To know there is no god?

[Sarkus]

Your right, the problem is where we are talking about experience. When I say experience I don't mean praying, speaking in tongues, going to church, hearing a voice of god, seeing a vision of jesus or vishnu...I'm talking about a mystical experience(western term) in which on directly perceives God(western term).

Please describe this experience in more detail - and then the process by which it was attained.

Note, noone is doubting the experience, only the interpretation.

It is exactly the same as in the east when one attains Nirvana and sees the Buddha-nature in all things. If you compare these two religions it is clear that they are talking about the exact same thing using different terminology.

Please detail the evidence.

Is it not more likely that you merely read into the descriptions of other "experiences" things that you wanted to?


Have you ever heard of cold-reading?
A very good experiment was performed - in which a guy claimed to be able to describe, fairly accurately, a person's character merely through seeing a personal item of the person and an outline of their hand.

He did this with 10 people in each of 3 or 4 cities around the world.
For each of the 30 / 40 people he handed them a 2-sided essay detailing their character.

In 90% of the cases this essay was 80% accurate - including much of the detail.

Everyone was astounded.

Even more astounded when they realised they had each received EXACTLY the same essay / description.


My point is that we subjectively read much detail into things where there isn't the detail. And you need to be careful that you haven't done this in the case of these supposed "shared experiences".

 

[SnakeLord]

okay then you have redefined your definition - now you are admitting that some qualification is involved

Again I suppose that differs from person to person. I've never actually asked anything without honestly wanting an answer. For those of you that might ask questions who don't want answers then fine. As I also stated on my last post to you, I would have mentioned it earlier but I have already seen where that leads, (i.e you arguing semantics).

BTW as far as your leprechaun thing goes you might want to redefine it too, since you seem to be mixing it as an analogy- are you saying that it is a metaphor for religious processes

No. Lenny exists, as does rocket science, but Lenny serves as a better analogy and comparison in this discussion than rocket science does.

("My process is the same as your process") or are you presenting the process as something that could fall within the folds of religion by actually elaborating on the process)

Much like any field of knowledge you care to mention, the process is the same.. the details differ. It's not 'religion', I did elaborate on the process, (there's still some questions concerning it you have failed to answer - i.e are you going to try the process), and theres quite a lot you missed from my last post. I understand you might be a busy person but please at least try and answer the questions contained therein.

The problem is that when you start elaborating on the leprechaun process it appears incongruent with religious processes, and its not clear which side of the analogy you want to ride

The Lenny process is a hell of a lot closer than rocket science and yet you deemed that as a suitable comparison. It's not clear why. And no, it certainly isn't connected with religion, but in both instances it involves a being unseen by humans unless they undergo the process.

----

No, I still mean identical, sorry that I confused you by saying "remarkable degree of similiarity" instead.

Kindly explain to me what is identical and how.

I'm categorizing you based upon what I've read from you.

Great, a 3 post discussion and I'm a "scientific fundamentalist".

And that's precisely I'm saying is the case with God/Brahman/Nirvana...once you know it directly belief has nothing to do with it.

I'd accept that, which is why I always pull a puzzled expression when people say they "believe" in god while then claiming he speaks to them.

(An iteresting side question....most people that believe in scientific facts such as evolution or atoms have not personally taken the time to understand for themselves how these things have been proven but simply accept it as true because higher authorites have said it is true...how is this different than people accepting things as true in the middle ages because a higher authority said it is true? How is it not faith?

Although I can't speak for everyone, most people probably don't really care either way. They get up, sit in traffic, go to work, come home tired and hungry, watch cable TV for an hour or two only to repeat the same thing the very next day. That's life to many, things like 'evolution' are irrelevant to that life. There are those that do understand it and as such know it's a fact of life. There are those that have heard the words or believe it because they' ve heard of it, (the old 5% brain usage springs to mind), and consider it true regardless.

That's not the way I personally operate.. I detest 'faith' clearly as much as you do. 'Most people' are not me.

I'm talking about a mystical experience(western term) in which on directly perceives God(western term)

Which mystical experience/which god? You can't claim them all "identical" if they differ here.

It is exactly the same as in the east when one attains Nirvana and sees the Buddha-nature in all things.

