Can a Religious Experience of a God Produce Certain Knowledge of That God?

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure any such test is available or ever will be. At least, any such test that would prove conclusive. Perhaps, you might get consilient results from several sources.

The problem with religious beliefs is that if a valid test is found and it negates those beliefs the religious tend to ignore those tests. We can see that with creationism and surprisingly Flat Earth beliefs every day.

 

[Sunstone]

Why not?

For a few reasons. The reason I'm most interested in at the moment, however, is the one given in the OP. I'm pretty darn proud of the reason given in the OP because I came up with it all by my little lonesome self: I've never seen it asserted in any of the literature. So I'd be much obliged to you if you could destroy it for me -- that would save me probable years of barking up the wrong tree.

Would you answer "NO" for the 'religious' and "YES" for the 'mystical' experience?

At this stage of my admittedly lame understanding, I would answer "no" to both all religious experiences and to all extroversive mystical experiences. I am not quite so sure about introversive mystical experiences -- I only lean towards "no" in those cases.

I should probably state here that an extroversive mystical experience is one in which there is sensory or introspective content. So, for instance, I am seeing, tasting, touching, etc things within my perceptual fields during the experience.

And introversive mystical experience, on the other hand, lacks any sensory or introspective content. It is sometimes called a "pure consciousness experience" or PCE. I know nothing much more than that about such experiences.

 

[Truthseeker]

In my opinion, zilch. The only true knowledge of the deity comes through Messengers of God that establish religions God does not speak directly to anyone else. God does not even speak directly to the Messengers, God speaks to them through the Holy Spirit.

That said, it is possible that God gives people a sign the He exists but that can in no manner shape or form be construed as ”true knowledge of the deity.”

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence,and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 317-318

No matter how much we might want Him to be, God is not our associate. God is far too exalted to be anyone’s associate. We are not in God’s family since God has no family; God is one and alone,without peer or equal, self-subsisting.

In my beliefs…

Well, it's true that God does not talk to us. But a spiritual experience can be a confirmation that you are on the right track. In that way it confirms and strengthens our knowledge of God.

 

[Scott C.]

In your beloved and honorable opinion, are there any reasonable grounds for asserting that any knowledge of deity imparted during a religious experience[1] is certain to be true knowledge of deity?

Support there is an Omnipotent God who wants to give someone a certain knowledge that he exists and wants to impart certain information about his character. Suppose also he doesn't want to impart the knowledge via any of the five human senses. He wants to reveal information to the soul and bypass the senses. And he wants to impart the message in such a clear and unmistakable way as to leave the person with 100% certainty. He wants the recipient to be as certain of it's truth as any person could possibly be certain of any fact. He wants to impart the message in a way that the person has no doubt and never will doubt the experience.

Do you believe that an Omnipotent God could do that?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In your beloved and honorable opinion, are there any reasonable grounds for asserting that any knowledge of deity imparted during a religious experience[1] is certain to be true knowledge of deity?


For example: Let us suppose, you and I, that one day you were hiking in the mountains when suddenly your most favorite god in the whole big, wide world spoke to you in a booming voice, saying "Go now to the peoples of the earth and proclaim to them, 'The Lord your God has spoken to you, and She is an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism'."

If something along those lines actually happened, would you have reasonable grounds to conclude that it was certain your god was an atheist and Tibetan Buddhist?


As for myself, I think the answer is that you can NOT be certain that anything you learn during a religious experience is true knowledge of deity. I think there are several reasons why that is so, but one of those reasons is this: You are somewhat in the same epistemological relationship to the deity that you are experiencing as you are in to a photon that you are experiencing.

You do not experience the photon as it really is: That is, as a photon. Instead, you experience the photon as light. In the same way, it is possible when having an experience of your favorite god that you do not experience the god as he or she really is (which we will call here "X"). Instead, you experience them as "God".

Put a little differently, just as a photon does not have a color, but instead color is only a property of our experience of a photon, X might not be an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism, but instead our experience of X as an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism might only be a property of our experience of God.

Thus, one cannot be certain that a religious experience imparts true knowledge of deity.









