Experiencing God

[sojourner]

Okay, produce your objective evidence for them. We'll wait.

They demonstrably happen for the individual in an interior way. Just because you can't "see" them, doesn't mean that they're not real. Can you "see" my emotional state? No. But such states are real in an interior way. Problem is that you're discounting all interior experiences as "not real." Which is disingenuous.

 

[arthra]

There was a classic book by William James 'Varieties of Religious Experience"..in which James asked:

Every religious phenomenon has its history and its derivation from natural antecedents. What is nowadays called the higher criticism of the Bible is only a study of the Bible from this existential point of view, neglected too much by the earlier church. Under just what biographic conditions did the sacred writers bring forth their various contributions to the holy volume? And what had they exactly in their several individual minds, when they delivered their utterances?

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/james/william/varieties/

You can read it online.

I was visiting a patient in hospital a few years ago who told me he had a "near death experience". I suggested to him that he might want to share his experience with others. His reply to my suggestion I thought was very interesting. He said that he had considered this..sharing his experience...but a friend who also had a near death experience urged him not to share it because people would say it was just a chemical reaction. Now this man was not religious before..He had been in construction work before and was not "religious" he said...but after his experience he said he had no fear of death and in fact would embrace it.

I personally believe we are all living in the embrace of God.. Some come to realize it ...others do not. It depends on our individual character and experiences as well as the choices we make. I think a deep yearning and seeking is a necessary prelude ... but there is no ready means by which we can have a spiritual experience. The spiritual world is there but not easily reproduced for others.

 

[Sonofason]

I agree with Cephus here, there is value in mocking certain attitudes, ideas or behaviors.

I understand your side too, obviously. On the surface it seems obvious that people should not be mean spirited towards other people. Your vague example obviously refers to the bullying stories we hear, and who wouldn't agree with you when thinking of those kids of issues? "Live and let live, be nice to people," right? Seems obvious and hard to argue when you put it that simply without thinking it through.

But I strongly believe that each idea, belief, claim or behavior needs to be analyized on merit, and not all ideas, beliefs, attitudes or behaviors are worthy of praise or respect.

What do we do with an idea, belief, claim or behavior that is damaging in some way? Do we 'live and let live' and stay quiet, for fear of insulting the holder of such a belief? Suffering the damage done, simply to play nice-nice at all costs? I use the example of Christian Scientist's belief that they should not bring their sick children to the doctor, because God will heal them. Or the belief of the Westboro Baptist Church that God intentionally kills American soldiers because of the increasing acceptance of homosexuality in America.

Those beliefs shouldn't be mocked? We should stand aside and stay silent, in the face of beliefs like these that cause innocent children to die and/or foster misunderstanding and hatred between groups of different-minded people? WHY? If I don't mock these sorts of beliefs, how am I supposed to convince my children and others that these beliefs are wrong and damaging?

Some ideas, beliefs, attitudes or behaviors deserve to be, and should be, mocked. We don't have to accept every idea or belief just because someone holds it, or just because someone says it's part of their religion.

Actually, rather than mocking someone that you think has a bad idea, belief or attitude, you present a persuasive argument to convince them that their idea, belief or attitude is wrong. I still do not see the value in mocking others for their ideas, beliefs or attitudes. Furthermore, with regard to the ideas and such that have come from organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church, you could simply establish laws that such people are obliged to follow. They are surely entitled to believe that children should be deprived of medicine, but allowing them to deprive children of medicine is something entirely different.

 

[Sonofason]

They demonstrably happen for the individual in an interior way. Just because you can't "see" them, doesn't mean that they're not real. Can you "see" my emotional state? No. But such states are real in an interior way. Problem is that you're discounting all interior experiences as "not real." Which is disingenuous.

Well said in my opinion.

 

[Sonofason]

There was a classic book by William James 'Varieties of Religious Experience"..in which James asked:

Every religious phenomenon has its history and its derivation from natural antecedents. What is nowadays called the higher criticism of the Bible is only a study of the Bible from this existential point of view, neglected too much by the earlier church. Under just what biographic conditions did the sacred writers bring forth their various contributions to the holy volume? And what had they exactly in their several individual minds, when they delivered their utterances?

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/james/william/varieties/

You can read it online.