Then clearly it isn't the same. At it's base, (like I explained), then yes - but the details differ.. from buddha to yhwh to jesus etc.

If you compare these two religions it is clear that they are talking about the exact same thing using different terminology.

No, they are talking about the same base experience, the details differ. If you explained eating to me I'd say "snap! I eat to". The base experience is the same.. you're eating chips, I'm eating chocolate..

It would be comparable to if schizophrenics at different places where having the exact same hallucination (never happens, you will never get to schizophrenics in the same room having the same hallucination)

Sorry, your qualifications in this matter?

But no.. once again: the base experience is the same: mystical experience/hearing a voice, but the details differ - in both instances.

Thats one of the ways its so obvious to outsiders that a person is experiencing something isnt real, because no one else sees what they are talking about

4 billion people don't see jesus. How many of the remaining 2 billion claim to have seen him and have identical stories to anyone else?

It is exactly the opposite with the religous experience I'm talking about which is consistent across time and culture which means that it isn't a hallucination.

I'll listen to your claim but you need to now show what exactly this identical experience is. You can't say "seeing god/having a mystical experience", because that just defines the basics, (hearing voices).

 

[grover]

Here is a good place to start:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mcb/mcb03.htm

I know it's probably too long but it is good so read it if you can. I'll try and put some stuff together.

-I'm not sure what to make of the cold reading thing (I think it actually supports what I'm saying). I mean the way I see it one way of interpreting it is that humans overestimate the differences between us. One point I'm trying to demonstrate at the very minimum is that humans overestimate the differences between religion. This is true of the fundamentalists that think there religion "is the one true way" and think all other religions are paths to hell...I think we can both agree that this is absolute insanity. It's even more insane since religions share the identical core and beyond that they are even superficially similar - all religions share this in common: act morally and know the transcendent.
-The overestimation is also shared by scientific fundamentalists that look at the phenomenon of the overestimation of the differences between religions and say "everyone theist is an atheist in regards to other religions."
-One other thing is that the average religous person is a hypocrite that clearly has no understanding of their religion whatsoever as evidenced by the fact that they can't even follow the simple rules of their relgion such as: don't kill, don't be greedy. In other words you can't look at these people and say all religion is bullshit since clearly they don't understand it. This would be comparable to saying evolution is bullshit based upon giving "The Origin of Species" to someone with a fifth grade education and asking them to explain the theory to you...it would sound like utter nonsense. But you don't dismiss the theory of evolution just because it sounds like utter nonsense when someone that clearly doesn't understand it explains it.
-Anyways, I just rambled there a bit. I'll try and dig up some stuff on the mystic experience/enlightenment but just like any other subject you're going to have to do some reading on your own to get an understanding of it (I can't be expected to write a ten page dissertation).

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm actually off to church in a minute, any chance you could sum it up?

but just like any other subject you're going to have to do some reading on your own to get an understanding of it (I can't be expected to write a ten page dissertation).

Very sweet of you to talk down to me like I'm a fucking idiot. I would espouse that I have read far more than you so your statement is meaningless. I would also espouse that I know far more about people and the brain, (otherwise I'd be out of a job). I'm still waiting for you to quickly explain an identical experience.

 

[grover]

Snake,
Are you acually claiming some schizophrenics share the same hallucination?

"4 billion people don't see jesus. How many of the remaining 2 billion claim to have seen him and have identical stories to anyone else?"
From my perspective if you see Jesus you are hallucinating. Unless people in say South America and Europe starting having the exact same vision, then we would have a very strange phenonmenon on our hand -i.e., people sharing the same vison/hallucination is unheard of in the history of the world.
So here's the thing - Christ is with in you: that's why when Paul had his revelation/conversion to Christianity he said "Not me but Christ in me." Which is the same thing as in buddhism where the buddha nature is in all people. Christ is simultaneoulsy God and Man and God is everywhere and in all things- Buddha is simultaneously man and Buddhanature is everywhere and in all things. A mystical experience is when one sees that one is one with God/Christ "the God and the Son are one." In Buddhism when one becomes enlightened one sees that one is truly Buddha and that simultaneously one is one with the universe also since all things are Buddha nature. See, exactly the same, only the terminology is different.

