"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Windwalker]

I don't dismiss these experiences in any way whatsoever, nor do I cheapen them by saying it's just chemicals. Non-religious people have these experiences as well, they can appreciate them without degrading religious people, it would be nice if some religious people could do likewise.

If you recognize the truth of the nature of these experiences, why does it matter to you if someone attributes it to God? Shouldn't you encourage them to do what works for them, if the end result of a profoundly positive "chemical release" as the goal? If praying to a deity above, elicits that response, then shouldn't that be encouraged, or at least some other spiritual practice that does the same thing, like a sitting meditation?

BTW, I have no doubt chemicals are different, but so is the brain structures themselves are changed. These things do not mean it's "just the brain". The brain responds to situations. If you taste an orange, that's not "just the brain", as if solely nothing but the brain in complete isolation from its environment. The brain responds to the world with certain responses. Just because we can see those and recognize those, does not mean the person did not experience an actual orange.

So God experiences, are more than just "fictions of the mind", which is a terribly dismissive, and false narrative. It's a response to the world, and the nature of that response is what we call "spiritual" because of the nature of the response itself. Yes, there are chemicals released, but that doesn't mean it's nothing but chemicals. Nor is it a mental construct. It's a 'taste' sensation to Reality. You see the difference here?

 

[Augustus]

No I don't, nor as I explained would it make any sense to do so, you can't ask me for my opinion on something, then insist it's not what you want to hear.

How do you deal with social science research that you come across in the media, online, etc then?

We have to make judgements about the credibility of sources based on incomplete information.

For me, natural sciences would be generally reliable, unless reasons to doubt. Social sciences generally sceptical, unless reasons to feel more confident.

You seem to make judgements too. In response to a post specifically about the problems of trusting published social science research due to problems in the field:

It seems you are misrepresenting the phrase "trust science" as trust anything said in the name of science, rather than trusting the method

You went out of your way to disagree with me saying trust some sciences more than others.

How does that make sense if you actually do see fundamental methodological problems across the social sciences?

Do you, really? Could you quote me making a claim about social sciences that you think indicates this latest straw man?

As well as the above?

Here you go

Most sciences are very reliable, and some less so, might be another way to word that? Though again the replication crisis as well as being limited to a few fields of study (it mentions psychology and medical research), at least in the article you linked, are not necessarily indicative that the ideas are false. only that the method currently could be far more rigorous.

You consistently argued that there is no major problem in the social sciences and it is just people not following "the scientific method" properly in a small number of areas.

The methodology is flawed in these few areas, as described yes?

2. The article seems to understand why they are flawed, and that the answer is to improve that method yes?

These opinions assume problems are minor and solutions are known.

Feel free to quote the article explaining the solution to the problems of complexity and subjectivity if it did indeed solve the methodological flaws as you suggest.

 

[lukethethird]

If you recognize the truth of the nature of these experiences, why does it matter to you if someone attributes it to God? Shouldn't you encourage them to do what works for them, if the end result of a profoundly positive "chemical release" as the goal? If praying to a deity above, elicits that response, then shouldn't that be encouraged, or at least some other spiritual practice that does the same thing, like a sitting meditation?

BTW, I have no doubt chemicals are different, but so is the brain structures themselves are changed. These things do not mean it's "just the brain". The brain responds to situations. If you taste an orange, that's not "just the brain", as if solely nothing but the brain in complete isolation from its environment. The brain responds to the world with certain responses. Just because we can see those and recognize those, does not mean the person did not experience an actual orange.

So God experiences, are more than just "fictions of the mind", which is a terribly dismissive, and false narrative. It's a response to the world, and the nature of that response is what we call "spiritual" because of the nature of the response itself. Yes, there are chemicals released, but that doesn't mean it's nothing but chemicals. Nor is it a mental construct. It's a 'taste' sensation to Reality. You see the difference here?

God, the divine, supernatural are all metaphors, so they don't explain anything at all, they're question begging because those metaphors don't have any definitive meaning, woo woo is just as much explanatory as the metaphors you use.

