Personal experience as a basis for god belief

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

Afterthought. Im not an expert . which you obviously are, in scriptures but I have a nodding acquaintance with the following:
The Bible, Catholic version and King James version

The writings of Mary Baker-Eddy, if I remember her name correctly.

The Book of Mormon as explained by Mormons who call on me from time to time,

The Jehovah's witnesses inteerpretation of the Bible

The Dharma as it is represented by followers of the Therevada school of Buddhism

The Upanishads

The Bagavhad Gita

There are many experts in the feild of religion and scriptures, just as there are many medical experts, but in some cases we do not need "experts" to tell us how we feel, or what works best, we are capable of doing it ourselves.
Did you not gain anything from these scriptures?

I have also personally known members of many of the numerous Christian denominations, each of whom gave me what he'she claimed to be the only true way of understanding things.

You'll also find people who don't think like that, and theist too.
There are also people who will sell you a dodgy second hand motor, under the pretense that it is a sound car. There are cheaters in every corner of society, which is why we must choose our authority carefully. The choice shouldn't be based soley on appearance, or the words that come out of their mouth, that way we are likely to get conned.

If you are averse to discussing non-Chriostian literature, perhaps ypou could make a start by explaining to me your understanding of Judges:19 23-4

In short; A true servant of God is held in higher esteem than those women.

Perhaps you could also tell me whether you have read the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, Why I am not a Christian ( Bertrand Russell) and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ( David Hume ) and , for a bit of fun, Voltaire's Candide. I would enjoy discussing any of these works with you, not to mention the writings of Richard Dawkins

How is any of these works relavant to the discussion?

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

There are many experts in the feild of religion and scriptures, just as there are many medical experts

As asinine a comparison as you've ever made, you also insult the medical profession, the same institution that helps you and your family live longer and healthier lives.

So-called experts in theologies are some of the more vile and despicable of mankind, making it their "profession" interpreting scriptures, leading to all sorts of atrocities and tragedies.

but in some cases we do not need "experts" to tell us how we feel, or what works best, we are capable of doing it ourselves.

And we are usually wrong, attempting to diagnose ourselves with little more than an inkling of medical knowledge and guesswork as our guides.

 

[greenberg]

If not condoning the atrocities of cults and not following the myths and superstitions they purport, freeing yourself from the ignorance and oppression fettering your intellect isn't reason enough to be a happier person, then maybe being an atheist isn't for you.

Come on, Q, we both know that this is a false dichotomy you're suggesting there.
It's not like happiness could only be found either in being a fundamentalist religionist or the kind of atheist you are.

 

[greenberg]

There are many experts in the feild of religion and scriptures, just as there are many medical experts, but in some cases we do not need "experts" to tell us how we feel, or what works best, we are capable of doing it ourselves.
Did you not gain anything from these scriptures?

Good point. Something I struggle with to this day, having been taught that my own knowledge doesn't count.

When I came to Buddhism, and found a teaching like this, I felt very challenged:

Making the Dhamma Your Own

There are three sorts of Dhamma: the Dhamma of theory, the Dhamma of practice, and the Dhamma of attainment.
The Dhamma of theory refers to the teachings of the Buddha: the discourses, the discipline, the Abhidhamma, all 84,000 sections of the Pali canon. This sort of Dhamma is everyone's common property.

As for practice and attainment, they're the individual property of those who do them. For example, Ven. Moggallana's practice was his own practice. His attainment of the paths and fruitions leading to nibbana was his own attainment. The same holds true for Ven. Sariputta and each of the noble disciples, all the way down to all of us practicing here. The practice and attainments of each person are that person's very own. It's like your own land and fields. They belong to you; they're not common property.

The Buddha set out the Dhamma of theory for each of us to practice. When we practice it, it becomes our own. If we follow the precepts, they become our own precepts, our own virtues. If we practice concentration, it becomes our own concentration. If we attain jhana (mental absorption) or any of the paths and fruitions leading to nibbana, they become our own attainments. So understand this point and practice in line with it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/khamdee/yourown.html

I think this is a perspective which is completely foreign to what many of us have been taught both by Christianity as well as by science.