 

[grover]

Very sweet of you to talk down to me like I'm a fucking idiot. I would espouse that I have read far more than you so your statement is meaningless. I would also espouse that I know far more about people and the brain, (otherwise I'd be out of a job). I'm still waiting for you to quickly explain an identical experience.

What are you talking about? I'm not talking down to you, I'm merely pointing out that for me to do justice to what I'm talking about I would have to write a dissertation. Do you watch the Colbert report? He does this thing when he's interviewing a guest he'll ask them to explain a complicated topic and then say "25 words or less." Thats basicallly what you are asking me to do.

 

[Sarkus]

-I'm not sure what to make of the cold reading thing (I think it actually supports what I'm saying). I mean the way I see it one way of interpreting it is that humans overestimate the differences between us. One point I'm trying to demonstrate at the very minimum is that humans overestimate the differences between religion.

This similarity does not make it true. To think otherwise is an Argument from Consensus. The old "85% of the world is religious - so it must be true" argument.

What is more likely is that humans ARE very similar in fundamental ways - i.e. the typical human fears death / dying and can not answer some profound questions (e.g. where do we come from) - and so creates something to help answer it and assuage fears.
This is far more likely - and would lead, as you seem to suggest, a similarity in the world's religions, as they all seek to aid us in the same way.
There are not many religions (that I know of) that do not try and assuage the fear of death, or try to answer the question of creation.

This is true of the fundamentalists that think there religion "is the one true way" and think all other religions are paths to hell...I think we can both agree that this is absolute insanity.

Yep. I think we're in agreement on this.

It's even more insane since religions share the identical core and beyond that they are even superficially similar - all religions share this in common: act morally and know the transcendent.

"...know the transcendent"?
If anything it is a claim that they know can not be fulfilled unless you become so ingrained in that particular religion as to be brainwashed that you are "knowing the transcendent". Self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating. But no evidence.

In other words you can't look at these people and say all religion is bullshit since clearly they don't understand it.

I think in this regard you have to separate the religion from the beliefs.

The way I see it, religion IS the institutional element of the mass-belief.
There are zero people who practice the tenets of their religion 100%.
Any who are reported to have done so are usually the founders of that religion - and the evidence merely heresay / scriptoral.

But I am also one that does not necessarily attack religion as being "bullshit" - as I do appreciate the help, comfort that it can bring, even if just (for the main part) for the intellectually apathetic.

 

[grover]

"Know the transcendent"- Yes it can be known. Through meditation. Thats what most people don't seem to get about religion, the transcendent can be direclty known.
"similiarity doesn't make it true"- Atheists are constantly making the assertion that all religions are different to show that that means they are all untrue. I'm merely refuting that point.
-If you put to evolutionary scientists with a high degree of understanding of the theory in a room they will have a high degree of agreement on evolution (suugesting objective truth). If you put two people with a low degree of understanding of evloution in a room there will be a low degree of agreement on evolution(suggesting ignorance).
If you put two people with a high degree of spiritual attainment(even frrom different religions) in a room there will be a high degree of agreement on the nature of God (suggesting objective truth). If you put two people with a low degree of spiritual attainment in a room there will be much disagreement about the nature of God (suggesting ignorance).

 

[Sarkus]

"Know the transcendent"- Yes it can be known. Through meditation. Thats what most people don't seem to get about religion, the transcendent can be direclty known.

Unfortunately there has never been any evidence to support this claim. Care to share any? Or is this just another case of LG's "Believe to believe".

"similiarity doesn't make it true"- Atheists are constantly making the assertion that all religions are different to show that that means they are all untrue. I'm merely refuting that point.

Atheists do so to point out the inconsistencies in belief. If someone, such as yourself, claims all religions to be the same, then I'm sure you can wash over such inconsistencies. However, this is not the case with most that one comes across - they hold to very specific sets of beliefs that are oft incompatible with others.

If you put two people with a high degree of spiritual attainment(even frrom different religions) in a room there will be a high degree of agreement on the nature of God (suggesting objective truth).

The only way this would happen is if they have mysitified some elements of nature, if not the entirety of nature, and labelled it GOD.

Most of what the various religions agree on come down to 3 things:
1. "Common Sense" for living in communities (e.g. the 10 commandments);
2. God = existence;
3. After-life.

Neither of the frst 2 need "God" in the equation, and the latter is an unprovable wish/desire on the part of the believers.
With (2), any logical conclusion you reach of God is also attributable to existence.