I was visiting a patient in hospital a few years ago who told me he had a "near death experience". I suggested to him that he might want to share his experience with others. His reply to my suggestion I thought was very interesting. He said that he had considered this..sharing his experience...but a friend who also had a near death experience urged him not to share it because people would say it was just a chemical reaction. Now this man was not religious before..He had been in construction work before and was not "religious" he said...but after his experience he said he had no fear of death and in fact would embrace it.

I personally believe we are all living in the embrace of God.. Some come to realize it ...others do not. It depends on our individual character and experiences as well as the choices we make. I think a deep yearning and seeking is a necessary prelude ... but there is no ready means by which we can have a spiritual experience. The spiritual world is there but not easily reproduced for others.

Great answer, and thanks for the link

 

[Sunstone]

That's just a claim in a book of mythology. I'm asking how you came to know that said claim is actually true.

Mythology? Newberg and D'Aquill are neuroscientists. The book is about neuroscience, not mythology. The distinctions they make between hallucinations and mystical experiences seem pretty science-based.

 

[Sunstone]

True. The formers happen.

Ciao

- viole

So do the latter. At least, there is considerable science-based evidence that the latter also happen.

Basically, y'all are not up on the current science if you think mystical experiences don't happen. But that's ok. No one can keep up with everything that's going on in the sciences these days. There's just way too much happening.

 

[Cephus]

Mythology? Newberg and D'Aquill are neuroscientists. The book is about neuroscience, not mythology. The distinctions they make between hallucinations and mystical experiences seem pretty science-based.

My bad, whenever anyone talks about reading books around here, it tends to be religious books.

 

[Demonslayer]

Actually, rather than mocking someone that you think has a bad idea, belief or attitude, you present a persuasive argument to convince them that their idea, belief or attitude is wrong.

Two things here. First off, it's not so much mocking "someone" as I don't find directly attacking an individual to have much value. Attacking an idea, however, does have value. For example if I say the belief that "all non-Christians are damned to hell for eternity" is an immoral, divisive, downright stinky belief that causes xenophobia and fosters a negative cult-like attitude, I'm attacking this idea. Now I do fully realize folks who subscribe to this belief might be indirectly insulted, of course.

Well tough luck, what am I supposed to do sit back and pretend I respect this idea? Sit back and watch Christian families tell their kids that the nice Jewish family next door are doing to be damned to hell for not worshiping Jesus and try to have respect for this idea? Because I've seen this behavior, a lot actually, and I do not respect it one bit. Why should I have to say I do? I think it's horrible, so screw it, I'm going to say I think it's horrible.

The second part of this is, mounting a persuasive argument against a religious belief doesn't change anything. If someone has been indoctrinated into a faith based salvation system (just to continue the example) me trying to explain calmly that there is no hell where all the non-Christians go isn't going to do a damn thing. Mocking this belief however, just might...see the next bit.

I still do not see the value in mocking others for their ideas, beliefs or attitudes.

The value is mocking a belief is that it knocks it down a peg in the public eye. For most of our lives religion has been untouchable, and it's the reason so many of the bad religious ideas have continues to flourish. If, as adults, we present a healthy disrespect for ideas we feel are destructive, divisive, or not worthy of our respect, our kids will grow up with the example that they don't have to sit quiet about something they disagree with, simply because someone says it's part of their religion.

This is what's happening with the gay issue. When I was growing up my religious father was a very vocal homophobe. As were the majority of Catholic adult figures I knew. I'm sure I'll get warned if I start posting the names the adults would call gay people right in front of the children. And ho ho, ha ha didn't everyone get a good laugh? What kind of example is that for children? I think that's awful behavior, and I'll be damned if I'm going to respect it just because homosexuality is against someone's religion. Not only is their value in mocking the anti-gay stuff, there is danger in NOT mocking it. The danger is that yet another generation will grow up with adults teaching them that it's OK to bash gay people because of their religious belief.

Mocking an idea has value in diminishing the power of that idea.

Furthermore, with regard to the ideas and such that have come from organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church, you could simply establish laws that such people are obliged to follow. They are surely entitled to believe that children should be deprived of medicine, but allowing them to deprive children of medicine is something entirely different.