 

[Windwalker]

God, the divine, supernatural are all metaphors, so they don't explain anything at all, they're question begging because those metaphors don't have any definitive meaning, woo woo is just as much explanatory as the metaphors you use.

Woo woo is an insult. God is not. A metaphor points to something beyond itself. Woo woo points to one's own ignorance and fear. God as a word, points to the Ultimate Reality. That's kind of self-explanatory, don't you think?

If you think Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, well then that explains why you consider it woo woo. You don't grasp the idea and feel a need to insult intelligent people who perceive reality differently than you. Very fundamentalist in nature. But others do understand about that. Thoughtful, intelligent people understand that and try to talk about it intelligently. Are you able to do that too?

 

[lukethethird]

Woo woo is an insult. God is not. A metaphor points to something beyond itself. Woo woo points to one's own ignorance and fear. God as a word, points to the Ultimate Reality. That's kind of self-explanatory, don't you think?

If you think Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, well then that explains why you consider it woo woo. You don't grasp the idea and feel a need to insult intelligent people who perceive reality differently than you. Very fundamentalist in nature. But others do understand about that. Thoughtful, intelligent people understand that and try to talk about it intelligently. Are you able to do that too?

It wasn't an insult, it was used to illustrate that one metaphor is as good as another. God does not appeal to the intellect, but words like, intoxication, euphoria, actually have meaning that anyone can understand, so if you want to be taken seriously, that would be a start.

 

[Windwalker]

It wasn't an insult, it was used to illustrate that one metaphor is as good as another.

Woo woo is not a metaphor. It's an insult. You know better than this.

God does not appeal to the intellect, but words like, intoxication, euphoria, actually have meaning that anyone can understand, so if you want to be taken seriously, that would be a start.

If you read my posts, you would understand the usage. I already spelled it out for you. God is a word that points to Ultimate Reality. Do you understand what that means? Do you understand what "ineffable means? Do you understand what transcendence means? Do you understand what the Absolute means?

If you want these to be concrete literal things, then you are out of luck. But don't mistake something being abstract, which requires the use of metaphors to point to with non-serious, or non-intellectual topics. If you don't understand the difference, then that is where the failure lies. In your abilities to think beyond a concrete-literal defined reality. You expect fingers pointing at the moon, to be made of moon rocks.

 

[lukethethird]

Woo woo is not a metaphor. It's an insult. You know better than this.


If you read my posts, you would understand the usage. I already spelled it out for you. God is a word that points to Ultimate Reality. Do you understand what that means? Do you understand what "ineffable means? Do you understand what transcendence means? Do you understand what the Absolute means?

If you want these to be concrete literal things, then you are out of luck. But don't mistake something being abstract, which requires the use of metaphors to point to with non-serious, or non-intellectual topics. If you don't understand the difference, then that is where the failure lies. In your abilities to think beyond a concrete-literal defined reality. You expect fingers pointing at the moon, to be made of moon rocks.

If you can't explain it then say so, no one knows what Ultimate Reality means except you. Do you not realize how self indulgent and arrogant you sound by claiming divine connections with God and such and how your definition of God trumps all others? If you don't want to see woo woo directed your way then stop with Ultimate Reality nonsense. Most of us have had experiences we can't explain but we don't get High And Almighty about it.

 

[joelr]

The problem is that you won't scrutinize what the term "literal" actually means. You won't scrutinize what the term "belief" actually means. And you won't recognize that there are all kinds of theist with all kinds of ways of reading sacred text, and the beliefs they hold about them. Apparently so you can maintain your ignorant bias about what and how all theists think.

You have no clue about what you are talking about. I know they beliefs of people I'm in a discussion with on this forum. I'm not even interested in demonstrating it to you because this is such pointless uneducated bickering. Read the threads, or not.