Irrespective of the level of agreement between those with a "high degree of spiritual attainment" - they still need evidence to support their claims that god exists, or that the "non-material" / "transcendental" exists.
A communal claim of "we have directly perceived" is the weakest evidence, especially as it can not be demonstrated / repeated to those who do not believe. Thus the cycle of "believe to believe" that I mentioned earlier.

 

[grover]

The only way this would happen is if they have mysitified some elements of nature, if not the entirety of nature, and labelled it GOD.

No, that's not the only way. Listen, you can say that people do not have enlightenment experiences all you want but that doesn't make it so. People do have enlightnement experiences in which they claim to attain insight into the true nature of reality. Their claims of the nature of this reality is true across cultures and times. It is not them simply people labeling things or imagining things or coming up with philosophical arguments or trying to manipulate people. It is an enlightenment experience which is exaclty the same in all religions arrived at by intensive contemplative religous practice.

At least read this so we can get on the same page of what I mean when I say contemplative religous practice and what I mean when I say religous experience: http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/001324.html

 

[SnakeLord]

Snake,
Are you acually claiming some schizophrenics share the same hallucination?

As a man qualified in the field we are now discussing vs a man that isn't.. yes, I am. I have seen group hallucinations quite a few times.

From my perspective if you see Jesus you are hallucinating. Unless people in say South America and Europe starting having the exact same vision, then we would have a very strange phenonmenon on our hand -i.e., people sharing the same vison/hallucination is unheard of in the history of the world.

I'm afraid not. However, please explain this "exact same vision".

Christ is simultaneoulsy God and Man and God is everywhere and in all things

Not according to jesus. He states firstly that, concerning the end times, he does not know when it is. In admitting that there is something he does not know, he is admitting that he is not omniscient and therefore not god. Furthermore, in Hebrews god states that jesus is a priest, nothing more, for eternity - along with melchizedek, (another immortal being - actually seen in the OT unlike jesus). The bible also states that jesus is the "firstborn of creation". By being born, the fact is that jesus is not god.

So what we are left with is that jesus is not god.. so sayeth jesus and so sayeth god.

Fine, jesus is god's "special" child, but then it makes me wonder.. From what I have read god killed all his children and then killed his special child. No loving parent ever does that.

A mystical experience is when one sees that one is one with God/Christ "the God and the Son are one."

So... a "mystical experience" must include jesus.. in which case you can't argue that mystical experiences are identical.... Case closed it would seem.

See, exactly the same, only the terminology is different

Like I said.. the basics are the same, the details differ. In saying.. "I hear voices" is a worldwide phenomenon.. the details differ. You're arguing my case for me.

I'm merely pointing out that for me to do justice to what I'm talking about I would have to write a dissertation

Lies. You wouldn't have to do a dissertation at all. How many words is it going to take to describe to me a "mystical experience" that is identical worldwide?

 

[grover]

Lies. You wouldn't have to do a dissertation at all. How many words is it going to take to describe to me a "mystical experience" that is identical worldwide?

I just did and you dismissed it because the terminology is different.

And, as far as this schizophrenics sharing the same hallucination, why don't you point me in the direction of this being verified by a peer reviewed psychological journal. Or am I supposed to just take your word on faith because you're an authority? Because, to be honest, that's one of the dumbest fucking things I've read on the internet.

 

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
BTW as far as your leprechaun thing goes you might want to redefine it too, since you seem to be mixing it as an analogy- are you saying that it is a metaphor for religious processes
”
No. Lenny exists, as does rocket science, but Lenny serves as a better analogy and comparison in this discussion than rocket science does.

“
("My process is the same as your process") or are you presenting the process as something that could fall within the folds of religion by actually elaborating on the process)
”
Much like any field of knowledge you care to mention, the process is the same.. the details differ. It's not 'religion', I did elaborate on the process, (there's still some questions concerning it you have failed to answer - i.e are you going to try the process), and theres quite a lot you missed from my last post. I understand you might be a busy person but please at least try and answer the questions contained therein.

you're right, I am a busy person (some of the time anyway) - The problem is that you are mixing the analogy with your lenny trip - I am arguing that religion is like any field of knowledge in the sense that it requires qualification for validation - you obviously think it is imagination, and are suggesting that if proof of leprechauns rides the same general principles, then leprechauns can be accepted ... is that the gist?