On the flip side I think this is a horrible idea! As much distaste as I have for religion, freedom of religion is extremely important and should never be taken away or reduced in any way from a legal standpoint. We can't start outlawing religious ideas. I mean maybe there can be criminal charges in the specific example of Christians Scientists who let their children die. But anti-gay sentiment, all non-Christians burn in hell...we can't outlaw ideas like that. Best we disrespect them publically so down the road the ideas are seen as bad instead of good, and over time are rejected by more and more people.

 

[Muffled]

Then it's not evidence, or at the very least, not objective evidence. Your stereotypical drunk who sees pink elephants in a drunken stupor can claim to have "evidence" that pink elephants are real, but that doesn't mean they actually are, nor should it convince anyone else. What you have to ask yourself is if someone approached you claiming to have the exact same kind of evidence that you claim to have, just for a different deity, would you believe them? If not, why should anyone take you seriously?

I believe I was not drunk so the example does not apply. Also seeing pink elephants will not be a prophecy that pink elephants will actually appear when the person becomes sober.

I believe that I would believe they had the experience but would question the assessment of the source.

I believe it is evident in the Bible that God provides prophecy so it would be consistent with my experience.

 

[Sonofason]

Two things here. First off, it's not so much mocking "someone" as I don't find directly attacking an individual to have much value. Attacking an idea, however, does have value. For example if I say the belief that "all non-Christians are damned to hell for eternity" is an immoral, divisive, downright stinky belief that causes xenophobia and fosters a negative cult-like attitude, I'm attacking this idea. Now I do fully realize folks who subscribe to this belief might be indirectly insulted, of course.

I suppose there is very little difference between mocking a person's supposed bad idea, and mocking the person who espouses those bad ideas. That being said, we are free to believe what we have come to believe, and we are also free to say what we want, whether or not we do so in order to mock someone or their beliefs. Some Christians, do believe that all non-Christians are damned to hell for eternity. And I personally believe it is their right to make public and/or private declarations of that belief if they choose to do so, just as I believe you are free to espouse ideas to the contrary. Whether or not someone believes that such rhetoric fosters xenophobic or negative cult-like attitudes and tendencies means nothing. We are free to state our beliefs irregardless what others think of our beliefs and ideas. Life is not all inclusive. It can be quite divisive, and rightly so. The wheat shall be separated from the tares.

Well tough luck, what am I supposed to do sit back and pretend I respect this idea? Sit back and watch Christian families tell their kids that the nice Jewish family next door are doing to be damned to hell for not worshiping Jesus and try to have respect for this idea? Because I've seen this behavior, a lot actually, and I do not respect it one bit. Why should I have to say I do? I think it's horrible, so screw it, I'm going to say I think it's horrible.

I don't believe you should have to say you respect something you don't respect. I value a person's honesty far more than I value his respect.

The second part of this is, mounting a persuasive argument against a religious belief doesn't change anything. If someone has been indoctrinated into a faith based salvation system (just to continue the example) me trying to explain calmly that there is no hell where all the non-Christians go isn't going to do a damn thing. Mocking this belief however, just might...see the next bit.

And this is exactly why you will continue to mock Christians, and why Christians will continue to damn non-believers to hell. It's all good, and the way it will likely remain. So we'd better get used to having the debate. Its been going on for millennium.

The value is mocking a belief is that it knocks it down a peg in the public eye. For most of our lives religion has been untouchable, and it's the reason so many of the bad religious ideas have continues to flourish. If, as adults, we present a healthy disrespect for ideas we feel are destructive, divisive, or not worthy of our respect, our kids will grow up with the example that they don't have to sit quiet about something they disagree with, simply because someone says it's part of their religion.

And in the process, you will be damning many of those children to hell. I wish you the best of luck with that.

This is what's happening with the gay issue. When I was growing up my religious father was a very vocal homophobe. As were the majority of Catholic adult figures I knew. I'm sure I'll get warned if I start posting the names the adults would call gay people right in front of the children. And ho ho, ha ha didn't everyone get a good laugh? What kind of example is that for children? I think that's awful behavior, and I'll be damned if I'm going to respect it just because homosexuality is against someone's religion. Not only is their value in mocking the anti-gay stuff, there is danger in NOT mocking it. The danger is that yet another generation will grow up with adults teaching them that it's OK to bash gay people because of their religious belief.

