God experience can change atheists

[Polymath257]

Opinions do not interest me much. There is a study. Take or leave it.

But aren't opinions all that is left if you focus on subjectivity as opposed to objectivity?

 

[atanu]

Interesting. I would say exactly the opposite. Experiences have no reality of their own. Things are the only things that have reality as far as I can see.

You say “As far as I can see ...’”.

And probably you are sure that you know the “I”. IMO, there is an issue there. We have discussed that a lot without any resolution.

I point to the subject “I am” as the first cause on which all objects of mind and senses depend. But you hold that those objects of “I am” are real and “I am” is merely a product of those objects that the “I am “ cognises.

To summarise. You see things and then say “Those things made me see them”.

I beg to differ.

 

[atanu]

But aren't opinions all that is left if you focus on subjectivity as opposed to objectivity?

No. Why should be it like that? Do you doubt your own subjective knowledge “I exist”?

 

[atanu]

What I find so interesting is that the ONLY kind of evidence for gods is that pesky kind that no one else can ever verify.

God is reality of one’s existence-consciousness, which does not require a third party validation.

Many people hold steadfastly the notion that the body is the self. Should we question that assumption? Meditative experiences can help one in that enquiry.

 

[Polymath257]

No. Why should be it like that? Do you doubt your own subjective knowledge “I exist”?

I certainly doubt that I exist as a singular entity. Yes. Subjectivity is unreliable as a source for truth.

 

[Polymath257]

You say “As far as I can see ...’”.

And probably you are sure that you know the “I”. IMO, there is an issue there. We have discussed that a lot without any resolution.

I point to the subject “I am” as the first cause on which all objects of mind and senses depend. But you hold that those objects of “I am” are real and “I am” is merely a product of those objects that the “I am “ cognises.

To summarise. You see things and then say “Those things made me see them”.

I beg to differ.

OK, so how can a disagreement like this be resolved? You claim a causal link from self to other and I claim the opposite. I point to light coming into our eyes and we only see if such happens. I point to sound coming into our ears and we only hear if that happens. I point to the feeling of touch not happening unless there is a nerve that carries this sensation (I recently severed a nerve so this is a very present 'experience' for me).

That shows that our sensations are the result of our senses and our brains interpreting those senses. So yes, those things made me see/hear/touch them.

Now, what counter-evidence can you present?

 

[osgart]

I would never claim that a subjective truth is infallible. Quite the contrary, subjective truths in general are very fragile as they tend to run afoul of practical reality. If I were to believe that I no longer needed to eat so long as I drank out of a specific "holy" cup then I would soon discover the protest of my stomach and body if I didn't come to believe otherwise.

There are more subtle subjective experiences which are deeply formative of one's own sense of meaning...they way a parent treats a child, how a first love interest relationship works out, whether one wins a fist fight with a bully, etc...these things expose us to our sense of ourselves as subject to the consequences of our reality and experience on a deeply personal level and address such questions as:

• Am I respected/respectable?
• Can I have success?
• Am I loved/lovable?

In general terms these are value questions which we rationally determine based on our experience of life. We realize that our actions, our character, our value is a matter of rational assessment and we are frequently comparing ourselves to others or being comparable to others in an effort to determine that level of value. The ability to objectively and fairly assess our personal worth against those of others, to have faith where we are found wanting (and remember as a child just how much that assessment is dependent on the determination of one's parents and later peers) to handle well when we are gifted...all these things are not answerable to science as much as they are answerable to the input of others in one's environment and one's own self-determination. To find one's value amidst a throng of objectively like others (in the context of a more or less democratic society) is to try and understand why "I" should have when others don't or why "I" should go without while others don't.

William James the American psychologist studied and classified types of religious experience and found that in varied cultures and contexts there were common identifiable patterns of experience that people claimed they had and those experiences shared qualities objective in nature. Even as those experiences created a sense of value in those who had them (and sometimes they didn't), they often were not experiences those individuals chose and as such they were experiences that happened to them. How they interpreted those experiences often would have to do with the community that would and could interpret those experiences or provide a language and frame for doing so.