 

[joelr]

The bold one is a feeling. But you can't do life without feelings, unless you have a mental disorder. As for real, that word is no different than "God". Both have no objective referent. Both are cognitive and you can do without believing in both. I don't believe in God and I don't believe in real.
So start by doing this as science.
"
Towards the end of his talk to the science teachers Feynman attempted a definition of science, but
then hesitated, noting from his own experience that science is neither its form nor its content. He did not
characterize science as a particular method, though while that is one of the many ways science develops,
it is itself not what science is. He finally answered the question, ‘what Is science’ this way, that it is,
“...the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not
necessarily trusting the [human] race[‘s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best
definition.” (2005, p. 185) And then he went on to tell them, “…learn from science that you must doubt
the experts…When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science
doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it.” (Feynman, 2005, p. 187)
https://www.researchgate.net/public...at_Is_Science_and_Today's_Mistrust_of_Science"

Some people have the experience that the physical is actually real. Then recheck that and recheck how all the words work and what they take for granted. I can recheck words like "God", but I can also do that for the physical is actually real.
And I get a different result than you and yet, I am still an atheist.
Some people are religious for what the world is.
Some people are naturalists, materialists, physicalists for what the world is.
I am neither for those 2.

I have simply learned to recheck all claims to experience and not just the religious ones. And both God and naturalism and its variants are claims of the past. So learned to check the cultural past experiences you take for granted, if you want to claim doubt.

This is all meaningless. I have evidence my computer is real. No evidence any Gods are real.

 

[joelr]

I don't believe in real. And I don't understand truth like you do and I care differently.

Uh-huh.

 

[joelr]

No Korg is a concrete being, I saw him.

 

[joelr]

Creating false straw man claims seems to be his speciality? Though it's usually atheists that are the target.

He's claiming many theists here don't believe in literal Jesus. And I should find out. It's been pretty clear.

 

[joelr]

When I say it is the set of eyes through which we perceive the world, beliefs are wholly secondary to that, and entirely modifiable. The eyes which we look through, are developmental in nature, and affect everything that is seeing and thought about. Beliefs are influenced by perception. Perceptions come first.

Therefore, if your set of eyes you see the world through are the mythic-literal lens, everything you think about and form beliefs around will be influenced by that perception. If your lens sees only a materialistic reality, you will filter out anything that does not fit within that spectrum of perception.

You see the difference?

Yes and if you are seeing the world through a pantheistic lens then you are doing the same as the others.

There is plenty of evidence. However, if you disallow certain ways of looking at reality, they will be meaningless to your particular view of reality. They won't fit within your paradigm, so to speak. That doesn't mean they aren't true. They just don't fit your construct of reality, such as that might be for you. That's true for every human being.

I don't buy it. Name something that is true that you have to see through a certain way of looking at reality

You should be more interested in the sets of eyes that people use, and how that beliefs are simply mental constructs to support those perceptions of reality. That's where things get a whole lot more interesting.

All our ideas about reality are fictions of the mind. If you dig deep enough, you'll see that everything is a mental construct, and that reality itself is infinitely beyond what conceptual wrappers our minds put around things. I'm more intrigued by seeing the world beyond this limiting constructs. There is a difference between Ultimate Reality, and relative reality.

This is all vague talk. Name something that you have shown to be true by seeing the world beyond limiting constructs.

You're mistaking one version of relative reality as Absolute, and assuming you've got a fixed handle on that. It's just another form of religious absolutism. They say, "Where's your scripture to support that idea!". You say, "Where's your scientific evidence to support that idea!" It's the same thing. Each believing they somehow have the best and most trustworthy conduit to finding security in beliefs.

I'm simply saying that beliefs are not the foundation of Truth. Beliefs are functional and serve a purpose. But they are not fixed and static. They are like the leaves on a tree which help to absorb the sun rays for nutrients, but they have a limited lifespan and eventually are replaced with new leaves for a new season of grow. I don't believe they should be encased in acrylic and worshipped.

That isn't true. Nothing has changed about basic Greek philosophy. New science can be wrong. Gravity will always be gravity. Relativity came along and refined it. Established science doesn't get shown wrong. We learn more precise truths.
But map this to something real. What are you talking about exactly? Concepts don't help .