 

[grover]

Snakelord,

In response to:
"normative descriptions = qualifications - in other words how (or what) you have to 'be' in order to know something" you said:

Ok so kindly cite an example and explain to me how that justifies/validates the claims of saintly persons/lenny followers.

-Doesn't one have to have go through years of schooling to learn physics, and after years of schooling they get validation by other people that have learned physics that they have truly learned physics at which point they are validated with a degree. Doesn't one generally have to an advanced degree in physics to determine the truth claims of other physicists? In other words one has to oneslef be an expert to determine if someone else is an expert, and people without that training are not considered to be in aposition to question the truth claims of physicists.
It is exactly the same with direct perception of God. One must go through years of training after which time their training can be validated by others before them whether or not their understanding is correct. People that haven't gone thorugh this training are not qualified to question their direct experience since they have not themselves gone through the training to know enough whether or not their truth claims are true (just as someone without a physics education is not in a position to question the truth calims of a Ph.D physicist). I would further add that the truth claims of those with advanced training in physics sounds every bit as nonsensical to the layman as the truth claims as the enlightened-"spooky action at a distance," "light is a both a wave and a particle",etc.
-Let's take you as an example. You have repeatedly pointed out that you have advanced training in psychology and therefore others without that training are not in a position to question your understanding. And yet, you, with no religous training or experience whatsoever, claim to be in a position to question the truth claims of those that have gone through the training. You are a hypocrite.

 

[Sarkus]

-Doesn't one have to have go through years of schooling to learn physics, and after years of schooling they get validation by other people that have learned physics that they have truly learned physics at which point they are validated with a degree. Doesn't one generally have to an advanced degree in physics to determine the truth claims of other physicists? In other words one has to oneslef be an expert to determine if someone else is an expert, and people without that training are not considered to be in aposition to question the truth claims of physicists.
It is exactly the same with direct perception of God. One must go through years of training after which time their training can be validated by others before them whether or not their understanding is correct. People that haven't gone thorugh this training are not qualified to question their direct experience since they have not themselves gone through the training to know enough whether or not their truth claims are true (just as someone without a physics education is not in a position to question the truth calims of a Ph.D physicist). I would further add that the truth claims of those with advanced training in physics sounds every bit as nonsensical to the layman as the truth claims as the enlightened-"spooky action at a distance," "light is a both a wave and a particle",etc.

Oh dear Lord! Not this argument again!!

No physicist claims ANYTHING without the evidence to support their work.
If they claim something - THEY SUPPORT IT WITH EVIDENCE.
This EVIDENCE can be shown / demonstrated to "qualified" AND "non-qualified" people alike.
It can be repeated in front of them.

Furthermore - there is no TRUTH CLAIM from physicists - merely claims of THEORY - i.e. understandings that fit the existing EVIDENCE.


There is NO SUCH EVIDENCE with claims of direct perception of God.
None.
Nada.
Nil.
Diddly-squat.
Zip.

Your entire argument is one of Appeal to Authority.
And as there is no EVIDENCE to support your claims - there can be no sensible argument on the matter.

People that haven't gone thorugh this training are not qualified to question their direct experience...

You are advocating: "I am qualified - thus all I say on the matter is correct, even though I have no evidence."

Appeal to Authority.


Luckily science doesn't progress like that.
ANYONE can question the scientist - as long as they can support their arguments with EVIDENCE.


If you want to continue down this "believe to believe" path of argument then I suggest you take it to a site that will bother to listen to you. But then the only site that will listen are already those that "believe" - so then there's no argument.

 

[grover]

Oh dear Lord! Not this argument again!!

No physicist claims ANYTHING without the evidence to support their work.
If they claim something - THEY SUPPORT IT WITH EVIDENCE.
This EVIDENCE can be shown / demonstrated to "qualified" AND "non-qualified" people alike.
It can be repeated in front of them.

Wrong. People without the training are not in a position to determine whether what has been shown to them is true or not. They would first have to go throught the training to determine if what they have been told is true or not. If someone does accept the truth claims of a physicist they are excepting it on faith exactly the same if someone accepts the truth claims of an enlightened person they are accpting it on faith. No difference.
None.
Nada.
Nil.
Diddly-squat.
Zip.

