The case for theism

[PoetPhilosopher]

I try to use abductive reasoning to make the case for God.

This can be done by taking all of the spiritual experiences you have heard from believers, and drawing a plausible case from it.

The alternative argument is to say that they all lied, or were crazy.

Think science doesn't use abductive reasoning? Think again:

And for those who say abductive reasoning isn't quite strong enough... it's the process at which jurors seem to typically decide a case in court.

Granted, science may be used in the courtroom in the form of for example, DNA. But the jury doesn't necessarily have intimate knowledge of it, just what they are told. Abductive reasoning decides court cases.

And my theories also seem to be compatible with the approach to Critical Thinking... aren't they?

So let's hear the thought processes to say everyone who has a spiritual experience, doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[Sunstone]

An abuductive argument for the existence of god could run to volumes of evidence and incorporate not just abductive logic, but both deductive and inductive. I'd say you have the next 15 or so minutes cut out for you. Type fast!

 

[Left Coast]

I try to use abductive reasoning to make the case for God.

View attachment 40041



This can be done by taking all of the spiritual experiences you have heard from believers, and drawing a plausible case from it.

The alternative argument is to say that they all lied, or were crazy.

Think science doesn't use abductive reasoning? Think again:

View attachment 40040

And for those who say abductive reasoning isn't quite strong enough... it's the process at which jurors seem to typically decide a case in court.

Granted, science may be used in the courtroom in the form of for example, DNA. But the jury doesn't necessarily have intimate knowledge of it, just what they are told. Abductive reasoning decides court cases.

And my theories also seem to be compatible with the approach to Critical Thinking... aren't they?

View attachment 40042

So let's hear the thought processes to say everyone who has a spiritual experience, doesn't know what they are talking about.

I think one of the problems with relying on people's "spiritual experiences" to give us accurate information about any god is that 1) people's experiences vary wildly and contradict each other, 2) people's experiences almost always fit their existing spiritual paradigm: Christians have visions of Jesus and Mary, Hindus have spiritual experiences of interactions with Hindu deities, indigenous ancestor-worshippers have spiritual experiences of their deceased ancestors, and so on, and 3) the experiences are subjective, so they can't be independently verified.

One theistic resolution to these issues, as least partially, is to say that people may be having some experience of some "real" phenomenon (outside their heads), but interpreting their experience through their particular cultural/religious lens.

Interesting thread!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think one of the problems with relying on people's "spiritual experiences" to give us accurate information about any god is that 1) people's experiences vary wildly and contradict each other, 2) people's experiences almost always fit their existing spiritual paradigm: Christians have visions of Jesus and Mary, Hindus have spiritual experiences of interactions with Hindu deities, indigenous ancestor-worshippers have spiritual experiences of their deceased ancestors, and so on, and 3) the experiences are subjective, so they can't be independently verified.

One theistic resolution to these issues, as least partially, is to say that people may be having some experience of some "real" phenomenon (outside their heads), but interpreting their experience through their particular cultural/religious lens.

Interesting thread!

What if I told you my theory is we live in a vast universe, multiple planes and all, and that almost all of it is correct, but a Hindu is more likely to be guided by spirits from their religion, and so on.

Here's another example. Hard atheists rarely have spiritual experiences, even the kind of seeing a ghost. It's people who seem more to be opening up to it or just open to it in general, that see them.

Of course, you'll probably make the case that it only proves if you want to see something, you will.

But I was shown some cards recently, the kind that predict things or reveal secrets... For all I knew the people drawing them could have thought I was only Hindu. But it was pointed out that I had this Abrahamic spirit guiding me as well. Which I thought interesting, because well, I was Christian for awhile.

 

[George-ananda]

So let's hear the thought processes to say everyone who has a spiritual experience, doesn't know what they are talking about.

Well I use abductive reasoning for my belief in the paranormal

I believe the paranormal exists beyond reasonable from the quantity, quality and consistency of claims that don't fit into the materialist worldview.

Basically I am saying it is unreasonable to think all the claims I've heard can be explained by materialist understanding.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Should I post the card reading, or would it be considered too weird and distracting for this thread?

 

[Left Coast]

Should I post the card reading, or would it be considered too weird and distracting for this thread?

I think it would be fun as a discussion in a different thread. It'll get buried here.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think it would be fun as a discussion in a different thread. It'll get buried here.

Alright. You're the boss . Though, I agree.

 

[Left Coast]

What if I told you my theory is we live in a vast universe, multiple planes and all, and that almost all of it is correct, but a Hindu is more likely to be guided by spirits from their religion, and so on.

Here's another example. Hard atheists rarely have spiritual experiences, even the kind of seeing a ghost. It's people who seem more to be opening up to it or just open to it in general, that see them.

Of course, you'll probably make the case that it only proves if you want to see something, you will.

But I was shown some cards recently, the kind that predict things or reveal secrets... For all I knew the people drawing them could have thought I was only Hindu. But it was pointed out that I had this Abrahamic spirit guiding me as well. Which I thought interesting, because well, I was Christian for awhile.

This outlook reminds me of @The Hammer. He's expressed similar sentiments to me.

 

[Sunstone]

1) people's experiences vary wildly and contradict each other...

That is a very good point. Thanks for bringing that up right at the start!