What it has in common with traditional theism is that is it a view of reality recognizes the divine nature of it. How it sees it, is what differs.

LIke I've referenced before, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perceptions of Spirit, or the Divine. 2nd person, the intersubjective relational communion perspective, is what traditional theism is. 3rd person, object oriented perspective of the divine, is what pantheism is. What they hold in common is that they are perceptions of the divine. Same is true of 1st person perspectives of the divine, or "God within", subjective Realization.

And Theism is wrong on that because the Gods they worship are not real.

And? Of course, telling someone how to see something primes the mind, or rather opens perception. That's how we come to understand and learn just about anything in life.

Yes, primes the mind to take on beliefs that may not be true.

And yes, taste has a physical component to it, just as any experience does, including the taste, or sense of the divine does. If it didn't, there would be any sensed experience at all. It would just be an idea only without any sensed reality. "Joy" is not just an idea. It's a real experience at its core, for instance.

People eat candy bars and say they are divine. If someone tells you God is everything and you are primed your mind can make you feel like you are experiencing the divine by looking at everything. People talk to Jesus or go to church and say they felt the divine speaking to them. They felt endorphins. This is not evidence of any God or that anyone felt the divine. As if sensing the divine would even be a thing. What you sense is what you think the divine would feel like.

But yet beauty is part of your lived reality, isn't it? So beauty is real, yes? Same thing with God.

There is no beauty outside of my mind except in others minds. I find a spider baby repulsive. A spider probably finds it pleasing, maybe beautiful. It's in our mind.

As far as "versions" go, how many different ways are there to see beauty in the world? Are you saying there is only one true way to see beauty? If you don't see an issue there, then why do you think we should limit how many "versions" of seeing God there is?

Beauty is a real mental state that doesn't exist outside our mind. Same with ideas about God.

Snake oil salesmen exploit deeper truths to make quick sells to consumers looking for 'shortcuts to Nirvana' as I like to call it. Spirituality is a lot more than just adopting beliefs. It seems you think that is all that it is. Perhaps it was these snake oil salesmen that defined it for you?

I defined spirituality for myself. It's a pursuit to live as your highest self while alive. That's it.

Do you hold nature with holy reverence in your soul? No? Then no, God is not "really just nature", if by that you mean nothing more than just rocks and stardust, without Beauty radiant from its very core, beyond description, like the smell of a rose that opens the soul to the whole Universe in a single breath. That is the difference between materialism, and pantheism.

First no person has a soul. That is an outdated concept with no evidence. I an awed by nature but there is nothing "holy". That is a ridiculous word applied to Gods and means they have some special magic above nature. It limits nature to a fiction created by myths and stories. Nature is a mystery and could be much more vast and unimaginable then we know

 

[joelr]

No, that taste is a response to something actually existent in the substance of the object you are tasting. How it tastes to you, is a translation of the brain of that object's reality. It is not just a complete and utter fabrication of the brain, as you seem to wish to suggest when it comes to this or the experience of God.

I said it's created by the brain. Which was correct. The further explanation isn't really needed. Yeah food is real. Experiences of God are also in the brain but it's a reaction to a thought.

Interpretation of perception into beliefs, is what is subject to error. Perception itself is just seeing. Perception can become distorted however, or it can be made clearer. And that, is the purpose of spiritual practices. Cleaning the lenses from perceptual distortions, like a finger smudge on the glass.

Like I said, you meditate, get a fresh outlook on things, maybe feel better. Spirituality is about living life.

No, they have an interpretation of their perceptions. Now that some might conclude this is a conformation of their beliefs, is a highly complex subject to talk about. I could spend some time on this, but it would take a bit. Briefly, depending on where someone is at, an experience of the Divine that is transcendent in nature can either affirm their mythic-literal perceptual lens, or if they are ready for it, it can upset and destroy their beliefs. Mostly, it's the latter.

