Challenging one's religion

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Hm. If it's a supernatural experience, unless that person said he or she experienced something like flying or actually seeing their deceased family member in person, it does have worldly connection just I'm not sure why it can't be supernatural with worldly causes.

Is there an example of a specific experience that you can make up that's so true and specific it can be repeated and taken in as fact (to the person who experienced it)?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

Hmm. How strong is your assumption based on what you see without investigation?

 

[Clara Tea]

Hmm. How strong is your assumption based on what you see without investigation?

Faith doesn't require proof. Investigations sometimes yield proof, but if you don't need or want proof, there is no point in investigating.

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't see how this changes @Vinayaka 's post. An experience is an experience, it can't be challenged unless one believes the person is dissembling. I've had an experience of going to York on a train. On what grounds can this experience be "challenged" ?

And, as @Vinayaka also says, any conclusions may of course be open to being challenged, but that is a separate issue.

One can see the train coming, and still insist that the train is not real. Eventually, while standing on the track, reality hits (which is another journey, this time to the afterlife).

Belief, whether about God or trains, is not always about proof. Sometimes we take a chance, and sometimes we are wrong. Many choose to err on the side of caution. They say that "to err is human" but after one gets run over, one is dead and divine (not human).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Faith doesn't require proof. Investigations sometimes yield proof, but if you don't need or want proof, there is no point in investigating.

Faith may be interpreted as a strong assumption something is true when it may not be. We may think that one guy murdered the other, and that's an intelligent assumption just as a visit from one's deceased family member in some way is an intelligent assumption they were present based on a chain of personal events that lead up to that assumption. One has faith that it is true (investigation/proof irrelevant) and indoctrinated in that faith. If one challenged the validity of their experiences (doesn't matter how), could we be proven wrong?

It wasn't originally about faith and investigation.

 

[Tiberius]

On two conditions:

1. If there was a valid reason for the challenge my experiences other than one just proving oneself to be “right” or proving me to be “wrong.”
2. If there was a means to experiment, test, measure, and falsify said experiences.

As for number 1, I think finding the truth and not wasting time with a belief system that was false and/or flawed is a valid enough reason.

I completely agree with you regarding number 2. Without some way to verify a position, then you can't claim that the position is definitely correct.

 

[sayak83]

Hm. If it's a supernatural experience, unless that person said he or she experienced something like flying or actually seeing their deceased family member in person, it does have worldly connection just I'm not sure why it can't be supernatural with worldly causes.

Is there an example of a specific experience that you can make up that's so true and specific it can be repeated and taken in as fact (to the person who experienced it)?

It's like trying to explain colour to a black and white world. Or the third dimension to a 2D world, or music to a deaf civilization. Spiritual experiences are experiences of an aspect of experienced reality that is usually invisible in regular experiences. And it enhances and enriches the lived reality just like color or music does.

 

[Tiberius]

It's like trying to explain colour to a black and white world. Or the third dimension to a 2D world, or music to a deaf civilization. Spiritual experiences are experiences of an aspect of experienced reality that is usually invisible in regular experiences. And it enhances and enriches the lived reality just like color or music does.

But we can describe different frequencies of light and how they create different colours to people even if they can't actually see them. We can explain how extra dimensions work, in much the same way that we can do mathematics with four and five dimensional shapes. And we can explain how music creates sound waves, and how different frequencies can interact with each other in different ways, even if the person we explain it to is deaf.

All of these things can be described in clear and concise terms, and in a way that lets the people work with the ideas even if they can never experience them. Two people studying a hypercube, for example, will get the same results in their studies of it. But this doesn't happen when it comes to religion. That indicates to me that religion is more a reflection on the person who is studying it, and not some thing that is external to them. Thus, religion is not objectively true in the same way that a hypercube is.

 

[sayak83]

But we can describe different frequencies of light and how they create different colours to people even if they can't actually see them. We can explain how extra dimensions work, in much the same way that we can do mathematics with four and five dimensional shapes. And we can explain how music creates sound waves, and how different frequencies can interact with each other in different ways, even if the person we explain it to is deaf.

All of these things can be described in clear and concise terms, and in a way that lets the people work with the ideas even if they can never experience them. Two people studying a hypercube, for example, will get the same results in their studies of it. But this doesn't happen when it comes to religion. That indicates to me that religion is more a reflection on the person who is studying it, and not some thing that is external to them. Thus, religion is not objectively true in the same way that a hypercube is.

If you study the discussions about mystical experiences, associated practices and theory between different traditions you will find a large amount of similarities between them.