[1] A religious experience is not to be conflated with a mystical experience. A religious experience is distinct from a mystical experience in several ways, not the least of which is that a religious experience is an experience of something that's of a religious origin or nature. For instanc e, Jesus Christ is a deity according to the Christian religion. Therefore, to have an experience of Jesus Christ as a god is to have a religious experience.

I don't think religious experiences, or mystical experiences could convince me with certainty that any specific deity exists. Most people don't actually understand what true certainty means, and the evidence necessary to even come *close* to drawing a "certain" conclusion.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Support there is an Omnipotent God who wants to give someone a certain knowledge that he exists and wants to impart certain information about his character. Suppose also he doesn't want to impart the knowledge via any of the five human senses. He wants to reveal information to the soul and bypass the senses. And he wants to impart the message in such a clear and unmistakable way as to leave the person with 100% certainty. He wants the recipient to be as certain of it's truth as any person could possibly be certain of any fact. He wants to impart the message in a way that the person has no doubt and never will doubt the experience.

Do you believe that an Omnipotent God could do that?

I know with certainty that an Omnipotent God cannot exist (notice I'm not denying the possibility of non-omnipotent gods however). Let me ask you, can God create a space that he cannot enter? Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? Whether the answer is yes or no, he isn't omnipotent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For a few reasons. The reason I'm most interested in at the moment, however, is the one given in the OP.

You've lost me, my friend.

 

[Sunstone]

You've lost me, my friend.

My apologies! I think I can come up with a clearer way to explain what I'm trying to get at, but I've got a distracting headache at the moment so it might not be today.

If and when I do manage to explain my idea in understandable terms, I would greatly appreciate your looking for weaknesses in my reasoning.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In your beloved and honorable opinion, are there any reasonable grounds for asserting that any knowledge of deity imparted during a religious experience[1] is certain to be true knowledge of deity?


For example: Let us suppose, you and I, that one day you were hiking in the mountains when suddenly your most favorite god in the whole big, wide world spoke to you in a booming voice, saying "Go now to the peoples of the earth and proclaim to them, 'The Lord your God has spoken to you, and She is an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism'."

If something along those lines actually happened, would you have reasonable grounds to conclude that it was certain your god was an atheist and Tibetan Buddhist?


As for myself, I think the answer is that you can NOT be certain that anything you learn during a religious experience is true knowledge of deity. I think there are several reasons why that is so, but one of those reasons is this: You are somewhat in the same epistemological relationship to the deity that you are experiencing as you are in to a photon that you are experienc

You do not experience the photon as it really is: That is, as a photon. Instead, you experience the photon as light. In the same way, it is possible when having an experience of your favorite god that you do not experience the god as he or she really is (which we will call here "X"). Instead, you experience them as "God".

Put a little differently, just as a photon does not have a color, but instead color is only a property of our experience of a photon, X might not be an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism, but instead our experience of X as an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism might only be a property of our experience of God.

Thus, one cannot be certain that a religious experience imparts true knowledge of deity.









[1] A religious experience is not to be conflated with a mystical experience. A religious experience is distinct from a mystical experience in several ways, not the least of which is that a religious experience is an experience of something that's of a religious origin or nature. For instanc e, Jesus Christ is a deity according to the Christian religion. Therefore, to have an experience of Jesus Christ as a god is to have a religious experience.

How does one distinguish between a 'religious experience' and a vivid hallucination?

 

[Sunstone]

Hah! Jay, the aspirins have kicked in and the headache is mostly gone! So...

First, I aim to draw an analogy between our perception of light and any perception of deity (I will number my points so that it is easier for you to refer to them).

1) Let's begin by distinguishing between "light" and "photons". The two things are sometimes considered identical, but in this context I would like to use the word "light" to mean merely our perception of photons, and "photons" to mean the particle that creates our perception of "light". So, for instance, I might say, "I perceive photons as light."

2) There are in some ways significant differences between photons and light. For instance, light has color -- red, green, blue, etc -- but photons have no color. Again, light does not appear to us as particles. But photons are particles.

3) Now suppose you were to have an experience of "god" (By "god" I mean any deity), and during that experience, god imparted to you some knowledge. Let's say for the sake of discussion that he told you he was "a Tibetan Buddhist".

