytheism: an explanation not uncommon in Christianity, in fact. It is not uncommon for Christians to attribute all other religions to the action of the devil. In this case, there would be two extraordinary and supernatural forces interacting with men on the religious level. In my experience this is far from implausible but will have to wait for some other time.

Obviously this sketch is far from complete, so I simply ask for your understanding, and your patience in reading it. Please remember that it is far harder to read the right meaning of words than the wrong ones; and far easier to find what is incorrect in an an idea than what is correct and powerful; especially where strong emotions are involved as in this question of God.

I have said this before and I will say it again because it's still true: if you want to leave thinking these ideas are idiotic or illogical or unreasonable, believe me there's nothing words on a page can change. It will take cooperation, I might even say a bit of work, to find what is useful and true and good on this electronic screen.

My best wishes to you all in your search for truth,

The Purple Knight

le Chevalier Violet

 

[Inky]

If God were the product of normal imagination, we would expect God's image to be relatively permeable. Any conscious attempt to change this image would supposedly be easy.

I see a problem with this. If most of the people you're asking don't think that God has a body, or don't believe It exists, then asking them to imagine It in various forms is just asking them to attach a form onto the idea or concept of God. So, the forms that work metaphorically with the idea will "feel right". If we think of God as powerful and majestic, and we think of parrots as amusing and playful, then of course it'll seem strange to think of God as a parrot.

For example: think of wisdom as a parrot. Give the concept a form. It doesn't work as well as trying, I dunno, an owl. That doesn't mean that wisdom is actually incarnated into the body of an owl, or even that there is a real "wisdom" outside of us that we could ask questions of. (For reference, I'm a theist; I just don't think the argument holds.)

Also, we tend to hold the concept of God in great respect, and visualizing It in various silly forms seems disrespectful. I would have trouble visualizing God as a jar of grape jelly, because it doesn't seem like something I ought to do, considering my lack of respect for grape jelly.

As for me, I sometimes see God as a man (usually a young man), sometimes as a woman, and sometimes as a beautiful landscape.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I see a problem with this. If most of the people you're asking don't think that God has a body, or don't believe It exists, then asking them to imagine It in various forms is just asking them to attach a form onto the idea or concept of God. So, the forms that work metaphorically with the idea will "feel right". If we think of God as powerful and majestic, and we think of parrots as amusing and playful, then of course it'll seem strange to think of God as a parrot.

For example: think of wisdom as a parrot. Give the concept a form. It doesn't work as well as trying, I dunno, an owl. That doesn't mean that wisdom is actually incarnated into the body of an owl, or even that there is a real "wisdom" outside of us that we could ask questions of. (For reference, I'm a theist; I just don't think the argument holds.)

Also, we tend to hold the concept of God in great respect, and visualizing It in various silly forms seems disrespectful. I would have trouble visualizing God as a jar of grape jelly, because it doesn't seem like something I ought to do, considering my lack of respect for grape jelly.

As for me, I sometimes see God as a man (usually a young man), sometimes as a woman, and sometimes as a beautiful landscape.

Thank you for taking the time to post your reaction. I appreciated this thoughtful reply.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50670

Before deciding whether or not this experiment is offensive to God please read the original experiment above. No point in trying to judge a painting by its reflection in water. Although judging by your response you have read it, so I will just post the link for others.

That said, although trying to see God as a parrot can be seen as silly (I meant for it to be a novel experiment), it tests a serious point. I don't view it as disrespectful, but I do encourage you to use your own judgment and not do anything you would see as disrespectful.

This is a very interesting reply and the more I read it, the more I find in it that I like and appreciate (I read it at like 2 am last night, and couldn't keep my eyes open, that's one reason why).

I see a problem with this. If most of the people you're asking don't think that God has a body, or don't believe It exists, then asking them to imagine It in various forms is just asking them to attach a form onto the idea or concept of God. So, the forms that work metaphorically with the idea will "feel right". If we think of God as powerful and majestic, and we think of parrots as amusing and playful, then of course it'll seem strange to think of God as a parrot.

Good point, it's a rather meaningless experiment for those who don't see visions of God already.

I don't know about you, but I can imagine a wise parrot, a wise clown, a wise midget, a wise giraffe. I can imagine my dad as a parrot, and he's a serious guy. So I don't see why God should be any different. But in my experience, God is different. I can't even imagine God as a lion.

