Challenging one's religion

[Unveiled Artist]

OK, I think we're in agreement. I was addressing the word I have bolded.

Somewhat. If you refer to the psychology example, a doctor wouldn't be just questioning what the voices mean but judging the validity of that clients experiences to get a valid diagnosis.

 

[Secret Chief]

Somewhat. If you refer to the psychology example, a doctor wouldn't be just questioning what the voices mean but judging the validity of that clients experiences to get a valid diagnosis.

Yes ok; a voices in the head experience is open to challenge, a train journey not so much.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes ok; a voices in the head experience is open to challenge, a train journey not so much.

For example,

Spiritual experiences are vague, though. If not, we could prove them can test them without needing to practice or believe in a said religion.

So, I'd say it depends on the experience. If you told me you went on a train journey, I could say you're lying and challenge it. If you gave me tickets, then I believe you. If you said you experience God in the wind, that's a bit different. If I challenged that experience and it hit home, the believer would have mental agitation. The train journey less so.

Edit.

In the OP the experience is based on an assumption (the guy killed the other) considered fact (given the strong correlation-blood, standing over the guy, only person around). It's a brain association and we take the "evidence" and draw conclusions before investigation.

If someone has a profound religious experience, I argue their brains do the same. It's too profound to question rheur assumptions but if they were open to it, would let themselves be challenged.

 

[Secret Chief]

If you told me you went on a train journey, I could say you're lying and challenge it.

You're not very trusting are you

 

[Secret Chief]

If you said you experience God in the wind, that's a bit different. If I challenged that experience

I think the generalised "problem" is that "experience" is our mental life and, with the best will in the world, it is difficult sometimes to verbalise. I may have an inner experience (as opposed to an external experience such as a train journey) which I find difficult to verbalise or account for, even to myself.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Hm. You're making it too complicated. The focus is on challenging your deeply held experiences insofar that they are so strongly held, one may find it hard to accept a challenge.

There aresny what ifs and extra things they can be add to scenarios but it sidetracks the point with to many "others" answers

The thing is that as long as there are "other" possible answers, I wouldn't take a hard stand in the first place. I guess I'm 2 parts agnostic and only 1 part atheist.

Still... I've experienced cognitive dissonance in the past. It's why I feel the way I do about taking hard stances. I've found that in sticking firmly to my beliefs when doubt has been cast has meant that I haven't looked at that evidence with any gram of intellectual honesty. Only in weighing the evidence for what it is, and in removing your biases as much as possible, can you get more of an accurate idea on things.

We always need to be ready to alter our perceptions on things when better information comes along.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're not very trusting are you

Haha. Aside from case in point, somewhat. Depends on the nature of the issue. Funny, though, I don't doubt people's religious experiences. I question to understand what some people experience that I have not; but, because everyone is human, it's not completely foreign to me. But if you told me you see a ghost or so have you, then I'm not too trusting.

But you do get my point?

 

[Secret Chief]

But you do get my point?

I do. Personally, I'd put paranormal in with supernatural: it's all natural - just not (yet, possibly) explainable (assuming the reporter is being honest).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The thing is that as long as there are "other" possible answers, I wouldn't take a hard stand in the first place. I guess I'm 2 parts agnostic and only 1 part atheist.

Still... I've experienced cognitive dissonance in the past. It's why I feel the way I do about taking hard stances. I've found that in sticking firmly to my beliefs when doubt has been cast has meant that I haven't looked at that evidence with any gram of intellectual honesty. Only in weighing the evidence for what it is, and in removing your biases as much as possible, can you get more of an accurate idea on things.

We always need to be ready to alter our perceptions on things when better information comes along.

Do you think there'd be a day where you're solid and trust yourself that you have a stance(s) worth taking?

For example, if you're loved by your parents (in this scenario), and they've taken care of you all your life, why would you doubt their love and what evidence would you need in addition to see if your trust and love is valid enough to sustain?

Sometimes I think people don't take one side or another because they feel their choices (expression thereof) are fixed once they say it. We don't know what we will believe and where we will be in the future-so the stance is a present-moment decision not an eternal one. If you pick black over white, you can change as your life circumstances change.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Do you think there'd be a day where you're solid and trust yourself that you have a stance(s) worth taking?

For example, if you're loved by your parents (in this scenario), and they've taken care of you all your life, why would you doubt their love and what evidence would you need in addition to see if your trust and love is valid enough to sustain?

Sometimes I think people don't take one side or another because they feel their choices (expression thereof) are fixed once they say it. We don't know what we will believe and where we will be in the future-so the stance is a present-moment decision not an eternal one. If you pick black over white, you can change as your life circumstances change.