4) Would you now be able to assert with certainty that god was a Tibetan Buddhist?

5) I think there are several reasons you would not be able to claim certainty. However, I am only concerned here with just one of those reasons. And to explain that reason, I offer the analogy of photons and light.

6) It seems to me possible that there could be as great of a difference between your experience of god as a Tibetan Buddhist and the reality behind that experience as there is between your experience of light and the reality behind your experience of light (namely, photons).

7) In other words, just as light differs from photons, god might differ from X ("X" being the reality behind the perception of god, just as photons are the reality behind the perception of light).

8) Since it's possible for there to be a difference between god and X, it's possible that your knowledge of god as a Tibetan Buddhist is no more knowledge of X than your knowledge of your sweater as yellow is knowledge of some property of a photon.

9) PLEASE NOTE: I am not arguing that the reason or cause of there being some possible difference between god and X is that there is a difference between photons and light. I am only offering photons and light as an analogy of a possible difference.

10) Last, all I aim here is to point out one way in which we cannot be certain that an experience of deity imparts true knowledge of the deity. Of course, I do not aim to suggest that deity either exists or doesn't exist.


I so hope this makes my ideas clearer. And I apologize for any confusion I've been causing.

 

[Sunstone]

How does one distinguish between a 'religious experience' and a vivid hallucination?

That's an excellent question. If you are speaking about "hallucinations" in the strict meaning of the term to psychologists, then there are a few ways to distinguish the two. For instance, hallucinations are almost always recognized as such by the person who has had one within moments of their coming to an end. Religious experiences, however, can impress people for years or decades afterwards as having been real. Folks typically don't end up thinking sometime later, "Oh that was just an hallucination" as they almost always do with a true hallucination.

There are other distinctions too, but I can't recall them at the moment.

 

[Sunstone]

Support there is an Omnipotent God who wants to give someone a certain knowledge that he exists and wants to impart certain information about his character. Suppose also he doesn't want to impart the knowledge via any of the five human senses. He wants to reveal information to the soul and bypass the senses. And he wants to impart the message in such a clear and unmistakable way as to leave the person with 100% certainty. He wants the recipient to be as certain of it's truth as any person could possibly be certain of any fact. He wants to impart the message in a way that the person has no doubt and never will doubt the experience.

Do you believe that an Omnipotent God could do that?

See post #30.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I have an issue with - Seek and ye shall find - where this is likely to result in confirmation bias, such that those who are looking for a religious experience might see it in some way in all manner of things. Whilst the rest of us - not seekers after God, but perhaps seekers after knowledge and/or any truths - just do not get to have such experiences. I wonder why. I simply can't believe that any sort of creative power/god/whatever would actually do this. It just makes no sense (to me) at all.

So very true. I have a mentally ill brother who's been convinced for the past 25 years that the space aliens are coming to save him any day now. He sees the 'sign's confirming his belief everywhere, most often in song lyrics. Sadly some people are capable of deluding themselves into believing virtually anything.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That's an excellent question. If you are speaking about "hallucinations" in the strict meaning of the term to psychologists, then there are a few ways to distinguish the two. For instance, hallucinations are almost always recognized as such by the person who has had one within moments of their coming to an end. Religious experiences, however, can impress people for years or decades afterwards as having been real. Folks typically don't end up thinking sometime later, "Oh that was just an hallucination" as they almost always do with a true hallucination.

There are other distinctions too, but I can't recall them at the moment.

As someone who has experienced hallucinations that I could not distinguish from reality I can tell you that I didn't so much 'recognize' that it was a hallucination as desperately hoped that it was just a hallucination. If it had been a positive hallucination, one that had confirmed something that a part of me had wanted to be true, I seriously doubt that I would have been so quick to dismiss it as just a hallucination. In fact, human nature being what it is, I would probably have tried to convince myself that it wasn't just an hallucination, but instead some supernatural message telling me that that what I'd always wanted to be true in fact was.

 

[Scott C.]

See post #30.