 

[(Q)]

Come on, Q, we both know that this is a false dichotomy you're suggesting there.
It's not like happiness could only be found either in being a fundamentalist religionist or the kind of atheist you are.

I'll ignore that last bit as you've not opined as to what "kind" of atheist I am.

But, it should be pointed out that it doesn't appear that you understood my post, and that I offered no such extremities of fundamentalism as you've suggested.

I only stated that if you prefer equating ignorance to happiness, then I should be able to equate the avoidance of it with equal opportunity.

I see no false dichotomies other than what you've offered.

 

[greenberg]

I'll ignore that last bit as you've not opined as to what "kind" of atheist I am.

Not to get too personal - but I don't want to hold the positions you do.

I don't want to commit myself to believing that the sort of happiness that comes with holding and acting on scientific and intellectual positions, is the best there can be.
Nor do I want to commit myself to believing that the sort of happiness that comes with holding and acting on particular theist positions, is the best there can be.
Nor do I want to commit myself to believing that the sort of happiness that comes with zoning out is the best there can be.

One thing that both various theisms as well as various atheisms have in common is their low regard for a person's true happiness.

 

[Oniw17]

Personal experience canot be used as a basis for the existence of god. It can be a basis for belief but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ? He certainly believes it. Does believing that the earth is flat make it so ? Of course not.

We can believe anything but to know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence. I am not aware of any argument which supports a belief in god, which is not to doubt the sincerity of those who do hold such beliefs. I just think they are mistaken.

Your post is entirely correct; nonetheless, if I, myself had some personal experience which compelled me to believe in a god, it would be enough for me. Sadly, I don't see that happening.

 

[(Q)]

Not to get too personal - but I don't want to hold the positions you do.

And what might those positions be?

I don't want to commit myself to believing that the sort of happiness that comes with holding and acting on scientific and intellectual positions, is the best there can be.

That is unfortunate, for you.

One thing that both various theisms as well as various atheisms have in common is their low regard for a person's true happiness.

That is entirely false. How little you appear to know of atheism.

 

[kaneda]

There are no miracles, otherwise religion and science would have proved them long ago. Prayers provably do not work so even churches admit it. The bible is full of contradictions and mistakes and is not backed up by history or science.

That leaves only claimed personal experiences which cannot even be shared by other christians so is of extremely doubtful value.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



There are many experts in the feild of religion and scriptures, just as there are many medical experts, but in some cases we do not need "experts" to tell us how we feel, or what works best, we are capable of doing it ourselves.
Did you not gain anything from these scriptures?



You'll also find people who don't think like that, and theist too.
There are also people who will sell you a dodgy second hand motor, under the pretense that it is a sound car. There are cheaters in every corner of society, which is why we must choose our authority carefully. The choice shouldn't be based soley on appearance, or the words that come out of their mouth, that way we are likely to get conned.



In short; A true servant of God is held in higher esteem than those women.



How is any of these works relavant to the discussion?

Jan.

What I gained from reading the sources I listed was a clear and distinct notion that there were no experts. They we all pushing their own views. You talk of authority. I recognize none so have to rely on my own experience and muddle through as best I can. I feel no need for authority. I shall conclude this message by quoting Omar Khyam, whose verse chimes with my experience.

When I read Judges: 19 I was horrified. If that were to happen today we should call it gang rape. But it's even worse than that. I'ts about a man who handed his daughter to a mob inviting them to do what they would with her. I find that revolting. The concubine also deserved to be treated with respect.

If god wants to demonstrate the dominion of men in this way, I want none of it. The bottom line is I do not believe a loving god would countenance such behaviour, so either the Bible is wrong or god is a monster. If you choose to believe such stuff is the revealed word of god, I just cannot understand your mentality. You have clearly been brainwashed.

Could you please answer my question as to whether you have read any of the books I listed because I would gladly discuss their merits/demerits with you.