Also, to say it's harder to envision wisdom in a parrot than an owl doesn't mean it's impossible. Even if it takes a second longer, I can envision wisdom in both. I absolutely, positively, try as I might, cannot envision God as anything I have tried but a ball of light. It just doesn't work, it feels like I'm putting something in front of God, even if I try for a while.

That's an important distinction that we have to keep in mind.

Also, we tend to hold the concept of God in great respect, and visualizing It in various silly forms seems disrespectful. I would have trouble visualizing God as a jar of grape jelly, because it doesn't seem like something I ought to do, considering my lack of respect for grape jelly.

It seems to me you might want to consider finding more respect for grape jelly, I love the stuff! I'm just joking. I definitely don't mean to offend with the experiment. A parrot is silly, but it's silly on purpose, because I want to know if people can imagine God that way. I can totally imagine my dad as a parrot, no problem. I can't see God as a lion, but the difference is far more subtle, and I can't really explain why, except to say that it is more obvious that it doesn't work with a parrot. If you want more explanation on this point, I will try to explain the difference I see personally to you.

I can definitely understand how at first glance this seems respectful. I hope you will trust me that I have respectful and serious reasons for choosing a silly bird. Also, I view the overall cause of investigating God's existence and nature a cause that is respectful for this entity, if it indeed exists, as is my current suspicion.

As for me, I sometimes see God as a man (usually a young man), sometimes as a woman, and sometimes as a beautiful landscape.

Wow, very interesting. Thanks for sharing!!

If you don't mind me asking some follow up questions: 1.) are you able to alter God's form? aka does it work as a lion? If you can think of something silly that you wouldn't find disrespectful, I would appreciate it for the reasons I mentioned above, but if you aren't comfortable, I understand and beg you to do only what feels right and respectful to you.

2.) A landscape? If possible, would you please describe what's in this landscape?

Thanks for your very interesting and much appreciated feedback.

Humbly yours,
CV

 

[Inky]

Before deciding whether or not this experiment is offensive to God please read the original experiment above. No point in trying to judge a painting by its reflection in water. Although judging by your response you have read it, so I will just post the link for others.

Oh, I didn't mean that the experiment was disrespectful, I've got no problem with it. I meant that people might have difficulty with visualizing something if they thought it was inappropriate, so that might skew the results.

If you don't mind me asking some follow up questions: 1.) are you able to alter God's form? aka does it work as a lion? If you can think of something silly that you wouldn't find disrespectful, I would appreciate it for the reasons I mentioned above, but if you aren't comfortable, I understand and beg you to do only what feels right and respectful to you.

It works fine for me as a lion, and even as a parrot in fact. Each image seems appropriate for a different context or topic of prayer. Thank you for the consideration.

2.) A landscape? If possible, would you please describe what's in this landscape?

Either a grassy field or a jungle, normally.

I was reading PostSecret, a site where anyone mails a postcard with a secret on it to the site's owner, and he publishes it. This was one of the postcards. Just thought you'd like it for the experiment. : )

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Gracie says:

""i picture [God as] something like the sun, only not blinding. you can look at it, look into it, and it takes up all the room around you- there is no end or edge.""

This seems to mesh with my experience, and the other Christians from the other discussion board. Keep in mind that all of us were unable to see God in any other form but as a ball of light.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Oh, I didn't mean that the experiment was disrespectful, I've got no problem with it. I meant that people might have difficulty with visualizing something if they thought it was inappropriate, so that might skew the results.

Makes sense to me. Thanks so much for the feedback. I will definitely take that into account for experiment 2.0

It works fine for me as a lion, and even as a parrot in fact. Each image seems appropriate for a different context or topic of prayer. Thank you for the consideration.

You're welcome, thanks for sharing.

Either a grassy field or a jungle, normally.

That is the first report of that image of God I have ever heard.

I was reading PostSecret, a site where anyone mails a postcard with a secret on it to the site's owner, and he publishes it. This was one of the postcards. Just thought you'd like it for the experiment. : )

Is that a recognizable person? anyway, that was great, that picture made me laugh. On an unrelated note, that seems a rather phallic placement of that thing sticking out.

I'm lovin' your take on all this.I hope to see you around.

CV