It is possible to have an intense personal dream or vision which so deeply impacts one's sense of meaning and estimation of the value of creation that one cannot sincerely dismiss that experience as a subjective hallucination. To do so would so corrupt an appreciation for the world, a tolerance of its evils and a sense of value in one's self as to be almost suicidal to one's integrity. This is not to say that such experiences are an excuse to devalue others who have not had these experiences, to devalue science and other forms of objective knowledge or to abandon one's sense of responsibility to others because one is personally "saved". In fact most religions teach against this very thing although, with deep irony, we see so many act otherwise.

Self-interpretation, in the end, happens in a group (family, peers) or community (cultural, religious) which fosters a certain set of mirrors or metaphors for how one sees one's self. That mirror is itself subject to an individual's evaluation and very often not based on factors that are entirely relevant. To the extent this is true we all face the prospect of recognizing cracks in the glass and obscuring soil on its surface. Sometimes the mirror is, through the course of a rational evaluation of experience, largely abandoned. And sometimes one is handed a polished surface so neatly suited to an individual that it persists because of its uniqueness and value to that individual. They can go to work, solving peer-reviewed problems in science by day, and read fantastic tales from their spiritual books by night and never be troubled that the two don't literally correspond.

If you have ever walked out of a theater with a renewed sense of yourself, your potential and that of your society, then you have had a religious experience...one that provides you a sense of appreciation for the world you find yourself in, an understanding of how you should act in that society, and an understanding of what you may become in your future. The surviving religions may need to undergo some serious changes to maintain their role as a healthy contributor to modern life, some more than others. But in terms of coming to a deep appreciation of one's self in spite of all the suffering that one can and is often subject to, there is no better science than religion.

There is a gap in humanity and that is the conversation on spiritual matters. Religion has dominated this need of humanity throughout history for countless millions. I would love for religion to be an exploratory science of the subjective instead of being hard line rules and requirements in order to be saved or enter into higher realities. Religion needs to be honest about what it knows and doesnt know for me to take it further.

Things like the power of will, and intention are only being explored recently with some spiritual gurus like Eckhart Tolle, Michael Singer. They may have a long way to go, but they make the attempt.

I agree that one cant be totally objective all the time with one's experiences. Sometimes its best to just live the experience, and be in the moment. I am sure there are many books yet written on this topic alone.

One thing i will say is that every human is a vessel, they must govern and navigate their own vessel. That for many and perhaps us all takes learning how to do so.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Of course; but coming to or acting on common understandings means that we can collectively construct some set of social stories and processes that we all agree to, even create an understanding (a story or model) of perhaps some of the material and energetic bases for our shared existence, even to the point where most people can't understand the nuances--such as quantum mechanics or special relativity--which are much different than our day-to-day experience.

But that doesn't mean that we have the same experience, even when we stand right next to each and watch a sunrise from a mountaintop. We are present at the same physical event, yet our experiences are uniquely our own...even though we share the same basic physical architecture and processes, our individual perception and experience is not the same.

For example, if I am colorblind, I do not see the nuanced colors that you do. You experience is not mine, and while we can point at commonalities, those commonalities are what we agree to say about experiences, but are not the experiences...symbols, not substance. The COLOR of the sunrise is something I CANNOT experience...the sight, the colors, may be very moving to you, but literally, and cannot conceive or perceive as you do. I may find the sunrise moving, but it will be a different experience, even if we both call it a "God experience." Where is the commonality in that?

Having a god experience is not the same, even if we agree that how you describe yours is similar to how I describe mine. The agreement is symbol and not substance. What it means is personal not shared.

Yes I agree with you completely. Each person’s experience is unique to them. Some elements may have a common understanding but the experience itself is unique as we are each unique. No two people are identical. Each is unique.

 

[ChristineM]

Opinions do not interest me much. There is a study. Take or leave it.