 

[Tiberius]

If you study the discussions about mystical experiences, associated practices and theory between different traditions you will find a large amount of similarities between them.

Can you give an example or two please?

 

[sayak83]

Can you give an example or two please?

I will try. Meanwhile access to this book, if possible would be great.
https://www.amazon.in/dp/0195143795/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_XZN18PPZ9HF8DPYQXC9S

 

[Tiberius]

I will try. Meanwhile access to this book, if possible would be great.
https://www.amazon.in/dp/0195143795/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_XZN18PPZ9HF8DPYQXC9S

I'm not going to buy a book. Surely there is a freely accessible webpage that you can share the link to?

 

[night912]

If you study the discussions about mystical experiences, associated practices and theory between different traditions you will find a large amount of similarities between them.

Similarities does not mean "same." All religious gods can be considered as similar, but not of those gods are the same when compared to each other.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And, as @Vinayaka also says, any conclusions may of course be open to being challenged, but that is a separate issue.

No need to challenge personal experiences. They do not / should not interfere with the belief of any one else. My belief being something (atheist, advaita or whatever) is for me, and for no one else unless the person agrees to my view. Because I have certain experience, it does not mean every one should accept it.

Someone who hears voices is actually hearing voices but when their experiences are challenged, they find their voices aren't outside themselves but actually have a psychological and medical cause.

Oh yeah, I have tinnitus. I hear three type of sounds all the time - Crickets, flowing water and a constant song-like hum which makes me mumble along with it. I am not really troubled by that till now, I sleep easily and soundly, but our housemaid calls me 'singing papa'. I can actually make good songs / hymns for worship of Gods if I so desired with that constant hum. Sometimes it feels like there are people chatting around, but I know that is a trick that my mind is playing with me. I enjoy it most of the time, but sometimes miss the absolute silence.

You're not very trusting are you

IMHO, in today's world, it may be good thing to be a doubting Thomas.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

It is not like that in India (I have seen this problem among The Americans that I have come across). My wife and myself (now in the 54th year of our marriage) have always had a joint account. She has a separate account as well (started with the gifts she may have received from her family at the time of our marriage). Does not tell me about that and I too never ask about it. Probably, the nominee for that account is my son or my daughter-in-law. Same with the family jewelry. My wife and my daughter-in-law manage that. No question of a difference because all that we have will go to her, and through her to our grandchildren. We have already given my daughter's share to her. This is because we have no concept of divorce (although it is allowed in law). Once brought together in the presence of the Fire-God (Agni) and the society, we are bound together for the life, some say for seven lives.

"Dear Wife! By taking these seven steps, you have become my dearest friend. I pledge my unfailing loyalty to you. Let us stay together for the rest of our lives. Let us not separate from each other ever. Let us be of one mind in carrying out our responsibilities as householders. Let us love and cherish each other and enjoy nourishing food and good health. Let us discharge our prescribed duties to our elders, ancestors, rishis, creatures, and gods. Let our aspirations be united. May all auspiciousness come your way." Pānigrahanam (Holding hands): Vivāh

 

[sayak83]

I'm not going to buy a book. Surely there is a freely accessible webpage that you can share the link to?

I would prefer works that are trustworthy. I will need some time to find something free that I find reliable.

 

[sayak83]

I'm not going to buy a book. Surely there is a freely accessible webpage that you can share the link to?

Try this pdf link
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIARAC&usg=AOvVaw3HW7h7bXPoudGo-Q8T4n6K

 

[Tiberius]

Try this pdf link
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/1793/75753/5/Mystical%20Traditions%20in%20the%20Great%20World%20Religions%20by%20Ronald%20Rafique%20Wayne%20Powell.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwil0fyU253vAhXu9nMBHUYJAyoQFjAAegQIARAC&usg=AOvVaw3HW7h7bXPoudGo-Q8T4n6K

Interesting essay, but I don't see where it clearly describes the "mystical experiences, associated practices and theory between different traditions" that you claim are so similar.

 

[Muffled]

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 believe I am open to consider being wrong but the odds are in my favor. The odds favor the man holding the knife is the killer.

 

[Muffled]

But was it suicide? Was it murder? Was it murder to make it seem as though it were suicide?

If I stumbled upon that scene, I would call the police and let the forensic scientists work on the problem. I'm no expert by any means, though I could make guesses I suppose.

If other people want to guess as to what happened, they can. If they want to start saying that they "know" what happened... Eeehhh.... Let's wait to see what the scientists say on the topic, first. Otherwise, I may question just how you "know."

I believe strangely enough that if the person said they didn't do it that no-one would believe him.