if we can make heads and tails of the medical field, there's no reason why something else that holds greater gravity suddenly loses traction
argument from religious experience
- Thread starter Socratic Spelunker
- Start date
it is when those ppl with their experiences explain that it gives them authority to speak for God into others lives.
IOW..I had a revelation, now all who hear me must do as i tell them cause I am the only one who has had a revelation.
i do not give value to the term inconsistent revelations, because i believe God will give you what you need, this is a personal revelation and is not meant to be utilized as a generic revelation meant for everyone..(what he wants for me,is different from what he wants for you)
I think the biggest problem is that 'religious' experiences are categorised as being distinct from other other experiences, like alien abduction, or hearing voices in the head, and this somehow lends then an expectation of credibility.
Seems we recognise other forms of mental illness, just not this one.
Why are you now avoiding your previous suggestion that addressing problems in the medical field, unlike the religious field, can be greeted with a degree of apathy which therefore makes the inevitable variety less troublesome?
:shrug:
I am not avoiding that. What makes you think I do?
The way I see it, the problem with religion is that it is infinitely important, while simultaneously human discernment is irrelevant to it.
I know of no religion that would hail human discernment as being the tool for discovering which religion is the right one.
Instead, all religions that I know of dismiss human discernment as being inherently insufficient.
Medical decisions can be approached with a degree of apathy; in fact, given the variety, the inherent legal and insurance issues (medical choice in a society that has systems of health care, social security and retirement funding is something quite different than medical choice in a society where these do not exist), such apathy is to a great extent inavoidable (unless, of course, one apriori sides with a particular branch of medicine).
But in religious matters, one has to put one's whole heart into it, this is the whole point of religion - there is no room for apathy.
Its hard to comprehend how one can approach any philosophical issue (religious or otherwise) without discernment.
:shrug:
I never said one can.
However, people of religion are commonly expecting us (even doctrinally so) to believe we have zero powers of discernment, and that we must, ad hoc, accept whatever we are told by those (presumed) religious authorities.
then your opening sentence for this post tends to contradict the rest for a start ....
I contend that proselytizers of various religions are asking us to do something that cannot be done intentionally; that their request is contradictory in itself.
i don't think the experience is so much the problem as much as the interpretation. for instance, one may have some very spiritual experience or ephiphany and 'interpret' it through their religious lens. this creates a problem in that if another has an experience, though of course not exactly the same because no two experiences or epiphanies will be exactly identical but will be variable, one or both will insist their interpretation is wrong or that often occurs.
as an example, two people may have the revelation that the world would be better if it was more tolerant or compassionate. one may believe it was jesus or only jesus who can impart that wisdom or is responsible for their understanding and another may think it was another god or deity or may not even subscribe to a religion etc.
as an example, two people may have the revelation that the world would be better if it was more tolerant or compassionate. one may believe it was jesus or only jesus who can impart that wisdom or is responsible for their understanding and another may think it was another god or deity or may not even subscribe to a religion etc.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Birch's point is a good one.
'Religious experiences' may not all be extraordinary experiences in the same sense of 'extraordinary'.
There's often the suggestion that the experience is a revelatory experience of an extraordinary (and arguably supernatural) object.
But in many cases, real-life religious experiences are just experiences of mundane everyday objects that are being interpreted in new and unusual ways, or are suddenly accompanied by new and very extraordinary emotional feeling.
And it's probably true that people acquire most of the interpretive principles that they use to convert their religious experiences into words, or even to recognize the experiences as 'religious' in the first place, from whatever religious tradition they already belong to.
'Religious experiences' may not all be extraordinary experiences in the same sense of 'extraordinary'.
There's often the suggestion that the experience is a revelatory experience of an extraordinary (and arguably supernatural) object.
But in many cases, real-life religious experiences are just experiences of mundane everyday objects that are being interpreted in new and unusual ways, or are suddenly accompanied by new and very extraordinary emotional feeling.
And it's probably true that people acquire most of the interpretive principles that they use to convert their religious experiences into words, or even to recognize the experiences as 'religious' in the first place, from whatever religious tradition they already belong to.
that is brilliant . Yes I agree . I don't my personal experience is going to stop anytime soon cause like you said it is a different way of seeing and hearing your surroundings. Conveying that is the thing hence forth " Literature"
I got to add something . We all play the game , we all play our roll in the passion play . I they to consider why it happens and why the world call out in this bizarre parallel interpretation. Why do I personally hear my name being called in music . Beethoven had the same affliction I am sure by the history that is recorded about his life. I read the last passage of psalms this morning . It keeps coming up in a wierd way that just like normal every day
coinkidink. My bible is in my truck that way if I am waiting for some one or something like that I got it to occupy Me mind . I like reading it . Any way the wind keeps blowing it open to that same spot . Probably a natural result of the wind tunnel in the truck and the wait of the paper that causes it to come to rest at that state . All fine and daddy , no big deal . What do the pages say . They say praise God with singing and all types of musical instruments , Stringed instruments , cymbals , etc.