Finally, as promised, a quotation from Omat Khyam which chimes with my experience:

And oftentimes when young did I frequent
Doctor and Saint and heard great argument
About this and about that, and anon
Came out by the same door as in I went

That is the experience of everyone who chooses to think for himself and question so-calles Authority

 

[Myles]

Your post is entirely correct; nonetheless, if I, myself had some personal experience which compelled me to believe in a god, it would be enough for me. Sadly, I don't see that happening.

It's good to find someone who agrees with my point of view. I struggled for years before coming to my conclusions. The cop out ( soft option ) is to let others tell one what to think. In my case that would have been Jesuits in the Roman Catholic church, which I abandoned when I reached maturity. Boy, was I shown god's love !!!!!!!

 

[Myles]

And what might those positions be?



That is unfortunate, for you.



That is entirely false. How little you appear to know of atheism.

If I may say so you will lose the argument because you are coming at them too hard,. Be gentle, give them enough rope....

At the age of 75 I have yet to find a religious person who can be swayed by reason.

I used to be like you but I now find the softly. softly catchee monkey approach is better. Try it See my thread on science.

 

[greenberg]

And what might those positions be?

In short: Your aprioristic objectivism.

One thing that both various theisms as well as various atheisms have in common is their low regard for a person's true happiness.

That is entirely false. How little you appear to know of atheism.

Read again. I'm not speaking of all forms of atheism. I don't know all of them, but those that I do know I find to be lacking.

 

[greenberg]

I used to be like you but I now find the softly. softly catchee monkey approach is better. Try it See my thread on science.

And what do you have to offer?

This?

Join the club and live for the day because, in the end, that is all you can do anyway. Have a good trip !

Talking about whittling down one's ambitions.

 

[Grantywanty]

All I ask you to agree to is that , on balance, people are healthier and living longer today than they were in the past.

I don't see it as either or. I think the assumption that one must choose either Science or other ways of seeking knowledge is not a good one. And I notice that a lot of health care, especially in Europe is now integrating a lot of ideas from barbarians.

I do not believe the world would be a better place without religion. What we both regard as wicked behaviour would continue under the banners of some other ideologies.

If violence is simply human, I think some of the ways you snapped about religious violence seems outof place.

I'm sure you will agree that the majority of people in Russia and China are just ordinary human beings like the rest of us. It's the people who rule the roost who are at fault.

And so it has always been. Leaders will find a way to channel hate.

I believe that if your Christian Fundametalists ever got their way you would be living in a theocracy. Would that be any better than living under Chinese or Russian rule ? The difference, if any, would be marginal. We would have thought-police, a present day version of the Inquisition and so on. I have some first-hand knowledge of what goes on in the bible belt on which I base my conclusions.

1) not all theists are Monotheists or Christian ones.
2) this is separate from the core issue which is about how one comes to know things.
3) to me it seems like the philosophical issue, a epistemological one that applies even to rationalists and non-believers - we all use intuition, well all believe in things despite not really understanding the proof of them - slides in a discussion with you to tirades about monotheists. I certainly share some of that anger. But the assumption that anyone who does not share your epistomological philosophy will be like the Christian fundamentalists or should somehow defend them seems off to me. Kind of a straw man.

The jury is still out on QM, as you must know. Do we accept the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds explanation, or do we reject both. In the current Issue of New Scientist there is an article on a scientist who is questioning the validity of action at a distance which, as you know, is tied up with the question of entanglement. So any inferences you draw from QM can only be rgarded as tentative at present

I think you will find that only a very small percentage of physicists will back you up on this claim. Much of it has been confirmed by testing over and over and over.

I still wish you well and something tels me we would get on if we settled down for a pint or two in front of a log fire in a cosy pub

Probably right.

 

[Myles]

And what do you have to offer?

This?



Talking about whittling down one's ambitions.

You omitted my comment to " be true toyourself". This means finding your own way rather than allowing others to dictate what you must believe. In this context, I am one of the others, so you are liberty to ignore anything I say in favour of what seems better to you. What is so wrong with that ?