I don't think you answered my question. You're explaining why people can't trust their experiences and know for certain that something came from God. I agree that people can and do misinterpret personal experiences. But, if there is an Omnipotent God, it's impossible that he is incapable of using communication methods that interact with the heart. mind, and soul in a way that negates all of your concerns regarding a person's certainty. Your argument assumes there is no God with this capability. So again, my question to you is, do you believe that an Omnipotent God would be capable of such communication?

 

[Scott C.]

I know with certainty that an Omnipotent God cannot exist (notice I'm not denying the possibility of non-omnipotent gods however). Let me ask you, can God create a space that he cannot enter? Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? Whether the answer is yes or no, he isn't omnipotent.

Of course I've heard the "Can God create a rock...?" type question many times. It's sort of like asking if a person is infinitely strong, can he beat himself in a benchpress contest. If he can beat himself, then he is not infinitely strong, since he lost the contest to himself. Yet, if he can't beat himself then he is not Omnipotent since there is something that he can't do. I find this line of reasoning to be a silly reason to believe there can't be an Omnipotent God.

 

[Trailblazer]

For example: Let us suppose, you and I, that one day you were hiking in the mountains when suddenly your most favorite god in the whole big, wide world spoke to you in a booming voice, saying "Go now to the peoples of the earth and proclaim to them, 'The Lord your God has spoken to you, and She is an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism'."

If something along those lines actually happened, would you have reasonable grounds to conclude that it was certain your god was an atheist and Tibetan Buddhist?

As for myself, I think the answer is that you can NOT be certain that anything you learn during a religious experience is true knowledge of deity. I think there are several reasons why that is so, but one of those reasons is this: You are somewhat in the same epistemological relationship to the deity that you are experiencing as you are in to a photon that you are experiencing.

You do not experience the photon as it really is: That is, as a photon. Instead, you experience the photon as light. In the same way, it is possible when having an experience of your favorite god that you do not experience the god as he or she really is (which we will call here "X"). Instead, you experience them as "God".

Put a little differently, just as a photon does not have a color, but instead color is only a property of our experience of a photon, X might not be an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism, but instead our experience of X as an atheist who practices Tibetan Buddhism might only be a property of our experience of God.

Thus, one cannot be certain that a religious experience imparts true knowledge of deity.

That my friend was a very good post. It really takes an atheist to be objective about this God stuff, so we believers can learn a lot from atheists…

Besides that, I have always said that you atheists are probably smarter than believers on average.

I particularly like this part: “You do not experience the photon as it really is: That is, as a photon. Instead, you experience the photon as light. In the same way, it is possible when having an experience of your favorite god that you do not experience the god as he or she really is (which we will call here "X"). Instead, you experience them as "God".”

According to my beliefs, nobody can EVER experience God as God really is, because nobody can EVER know what God really is, so you are right on target…

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's an excellent question. If you are speaking about "hallucinations" in the strict meaning of the term to psychologists, then there are a few ways to distinguish the two. For instance, hallucinations are almost always recognized as such by the person who has had one within moments of their coming to an end. Religious experiences, however, can impress people for years or decades afterwards as having been real. Folks typically don't end up thinking sometime later, "Oh that was just an hallucination" as they almost always do with a true hallucination.

There are other distinctions too, but I can't recall them at the moment.

The same could be said for UFO experiences - where an initial misunderstanding of any visual phenomena that might have been an explanation just isn't corrected later, but a firm belief grows instead.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Besides that, I have always said that you atheists are probably smarter than believers on average.

I feel a bit smug to point this out, but from all the evidence, those who don't have any religious beliefs do tend to be at the higher levels of intelligence on the spectrum - scientists and/or intellectuals, for instance.

 

[Sunstone]

That my friend was a very good post. It really takes an atheist to be objective about this God stuff, so we believers can learn a lot from atheists…

Besides that, I have always said that you atheists are probably smarter than believers on average.

I particularly like this part: “You do not experience the photon as it really is: That is, as a photon. Instead, you experience the photon as light. In the same way, it is possible when having an experience of your favorite god that you do not experience the god as he or she really is (which we will call here "X"). Instead, you experience them as "God".”

According to my beliefs, nobody can EVER experience God as God really is, because nobody can EVER know what God really is, so you are right on target…

Strange. You quoted me, but the quote came up attributed to someone else.