Hmmm... I definitely have convictions and stances I take. I always leave room available for when my world view changes, though. I am an optimist at heart, but I've learned that a healthy amount of caution is warranted in life in all things. The glass is half full, but I always keep a pitcher around for when it drops below that point.

I had a gf I spent years with. We talked about marriage, and she was the central focus in my life. We were so invested in each other, that we even shared a bank account together, and funneled all of our assets into it. You can see where this is going...

We didn't work out, and prying her tentacles away from my assets was a hard won fight and a hard lesson learned.

My best friend who I've known since 4th grade borrowed 500 dollars from me. I asked him one day when he'd be paying me back, and that there was no rush... Just that I was curious. He said, "What money?"

When you buy into anything in life 100%, you put yourself at a disadvantage. You create a situation where you are beholden to someone else. You become dependent on them, and you give up your power. And for what? To feel more noble or to make life easier? It's better to hope for the best, but have something in the pipeline in case your trust was misplaced.

Besides, being less reliant on things outside of yourself allows for a stronger sense of reality and a stronger sense of self, I find. When you have no one to run to but yourself, you find out real quick what works and what doesn't. This has been my own personal experience, at least. Mileage may vary from person to person.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If someone stood over a dead person and that person had blood on this chest and the other on his knife, but you did not see the action, would your intelligent assumption be taken as fact or belief?

If someone is indoctrinated in their religion (doesn't matter which in any case), since their experiences support their belief are so strong, like the dead guy and knife, should they consider belief a fact or a belief?

While in both cases to fall into the belief the guy with the knife killed or the other our repeated synchronicities or even feeling god on the wind (heard a non Christian say on RF) are proof of our religious practice or cause and result of practice, they still have a small chance they could be wrong.

Do we consider we could be wrong in both cases?

Would you be open to be challenged the validity of your experiences?

Assumptions and drawing conclusions are helpful in some things, but when your assumptions are challenged it's hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance if we are wrong.

Most people, maybe not all but almost all I think, are powerfully controlled by what makes us happy, secure, esteemed. If a person is genuinely happy then by the principle of energy conservation in all mammals they will coast. What will compel them to suddenly throw away their happiness to seek meaning which requires effort? Unhappiness.

Two people are married and experiencing bliss together. They never think to question one another's motives and actions until..one day one of them has a misunderstanding with the other. Jealous feelings arise. Suddenly there is an investigation and a questioning of motives. Motives become mysterious and are suspected of malicious intent. Small offences take on enormous size they are willing to pour over possible offenses and can't stop thinking about them. What was easy no longer is. Their indoctrination is broken. They become willing to risk the security and the comfort they have experienced, because they no longer trust it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't see how you can challenge another's experience. Are you saying you can say to them that they didn't have that experience? I do think you can challenge the conclusions someone may have drawn from their experiences.

I would tend to agree. Would you say the type of experience is important, meaning as to the truthfulness or validity of it? For instance, magicians for entertainment or otherwise can make claims, and some are astounded by them. But for entertainment's purposes, just to say, they are not really true. They are considered sleight of hand. (Underhanded, perhaps?) Some perhaps may not be proven as to where these messages come from.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmmm... I definitely have convictions and stances I take. I always leave room available for when my world view changes, though. I am an optimist at heart, but I've learned that a healthy amount of caution is warranted in life in all things. The glass is half full, but I always keep a pitcher around for when it drops below that point.

I had a gf I spent years with. We talked about marriage, and she was the central focus in my life. We were so invested in each other, that we even shared a bank account together, and funneled all of our assets into it. You can see where this is going...

We didn't work out, and prying her tentacles away from my assets was a hard won fight and a hard lesson learned.

My best friend who I've known since 4th grade borrowed 500 dollars from me. I asked him one day when he'd be paying me back, and that there was no rush... Just that I was curious. He said, "What money?"

When you buy into anything in life 100%, you put yourself at a disadvantage. You create a situation where you are beholden to someone else. You become dependent on them, and you give up your power. And for what? To feel more noble or to make life easier? It's better to hope for the best, but have something in the pipeline in case your trust was misplaced.

Besides, being less reliant on things outside of yourself allows for a stronger sense of reality and a stronger sense of self, I find. When you have no one to run to but yourself, you find out real quick what works and what doesn't. This has been my own personal experience, at least. Mileage may vary from person to person.

Unfortunately, even with good friends and family, it's good to have a written agreement. People can forget things anyway. I learned that it's good to have written agreements.