I found my own way, as have many others. There can be no right way because we are all individuals with different levels of intelligence, physical attributes and so on.

Your problem seems to be that you are struggling towards the light but at present unable to come to terms with being free to choose.Some part of you still has a need for a father figure to tell you what to think and what to do so that you will live happily ever after. If only things were that simple.

Read widely, think a, listen to others and decide for yourself. There is no other way. If there were, someone would have found it by now and we would not be engaged in this dialogue.

You will, of course, find plenty of people telling you how simple it all is. The answers are in the Bible, the Koran or sone other "holy" book. They will also tell you what it means so that you can avoid the hard procedd of thinking. But if you listen to such people, you will end up even more confused than you are now. Ever Christian you meet wil tell you the answers you seek are in the Bible. But those answers can only be understood in terms of his belief system.He will gladly explain what the Bible is telling us.

So do you become some type of Baptist, a Mormon, a Methodist , a Jehovah's Witness, a Roman Catholic or do you join one of the many cults. A Muslim will tell you all of these people are infidels. Why ? Because that's what it says in the Koran which is Allah's holy word as dictated to Mohammed. On the other hand you will find Christians telling you that Muslims are infidels. All very confusing, isn't it. Perhaps you should take the Buddha's advice which is to work out your own salvation which is what I. an atheist , am advising you to do.

 

[greenberg]

Myles,


I'm just letting you know that I've read your post. I don't have any comments.
Thank you.

 

[Myles]

I think you will find that only a very small percentage of physicists will back you up on this claim. Much of it has been confirmed by testing over and over and over.


Probably right.

It i not my claim;it is the claim of some physicists. Before we get into a rut again, can I simply say that, as far as I am awahow re, no physicist doubts the experimental results. It is the interptetation of thow those results come about which is a matter of contention. That is what I was talking about when I mentioned this week's issue of New Scientist.

For example, action at a distance, which Einstein abhorred ( God does not play at dice ) is being called into question. It is being argued that the spins of the entangled particles exist before they are seperated and this is suggested to be so because of "hidden variables". If this is so, there is no action at a distance. It argues for am underlying determinism.

I read a book some years ago which was written by an Australian judge. I cannot remember the title or the author. It was an attempt to show that free will exists because quantum events are not determined , but see my remarks above about entanglement.

The book offered a very good account of QM but did not discuss the much-vexed question of why we do not see rando event at a macro level . When did a table last appear from nowhere ? James Randi might explain it

So I will conclude by saying that it would be a brave, should that be foolish, man who rely on QM to support his argument at present

I think, after all this. that Voltaire had the answer. Have you read Candide ? If not , I recommend it to you. After much philosophical nonsense throughout the book, which is making fun of Leibniz, the eponymous hero says: " One thing I know is that I must cultivate my garden" , my rough translation

Best wishes

 

[Myles]

Myles,


I'm just letting you know that I've read your post. I don't have any comments.
Thank you.

Thaks for your message. You don't need comments. you need action.

There was a man who had a sailing boat. He could not put to sea if the wind was not strong enough to blow out a candle. He refused to put to sea if the wind WAS strong enough to blow out a candle. Ring any bells ?

Take the plunge and live dangerously ! Otherwise you have very little to look forward to

Best wishes

 

[Grantywanty]

For example, action at a distance, which Einstein abhorred ( God does not play at dice ) is being called into question. It is being argued that the spins of the entangled particles exist before they are seperated and this is suggested to be so because of "hidden variables". If this is so, there is no action at a distance. It argues for am underlying determinism.

Einstein's quote was about a statistical universe with probabilities not about action at a distance.

My read of recent physicists' thoughts is different from yours, but it is not my field so I am not up to a debate with someone else whose field it isn't either - man that was terribly worded but you get my point.

So you are a determinist. I have always found this an ironic position. It certainly could be true. But how could someone who is completely determined know that the reasons they believe in determinism are logical. They are simply compelled to believe. Atoms bashing along in domino chains. Of course it would seem logical. (I do know this is not a proof against determinism, but I think it does point out some of the oddness of arguing for it rationally)