For the moment I shall refrain from gay bashing.

Mocking an idea has value in diminishing the power of that idea.

yes, mocking ideas can potentially diminish the power of those ideas.

On the flip side I think this is a horrible idea! As much distaste as I have for religion, freedom of religion is extremely important and should never be taken away or reduced in any way from a legal standpoint. We can't start outlawing religious ideas. I mean maybe there can be criminal charges in the specific example of Christians Scientists who let their children die. But anti-gay sentiment, all non-Christians burn in hell...we can't outlaw ideas like that. Best we disrespect them publically so down the road the ideas are seen as bad instead of good, and over time are rejected by more and more people.

We could, but I don't think it would do anyone any good. I think we should continue the debate until there is nothing left to debate.

 

[Windwalker]

"Spiritual Problem" isn't the same thing as "religious" or "spiritual experience" at all.

As a related thought to this, I think it's useful to use the Buddhist terms of the "far enemy" and the "near enemy" to make an important distinction. The far enemy is the obvious extreme opposite, such as the far enemy of compassion is indifference. But the near enemy masquerades itself as the quality allowing for self-deception. The near enemy of compassion is pity. It looks like compassion, but it truly is not compassion at all. Same with skepticism. The far enemy of skepticism is gullibility. But the near enemy, is cynicism.

Personally, I see cynicism to be a spiritual problem. Cynicism masquerades itself as skepticism, but it does not listen or consider possibility with the mind of reason, but slams the door on anything that doesn't fit their own ideas of reality as it suits them. The fruit is irrationality, and anything that results in irrationality is a spiritual problem, because spirituality brings together a balance of the mind and heart. To close off the heart, or to shut off the mind through religious blindness or dismissive cynicism betrays an imbalance. Each are equally unhealthy and can be classified as a spiritual problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe my experiences with God are right. For instance my experience receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior. In my mind I was surrouned by a soft white light from which exuded love and peace. Then Jesus said to me: "I fill your cup with love, as much as you pour out your cup will never be empty." Love , peace and joy have been with me ever since and those are very real spiritual qualities.

So... imagination followed by happiness implies that God must exist? I find this less than compelling.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a difference between hallucination and religious experience.

Apparently, there is. See Andrew Newberg's and Eugene D'Aquill's little book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief for a discussion in scientific terms of several ways in which mystical experiences differ from hallucinations.

I have to admit that I haven't read Why God Won't Go Away; how do they define "hallucination"? Do they say that a "hallucination" is a specific neurological phenomenon, or that it covers any perception that isn't rooted in reality?

I think we have to be careful not to conflate a conclusion that religious experiences don't work through the neurological mechanisms of typical hallucinations with a conclusion that religious experiences are necessarily valid... which I think a lot of people do when they hear things like "religious experiences aren't hallucinations."

By a layman's definition of hallucination (i.e. a perception that isn't grounded in reality), it's still an open question of whether religious experiences are hallucinations even if they're different from typical hallucinations.

 

[Sunstone]

I think we have to be careful not to conflate a conclusion that religious experiences don't work through the neurological mechanisms of typical hallucinations with a conclusion that religious experiences are necessarily valid...

So far as I can see, religious experiences are not necessarily evidence that deity exists. On that score, they are ultimately inconclusive. But they aren't hallucinations, either. At least, not in scientific terms.

 

[Windwalker]

I think we have to be careful not to conflate a conclusion that religious experiences don't work through the neurological mechanisms of typical hallucinations with a conclusion that religious experiences are necessarily valid... which I think a lot of people do when they hear things like "religious experiences aren't hallucinations."

Why wouldn't they be valid? Don't mistake that someone having a religious experience, in all that that entails is invalid because what was experienced internally doesn't have a physical referent externally. For someone to experience a loved one who has been deceased, or an angle, or the Christ, or whatever religious form the experience may take, does not invalidate the experience itself. Think of it in terms of dream states. Would you ever say your dream was not valid, that it didn't happen, just because it took on the shapes and forms of people and object familiar to you? What if that dream had a profound effect upon your life? Is that effect invalid because in "reality" you can't actually fly? The point is, it doesn't matter if they actually met that dead relative, or they dreamt they flew, how it appeared symbolically affected a change for that person, and it is therefore a valid experience.