So you have a so called experience of the Divine that is transcendent in nature and your interpretation of your perception is that God is everything. Doesn't mean it's true or there is any God.


A

gain, we're not talking about emotions. We are talking about a perceptual shift, a shift like changing how you once saw the world as controlled by supernatural forces, to seeing the world controlled by the laws of science. Those are perceptual shifts, not momentary endorphin rushes.

a perceptual shift is also not evidence.

All you are doing is projecting onto me. I do not claim my version is the one true way because I feel it. There is zero in what I have posted that would even suggest that. You assume that, because it's probably something you've done historically, and are still doing now. We project onto others what we know we are doing, but don't want to accept it.

Uh, yeah, you said you are "seeing it with different eyes". There is no evidence we can see with a different set of eyes when it comes to external Gods. So it is a fiction.

Perhaps some proof of that, is that you seem bent on disallowing a view of God to be real. That would suggest you have a fixed idea of reality that you see as the real truth, the one real truth, and everyone else in error. Possible?

No only people who believe there is some God. For that you need evidence. For a new way of seeing you need evidence. You have to demonstrate this new way of seeing can actually see something beyond what we can normally see. Use it to see the future. I don't know? It's your claim.

It's a perception of nature as Divine. It's not just rebranding materialism. That's where Richard Dawkins, and yourself, are missing the subtle, yet radical difference.

All you see is materialism. All you see is form. What I see, from a nondualist perception is, "Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form." Emptiness is another term for what I would call the Divine.

One even better quote,

The world is illusory;
Brahman alone is real;
Brahman is the world​

This is not reducing God to matter. It recognizes that all of it is Divine. That statement above is not easily understood if you approach it with the scientistic filter of reality, or perceptual lens. It has to be seen through a different lens, one which embraces science, but transcends it.

To something in the environment. Ditto with experiencing God in the world, or within one's own self.

I think you are buying into poetry that has less meaning than you think it does.

Metaphors, man. Metaphors point to something real. And yes, if you develop enough self-awareness, you can see there is more to us than just our thinking minds. That which is before thoughts, and beyond thoughts. The "witness" is how it is often described.

Yes you are told these things and in meditation and such you start to believe you experience them as well. Buying into a spiritual paradim is not self awareness.

Have you ever practiced any form of meditation with any success at all? If you did, you'd see that terms like "soul" or spirit, point to "something". But defining these things are really just fingers pointing to the moon. Metaphors. "If I am not my thoughts, then who, or what am I". These are not fictions.

Anyway, I've covered enough here to point this in the right direction. Hopefully it should illustrate your assumptions about this are nothing like what I'm talking about.

Well we are our thoughts. The silent witness eternal self isn't real and when we pass away consciousness goes off, just like before we were born
Meditation is for relaxation and psychological help and so on. You don't connect to a spirit world or higher self. You might get distracted by that if you read Deepak Chopra.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is all meaningless. I have evidence my computer is real. No evidence any Gods are real.

The problem is that you have no evidence that "This is all meaningless."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Uh-huh.

Do you have any evidence for your "Uh-huh" and what makes it real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No Korg is a concrete being, I saw him.

There are no concrete beings, as a being is an abstract concept.

 

[Windwalker]

If you can't explain it then say so, no one knows what Ultimate Reality means except you.

Can you explain the smell of a rose? I can. And if you've smelled a rose as well, you would also get the idea of what I meant by the words I used. So, it would not be only me that understands what that means.

Do you not realize how self indulgent and arrogant you sound by claiming divine connections with God and such and how your definition of God trumps all others?

I'm not arrogant to talk about my experiences. Why shouldn't I talk about them? If it makes you feel insecure, that's your issue. In fact, such experiences are completely humbling, because your ego is laid waste before them. I talk about them, because folks like you want to hear evidence. I'm giving you evidence of my experience. And you attack me as arrogant for talking about it?

Perhaps you actually don't want to hear any evidence? Is that the deal?