As it happens, ever since William James published his Gifford Lectures as The Varieties of Religious Experience way back in the early 1900s, it has been known that "religious experiences" have common elements that transcend individuals, nations, cultures, and ages. You can find common elements in the circa 1500 CE experiences of a Spanish monk, and the circa 500 BCE experiences of a Chinese sage.

To be sure, those people are describing things using words and concepts from their own time and place, but they are otherwise talking about either the same thing, or some very similar things. It's like asking a French woman and a Japanese man to describe an oak tree. You will get variations, but those variations can be accounted for by individual, cultural, linguistic, and other circumstantial factors. In the end, it will be evident they are talking about the same tree, or two specimens of the same species of tree.

The cross-cultural and cross-temporal elements once led to debate over whether or not there was a core, essential mystical experience common to every mystic, that was nevertheless being described in somewhat different ways by different people. Some said there was such a core experience. Others said there was not.

These days, the issue has pretty much been settled by the neurosciences, who within the last 30 or so years, have jumped in to undertake the scientific study of mysticism. Consequently, there has been an explosion of information about the commonalities of the experiences. We now know that mystical experiences are associated with different regions and structures of the brain. That the various experiences of various mystics originate from the same regions and structures with relatively little variation in where they originate seems well established at this point.

There are a few people who still dispute the notion that all mystical experiences are of more or less the same origins, but most of those good people are scholars, not scientists. And most of them are scholars that got their start before the science of mysticism properly took off. They are the old guard.

EDIT: A note of caution: The science is moving so fast, that I find it very hard to keep up with it, so perhaps the joke is indeed on me -- and my information is outdated. If so, it would not be the first time I've been the only one in the room wearing an out of date fashion, so to speak

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

An abuductive argument for the existence of god could run to volumes of evidence and incorporate not just abductive logic, but both deductive and inductive. I'd say you have the next 15 or so minutes cut out for you. Type fast!

That's quite the challenge! My mind turns numb just thinking about it because for a most proper argument, I'd have to gather every piece of possible evidence from every religion.

 

[The Hammer]

Should I post the card reading, or would it be considered too weird and distracting for this thread?

There is a section for tarot and divination threads.

Edit: Divination DIR

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There is a section for tarot and divination threads.

Can you point me to it? I worry I will never be able to find it.

 

[The Hammer]

Can you point me to it? I worry I will never be able to find it.

Edited with link. Seems to be a dir.

 

[Sunstone]

Hard atheists rarely have spiritual experiences...

That's what I used to think. As it happens, Andrew Newberg's database of Religious, Spiritual, and Mystical Experiences contains the records of over 2,000 people and their experiences. 22% of those people were atheists at the time of their experience(s). Now I don't know how many of those atheists were "hard" atheists, in whatever sense you're using the term. So who knows for sure? Could be there's a difference between how often "hard" and "soft" atheists have RSMEs. On the other hand, I'm of the alarming opinion that atheism is no hindrance to having a religious, spiritual, or mystical experience.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am of the strong opinion that theism hinders or prevents individuals from having a mystical experience.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That's what I used to think. As it happens, Andrew Newberg's database of Religious, Spiritual, and Mystical Experiences contains the records of over 2,000 people and their experiences. 22% of those people were atheists at the time of their experience(s). Now I don't know how many of those atheists were "hard" atheists, in whatever sense you're using the term. So who knows for sure? Could be there's a difference between how often "hard" and "soft" atheists have RSMEs. On the other hand, I'm of the alarming opinion that atheism is no hindrance to having a religious, spiritual, or mystical experience.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am of the strong opinion that theism hinders or prevents individuals from having a mystical experience.

Well, you are probably right. I've never seen it much, but who am I to argue with a good study? Now a thought comes to mind. I can picture someone very much into their atheism. Then they see a ghost. I can picture them being a bit torn on how to process it, almost like a victim. But maybe I am thinking too narrowly, here.

 

[Sunstone]

2) people's experiences almost always fit their existing spiritual paradigm: Christians have visions of Jesus and Mary, Hindus have spiritual experiences of interactions with Hindu deities, indigenous ancestor-worshippers have spiritual experiences of their deceased ancestors, and so on...!

That's very true. In those cases when someone has a religious experience, as opposed to a mystical experience, the content of the experience (e.g. Jesus, Krishna. Allah.) is almost always content found in their own tradition. Mystical experiences are exceptions, of course -- but then, that's why I call them "mystical" experiences and not "religious" experiences.

 

[Sunstone]

3) the experiences are subjective, so they can't be independently verified.

You nailed it. That's a huge problem, especially for inductive and deductive logic.

 

[rational experiences]

If you own a theory before an experiment and then the theory involves the design and building machine, then isn't the first use machine imposed to be the experiment, which is just a theory?

Which would prove the theory wrong if the machine did not gain the answer reaction as expected. Seeing the design was designed for the outcome to occur correctly, which says to science, actually you always believe self correct first, then experiment proves you wrong.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So let's hear the thought processes to say everyone who has a spiritual experience, doesn't know what they are talking about.

Spiritual experiences are commonly framed in a way consistent with the belief systems individuals have been exposed to.
This suggests to me that the individuals are either interpreting or colouring experiences in a way that renders their evidence biased rather than incomplete.

Are you considering the people who don't have spiritual experiences evidence of anything?

Why/why not?