I will leave it for the reasons i have stated and the definition of atheism is not an opinion

 

[QuestioningMind]

God is reality of one’s existence-consciousness, which does not require a third party validation.

Many people hold steadfastly the notion that the body is the self. Should we question that assumption? Meditative experiences can help one in that enquiry.

We already have a word for consciousness... it's consciousness. Let's not be silly and try to redefine the word consciousness as 'god'.

 

[Yerda]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.

Experiences of 'ultimate reality' or 'God' confer lasting benefits to mental health


Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT...

That is an interesting study. I'd like to experience whatever it is that has two thirds of the atheists changing their minds.

As I always say the stupendous taste of mango can be known only by eating a mango.

I agree. It might not be that hard to convince a person that they are eating mango, however. Have you ever heard of Derren Brown?

 

[Quintessence]

What I find so interesting is that the ONLY kind of evidence for gods is that pesky kind that no one else can ever verify.

... except this is not actually true? Most gods throughout human history are deifications of various aspects of reality that clear evidence bars easily for even the most obstinate skeptic.

 

[QuestioningMind]

... except this is not actually true? Most gods throughout human history are deifications of various aspects of reality that clear evidence bars easily for even the most obstinate skeptic.

...that clear evidence bars easily for even the most obstinate skeptic.

Please reword this into a comprehensible sentence.

 

[ecco]

You study the paper. Yes, entheogens have been used to loosen up the rigidity of mind that the sensual structures that we experience are the absolutes.

But meditation is deliberate and requires discipline that very few will be able to muster.

While trying to stay within the forum rules I'll just add my opinion that few people are disciplined while experience hallucinogen enhanced "trips".

 

[ecco]

It is not belief in supernatural. It is experience of dissolution of subject-object division and consequently knowing the non dual as the Real, beneath the mental-physical objects that tend to cover up the non dual.

So, it is a belief in the supernatural.

 

[ecco]

No doubt. But that 2/3 of the sample atheists converted suggests that most atheists are not dogmatic .....

How many atheists were there in the study? Oh, you don't know because for some reason the article didn't say.

How many atheists were there in the study? Oh, you don't know and you still don't think to question it. You just draw your own conclusions from it.

How many atheists could there have been in a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God? I'd say zero.

 

[ecco]

This probably is true and is expected with the increasing lure of consumerism. People do not have time for introversion.

So when people go outside of themselves and look at reality, they have less need for gods- OK.

 

[atanu]

OK, so how can a disagreement like this be resolved? You claim a causal link from self to other and I claim the opposite. I point to light coming into our eyes and we only see if such happens. I point to sound coming into our ears and we only hear if that happens. I point to the feeling of touch not happening unless there is a nerve that carries this sensation (I recently severed a nerve so this is a very present 'experience' for me).

That shows that our sensations are the result of our senses and our brains interpreting those senses. So yes, those things made me see/hear/touch them.

Now, what counter-evidence can you present?

This has been discussed earlier. The problem is that we equate the sensual/mental movements as consciousness itself and do not investigate the knower of the movements. And this, is because we do not introspect our own subjective states that are common to all.

“I am this body” and “I am” are distinct. The “I am” underlies all sensual or mental movements. In waking and dream states. it knows the self and the dream/waking world. In deep sleep it is as it is, non dual, homogeneous, timeless, desire-less, without any contrasts of light, sound, or self and world.

Space-time comes up in dream and waking. And the same person comes back from deep sleep. So, the person as consciousness exists through all states. Without this, no sensual or mental movement will be known.

In a dead body all physical elements exist but nothing is known. So, something other than the physical parts and their interactions is life-consciousness in the so called names-forms (bodies).
...

Sorry for repeating.

 

[atanu]

We already have a word for consciousness... it's consciousness. Let's not be silly and try to redefine the word consciousness as 'god'.

See? You do not even know what God is to me.

 

[atanu]

So, it is a belief in the supernatural.

Pre-natural, perhaps. Why do we think that with given cognition apparatus we know the whole nature?