If you don't want to see woo woo directed your way then stop with Ultimate Reality nonsense. Most of us have had experiences we can't explain but we don't get High And Almighty about it.

What I hear you saying, is don't talk about it if you don't want to be attacked by those who have an allergy to religious experiences and don't want to hear it, and will insult you to keep you quite. That's what I hear.

BTW, Ultimate Reality? That's a common term. You can't insult everyone out there because they both recognize it and study it as a topic: Ultimate reality - Wikipedia

Second, the term “ultimate reality” could be taken to mean how reality ultimately is—i.e., that which is metaphysically ultimate, perhaps a part of every complete ontology—instead of meaning the richer sense of “ultimacy” at issue here, which is not a part of every complete ontology.

God and Other Ultimates (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​

In fact, you yourself believe in an Ultimate Reality. To you, it's just a materialistic, nontheist ultimate reality. But I get it, you don't want to acknowledge these things because you've got your beliefs just the way you like them, and anyone who deviates from your vision of Truth, is "woo woo". Fundi Christians use the term "lost" or "deceived". The apple doesn't fall far from that tree for you, does it?

 

[Sheldon]

Can you explain the smell of a rose?

"The olfactory area in humans is about 2.5 cm2 wide and contains a number of about 50 million receptor cells with 8–20 cilia down in a layer of mucus of about 60 microns thick, produced by Bowmann glands in the olfactory epithelium. [1]. Only volatile substances, soluble in mucus, can reach the receptors and interact with them and finally produce sensations. The olfactory epithelium contains a variable number of basal cells, which are capable of mitotic division giving rise to mature receptor neurons. The olfactory neuron's turn over is about 40 to 60 days [1]. The axonal ramifications of these neurons go together in groups of 10 to 100 fibers, they cross the ethmoid cribriform plate reaching the olfactory bulb where they converge and form synaptic structures called glomeruli and then they converge again to mitral cells. The total convergence ratio is 1000:1 and has the important role of increasing the sensibility of the olfactory signal that will be sent to the specialized areas in the brain [2].
The olfactory epithelium contains another sensitive system via sensitive branches of trigeminal nerve. Many odorants cam produce sensations transmitted by trigeminal nerve. For example levo–menthole. If placed in the nasal cavity it produces cold sensations in small amounts and hot sensations in much bigger quantities [3]. Just the same way camphor produces a cold sensation via trigeminal nerve. Olhoff postulates that about 70% of odors also stimulate the trigeminal nerve, but with an intensity several times smaller than that of the olfactory receptors."

"Humans have only 350 functional genes for olfactory receptors, compared with other mammals, e.g. mice, which have about 1.100 active genes [5]. The genes that encode the receptors are grouped in series of introns in the coding region. In mammals, these regions are organized in clusters of 10 or are often located on different chromosomes. In the human genome, there is a large amount of pseudo genes, which suggest that olfaction became less important during evolution. Recent studies showed that, in humans, more than 70% of the olfactory receptors encoding genes are actually pseudo genes, differentiating us from rats or primates which have less than 5% pseudo genes [6].
Other studies are demonstrating that humans have a good sense of smell in spite of all genetic aspects that may tend to deny this theory. Oenologists or perfume creators are capable of distinguishing thousands of odors. Human olfaction can overdue tests like gaseous chromatography in detecting the odorant molecules. All these things are realized with a small number of receptors but with the aid of certain accessory functions gained during evolution.
In the process of achieving the bipedal position, the nose and olfactory receptors have risen above the ground level and the olfactory area became smaller to allow the orbits to come closer and provide stereoscopic view. Being much further from the ground the odors received, stopped being contaminated and mixed with each other. All this, together with the air purification function of the nose, made the smells more easily to perceive and this means that the olfactory area grew smaller without many sacrifices for the olfactory sensations "

Floral plant scents have evolved as an aid to pollination, humans are just lucky benefactors. No need for any appeals to any woo woo.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes and if you are seeing the world through a pantheistic lens then you are doing the same as the others.