As far as your typical hallucinations versus religious experience, they are of a completely different order, and cause. Those who have both will tell you you can tell the difference quite readily.

By a layman's definition of hallucination (i.e. a perception that isn't grounded in reality), it's still an open question of whether religious experiences are hallucinations even if they're different from typical hallucinations.

How is a religious experience not grounded in reality? Are dreams unreal? Aren't dreams grounded in reality? Don't you have dreams?

 

[Windwalker]

BTW, here's an NPR special talking with Dr. Andrew Newberg about Neuroethology that might be interesting. http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132078267/neurotheology-where-religion-and-science-collide

From the article around the broadcast you can listen to:

"[We] evaluate what's happening in people's brains when they are in a deep spiritual practice like meditation or prayer," Newberg says. He and his team then compare that with the same brains in a state of rest. "This has really given us a remarkable window into what it means for people to be religious or spiritual or to do these kinds of practices."

Newberg's scans have also shown the ways in which religious practices, like meditation, can help shape a brain. Newberg describes one study in which he worked with older individuals who were experiencing memory problems. Newberg took scans of their brains, then taught them a mantra-based type of meditation and asked them to practice that meditation 12 minutes a day for eight weeks. At the end of the eight weeks, they came back for another scan, and Newberg found some dramatic differences.

"We found some very significant and profound changes in their brain just at rest, particularly in the areas of the brain that help us to focus our mind and to focus our attention," he says.
​

Is this "grounded in reality"? You bet it is. It can be measured in the brain itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So far as I can see, religious experiences are not necessarily evidence that deity exists. On that score, they are ultimately inconclusive. But they aren't hallucinations, either. At least, not in scientific terms.

The first medical dictionary site I was able to find defines "hallucination" like this:

1: a perception of something (as a visual image or a sound) with no external cause usually arising from a disorder of the nervous system (as in delirium tremens or in functional psychosis without known neurological disease) or in response to drugs (as LSD)—compare delusion 2, illusion 2a
2: the object of a hallucinatory perception

When you say that they aren't hallucinations "in scientific terms", what are you trying to argue? Are you splitting hairs between hallucination, delusion, and illusion? Are you saying that they aren't the result of a disorder (whether or not they have an external cause)? Something else?

I can see why a neurologist might care about the distinction - for instance, if religious experiences and typical hallucinations have different root causes or manifest in different parts of the brain, then drugs that normally work on hallucination-causing disorders wouldn't be expected to do anything to religious experiences - but I'm not sure what conclusions lay people like us are supposed to draw from it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why wouldn't they be valid? Don't mistake that someone having a religious experience, in all that that entails is invalid because what was experienced internally doesn't have a physical referent externally.

Sure. I can serendipitously draw a picture from my imagination that ends up looking like a real person. I could write a fictional story with a historical figure as a character. Still, the fact I can draw a picture that looks like a person does nothing to imply that the person actually exists, and of all the evidence we have for the existence of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter isn't part of it.

For someone to experience a loved one who has been deceased, or an angle, or the Christ, or whatever religious form the experience may take, does not invalidate the experience itself. Think of it in terms of dream states. Would you ever say your dream was not valid, that it didn't happen, just because it took on the shapes and forms of people and object familiar to you?

I would say that my dream is not a reliable indicator of anything outside my own head.

What if that dream had a profound effect upon your life? Is that effect invalid because in "reality" you can't actually fly? The point is, it doesn't matter if they actually met that dead relative, or they dreamt they flew, how it appeared symbolically affected a change for that person, and it is therefore a valid experience.

Everything you just said is equally true for hallucinations. A person can be inspired to action by a hallucination.

As far as your typical hallucinations versus religious experience, they are of a completely different order, and cause. Those who have both will tell you you can tell the difference quite readily.

All this implies is that religious experiences are not typical hallucinations. It says nothing about whether they're atypical hallucinations.

How is a religious experience not grounded in reality? Are dreams unreal? Aren't dreams grounded in reality? Don't you have dreams?

I think you're arguing against a point that I didn't make. If you're saying that a religious experience is similar in effect to a dream, then you probably agree with me.

 

[Demonslayer]

and of all the evidence we have for the existence of Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter isn't part of it.

Which is a crying shame if you ask me.