 

[Vinayaka]

I would tend to agree. Would you say the type of experience is important, meaning as to the truthfulness or validity of it? For instance, magicians for entertainment or otherwise can make claims, and some are astounded by them. But for entertainment's purposes, just to say, they are not really true. They are considered sleight of hand. (Underhanded, perhaps?) Some perhaps may not be proven as to where these messages come from.

I'm not into interpreting another person's experience. Seems to me that's up to them. Of course there are many kinds of experiences, ranging from what somebody might describe as mystical, all the way to the mundane. If a person thinks God spoke to them, what am I to say? I can have my personal opinion, but I don't see a ton of use in sharing it with that person, unless it might help them from harming themselves, or something similar that's kind of extreme.

If somebody says they fell and hurt their arm, am I to argue with that?

I do see experience, and interpretation of it, as being two separate things.

Thanks for contributing.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not into interpreting another person's experience. Seems to me that's up to them. Of course there are many kinds of experiences, ranging from what somebody might describe as mystical, all the way to the mundane. If a person thinks God spoke to them, what am I to say? I can have my personal opinion, but I don't see a ton of use in sharing it with that person, unless it might help them from harming themselves, or something similar that's kind of extreme.

If somebody says they fell and hurt their arm, am I to argue with that?

I do see experience, and interpretation of it, as being two separate things.

Thanks for contributing.

i understand although experience and attributing experience can be questionable to some.

 

[alypius]

would your intelligent assumption be taken as fact or belief?

Is there a distinction between assumption (which may not have supporting evidence) and inference (which is a reasonable conclusion reached on the basis of evidence)?

 

[sayak83]

Is there a deal breaker in that statement?

Can you explain what you mean?

 

[sayak83]

For example,

Spiritual experiences are vague, though. If not, we could prove them can test them without needing to practice or believe in a said religion.

So, I'd say it depends on the experience. If you told me you went on a train journey, I could say you're lying and challenge it. If you gave me tickets, then I believe you. If you said you experience God in the wind, that's a bit different. If I challenged that experience and it hit home, the believer would have mental agitation. The train journey less so.

Edit.

In the OP the experience is based on an assumption (the guy killed the other) considered fact (given the strong correlation-blood, standing over the guy, only person around). It's a brain association and we take the "evidence" and draw conclusions before investigation.

If someone has a profound religious experience, I argue their brains do the same. It's too profound to question rheur assumptions but if they were open to it, would let themselves be challenged.

Spiritual experience are not vague. What they lack is similarity in content with awake experiences of the world. Since language vocabulary is primarily about this world, its difficult to clearly express the content of the experience.

 

[firedragon]

If someone stood over a dead person and that person had blood on this chest and the other on his knife, but you did not see the action, would your intelligent assumption be taken as fact or belief?

If someone is indoctrinated in their religion (doesn't matter which in any case), since their experiences support their belief are so strong, like the dead guy and knife, should they consider belief a fact or a belief?

While in both cases to fall into the belief the guy with the knife killed or the other our repeated synchronicities or even feeling god on the wind (heard a non Christian say on RF) are proof of our religious practice or cause and result of practice, they still have a small chance they could be wrong.

Do we consider we could be wrong in both cases?

Would you be open to be challenged the validity of your experiences?

Assumptions and drawing conclusions are helpful in some things, but when your assumptions are challenged it's hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance if we are wrong.

Which specific case are you speaking about? What are the reasons he presented? How did you analyse it? What are the findings?

 

[Clara Tea]

If someone stood over a dead person and that person had blood on this chest and the other on his knife, but you did not see the action, would your intelligent assumption be taken as fact or belief?

If someone is indoctrinated in their religion (doesn't matter which in any case), since their experiences support their belief are so strong, like the dead guy and knife, should they consider belief a fact or a belief?

While in both cases to fall into the belief the guy with the knife killed or the other our repeated synchronicities or even feeling god on the wind (heard a non Christian say on RF) are proof of our religious practice or cause and result of practice, they still have a small chance they could be wrong.

Do we consider we could be wrong in both cases?

Would you be open to be challenged the validity of your experiences?

Assumptions and drawing conclusions are helpful in some things, but when your assumptions are challenged it's hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance if we are wrong.

I might assume that the dead person knifed himself to death in order to blame the other person.

After visiting many crime scenes, I saw a lot of suspicious behavior. For example, it seems odd that the dead person would fall into chalk outlines. Who put those chalk outlines there, and how did they know that a dead person would fall into them?