Of course. That's the point. I fully recognize that how we see reality is filtered through the set of eyes we use. Two people can be looking at the exact same thing, yet see two very different things. Is only one of these right and one wrong? Or is it that both are right? And that both are wrong for thinking that only their understanding or interpretation of what they are seeing is the truth?

To me, recognizing that 'truth' is a matter of perception, is a beginning point of openness to knowledge.

I don't buy it. Name something that is true that you have to see through a certain way of looking at reality

Seeing God in nature, for one. Haven't you ever had any experience in life where you were looking at something the whole time, but never noticed or saw it before? Everyone has.

That can stand as an example. But a better example is something easy for you to related to: a scientific view of reality. How many religious fundamentalists have you talked to, who no matter how much you show them the evidence, they simply are unable to fit it into their ways of thinking? Quite a lot, I'll assume. It's not because they all have low IQ's are something. Some are very intelligent in other areas, but when it comes to seeing the world through a scientific point of view, accepting evolution for one thing, they have a 'blind spot'.

That blind spot is a filter. I recall something I read in Daniel Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, that went into just thing, citing Popper and others in on how the brain works and how we process and perceive. There was an example how that for instance, say someone had never seen an actual angel before, such an encounter would not be recognized by them as an angel, because an angel is not something that fits into reality as they understand it. The brain would then do it's natural thing, and try to associate it with something it did know. And so the brain would tell that person what they were seeing was "an old woman" as the example gave. They would not recognize what they were seeing, but would instead see what they could understand. This is just the way the brain works.

So these "filters" are things that are created for us by a multiplicity of factors: language, culture, development, personality, belief systems, worldviews, and so forth. Quite literally, people live in different realities. What "real reality" is, to the human being is in fact a translation of it, through these filters. Reality is a mediated reality, for all humans beings. What doesn't fit within what the mind can process and understand, will either being filtered out and completely ignored or dropped or shunted to the side, or reinterpreted as something it can understand, the angel seen as an old woman, in Dennett's example.

This is hard for people to come to terms with, because people normally think that how they see and understand something, is the truth of it. It's the same process for everyone, whether they are using magic, mythic, rational, pluralist, or integral lens to see the world through. Whether those are theistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, or atheistic filters. They all either allow or disallow certain ways of seeing things to hit and be registered in the brain.

Now there are different values to these we can talk about, but the point is to first recognize they are there for everyone, myself included.

This is all vague talk. Name something that you have shown to be true by seeing the world beyond limiting constructs.

It may seem vague because you're unfamiliar with it, but I'm giving the rational and recognized basis for all of this.

That isn't true. Nothing has changed about basic Greek philosophy. New science can be wrong. Gravity will always be gravity. Relativity came along and refined it. Established science doesn't get shown wrong. We learn more precise truths.
But map this to something real. What are you talking about exactly? Concepts don't help .

I have no problem in understanding the improved accuracy of science. I do have a problem in the thinking that says we can disregard other modes of knowing about reality other than science. That's not doing science. That's reducing everything down to physics. That's bad philosophy, and bad science.

And Theism is wrong on that because the Gods they worship are not real.

To you. You state this as though you have absolute knowledge, as if you yourself were God.

Again, you're idea of God is what is not real to you. "The God you don't believe in, doesn't exist", as someone once quite accurately said.

Yes, primes the mind to take on beliefs that may not be true.

Or disregard things that may be true. Once upon a time, if I assume you were a "believer", your beliefs disallowed true things for you, but then you changed how you saw things, your perception changed, and then your beliefs allowed things for you to be true. Now, extrapolate that to where you are at right now? And where you will be in the future? You once were sure you knew reality, no you're really sure you do this time too? Are you sure?

There is no beauty outside of my mind except in others minds. I find a spider baby repulsive. A spider probably finds it pleasing, maybe beautiful. It's in our mind.

And your mind is in the world, and your mind tells you what is real. If you see beauty, than beauty is real. Your mind is part of reality, and reality is part of your mind. They are not separate things. Period.