Anyway I struggle with it still. It is paralyzing. The calling is hard to face . The mountain is tremendously high . I come up with conclusion !
The ancients came up with a plane to build a new vassal state. They targeted a set combination of inflictions and then based language on a specific out come . I don't know ? I can't even begin to explain it .
Humans past and present Build Me . Minister to Me. I think it is the Holy Me's the Sumerians talk about. Not that I am any different than anybody else . Cause I'm not but I can't help but think " If you can see life from the vantage point of a holy Me then you could start to understand my delusions of grandeur. You might even start to see your own vassal state as grand
Religious experiences are difficult phenomena for science, since they usually reach the boundaries of scientific capability. Without capability there is no hard evidence. Let me give an example of something that is very common, that is experienced by all, yet can't be fully proven by science. This is connected to limited capability.
If someone was having a dream, we can monitor the brain and brain waves and infer the dream state. If the person in the experiment was to awaken and tell us the specifics of their dream, there is no way to prove what they say is true, since there is no machine that can record all the specifics of the dream. A specific dream can not be proven, even if this phenonena happens billions of time each day and will all know it exists. Science would have to say, there is no hard proof for these details, therefore it does not exist based on any hard evidence we can generate.
The human mind is a frontier where the scientific method starts to break down. We only have some tools based on second person data collection, whereas the hard data would need to monitored from the inside; through the mind's eye.
If someone had a religious experience within the mind, like a semi-dream state, science can not prove it, even if it existed as common experience like a dream. If it was common enough, science might be able to hook the person to a machine and see how the brain activity is varying. It may infer something from that, but the specifics of the experience are out of reach. Therefore there is no data to prove this inner reality existed other than altered brain waves. It is not like the tools are there and there is no proof. Rather no tools means no proof. There is a difference but there is spin to make it appear the same.
The human mind is a final frontier but needs an upgraded science approach to address in a more objective way. Say we could induce a well trained scientist into a religious state, so he can observe the phenomena from the inside. His buddy's who trust him to be objective, will use the traditional second person tools for secondary data.
The inside scientist will use his conscious mind and training as the primary analytical tool, making note of all the details from his inside experience, that outside machines will miss. The inside person is the only scientist who would have anything rational to say based on direct data. The others can all pretend.
An analogy is trying to infer what is on the bottom of the ocean, while having science stay on the ship, at the surface of the ocean. We can use sonar and other ools, but these analytical limitation can not tell all the details. If it is not on the sonar, it is not there since it lacks proof.
To do it right, someone has to get into a diving bell to take a real look, and not just relay on limited surface machines. They would have to be able to use the diver as an analystic tool, with hope his training and power of observation is calibrate for objectivity. He reports the data he collective in his mind like a computer print-out.
If someone was having a dream, we can monitor the brain and brain waves and infer the dream state. If the person in the experiment was to awaken and tell us the specifics of their dream, there is no way to prove what they say is true, since there is no machine that can record all the specifics of the dream. A specific dream can not be proven, even if this phenonena happens billions of time each day and will all know it exists. Science would have to say, there is no hard proof for these details, therefore it does not exist based on any hard evidence we can generate.
The human mind is a frontier where the scientific method starts to break down. We only have some tools based on second person data collection, whereas the hard data would need to monitored from the inside; through the mind's eye.
If someone had a religious experience within the mind, like a semi-dream state, science can not prove it, even if it existed as common experience like a dream. If it was common enough, science might be able to hook the person to a machine and see how the brain activity is varying. It may infer something from that, but the specifics of the experience are out of reach. Therefore there is no data to prove this inner reality existed other than altered brain waves. It is not like the tools are there and there is no proof. Rather no tools means no proof. There is a difference but there is spin to make it appear the same.
The human mind is a final frontier but needs an upgraded science approach to address in a more objective way. Say we could induce a well trained scientist into a religious state, so he can observe the phenomena from the inside. His buddy's who trust him to be objective, will use the traditional second person tools for secondary data.
The inside scientist will use his conscious mind and training as the primary analytical tool, making note of all the details from his inside experience, that outside machines will miss. The inside person is the only scientist who would have anything rational to say based on direct data. The others can all pretend.
An analogy is trying to infer what is on the bottom of the ocean, while having science stay on the ship, at the surface of the ocean. We can use sonar and other ools, but these analytical limitation can not tell all the details. If it is not on the sonar, it is not there since it lacks proof.
To do it right, someone has to get into a diving bell to take a real look, and not just relay on limited surface machines. They would have to be able to use the diver as an analystic tool, with hope his training and power of observation is calibrate for objectivity. He reports the data he collective in his mind like a computer print-out.