Furthermore - there is no TRUTH CLAIM from physicists - merely claims of THEORY - i.e. understandings that fit the existing EVIDENCE.

First, Are you saying physicisct have come up with nothing they claim as true? I doubt it.
Second, this bring me back to the orginal post I made in which I made the calim that science claiming to be the only legitmate mode of inuiry inot the nature of reality is a form of fundamentalism 9see that post for clarification).
Third, meditation is a legitmate mode for studying the consciousness, it is in fact the most advanced method we have for directly observing actual experience. (Actually read Sam Harris link).

There is NO SUCH EVIDENCE with claims of direct perception of God.
None.
Nada.
Nil.
Diddly-squat.
Zip.

Of course there is no material evidence for an immaterial phenomenon. You demanding such is insane.

Your entire argument is one of Appeal to Authority.
And as there is no EVIDENCE to support your claims - there can be no sensible argument on the matter.

Wrong, my entire argument is that one must have training in the field to determine whether the truth claims within that field are true. There is evidence to support my claims. When monks go through years and years of training they achieve the same results independent of time and place. This is the same as physicists being able to duplicate experiments and arriving at the same results. Replicable experiments are how one proves a theory as true. True in science, true in religion. You would have to go through the religous training to be in a position to judge if their results are true just as you have to have training in physics to be able to judge their results. What don't you get about this?

You are advocating: "I am qualified - thus all I say on the matter is correct, even though I have no evidence."

No I am advocating that one must be qualified to be able to make a determination whether or not the claims someone is making are true. What don't you get about this?

Appeal to Authority.

Appeal to autority means you are expected to bleieve something just because an authority says it. I'm saying the exact opposite. I am saying one must undergo enough training(no matter what the field) so that one can determine for oneself if what the authority is saying is true. I am saying for me to accept the equations of physicists would be me accepting something on faith since I don't have enough training to understand the equations, just as someone accepting the claims of an enlightened person is faith if they haven't gone throught the training themselves to get the understanding.

Luckily science doesn't progress like that.
ANYONE can question the scientist - as long as they can support their arguments with EVIDENCE.

Yes, if anyone goes through the scientific training they can see for themsleves that what has been said is true. BUt, they must go through the training.

If you want to continue down this "believe to believe" path of argument then I suggest you take it to a site that will bother to listen to you. But then the only site that will listen are already those that "believe" - so then there's no argument.

I don't have a 'believe to believe" argument. So why don't you respond to my actual argument instead of the one you apparently wish I had made?

 

[SnakeLord]

And, as far as this schizophrenics sharing the same hallucination, why don't you point me in the direction of this being verified by a peer reviewed psychological journal. Or am I supposed to just take your word on faith because you're an authority? Because, to be honest, that's one of the dumbest fucking things I've read on the internet

A) Again it seems you are having a problem understanding what it is I am trying to say - and where it is our arguments differ. I know of several people that all state that they have seen a ghost. This supposedly happened in a group, and thus could easily be categorised as a group hallucination, (unless you were to contend that ghosts exist). So, while the basics are the same, (they all saw a ghost), the actual details differ, (one perceived it slightly differently etc).

What I want you to do is show me how a mystical experience is always identical... in details, not in basics. If all you're saying is that people all over the world have "mystical experiences" then I simply return the statement that people all over the world hear voices as well, (including the religious).

B) You want me to accept what you say on the basis that it's mentioned in some ancient scribbling from some ancient shepherds and yet now demand that I give absolute scientific proof yada yada. Why the double standards?

C) I didn't ask you to accept anything on faith. What I am asking is for you to explain how these mystical experiences are "identical".

-----

I am arguing that religion is like any field of knowledge in the sense that it requires qualification for validation - you obviously think it is imagination, and are suggesting that if proof of leprechauns rides the same general principles, then leprechauns can be accepted ... is that the gist?

Eh? Lenny isn't "imagination" regardless to what you think. I'll explain once again: I use Lenny because he is in the same realm as gods, (i.e specific beings unevidenced and unseen unless you go through certain processes) - which is a far sight different than physicists and rocket scientists.

-----

It is exactly the same with direct perception of God. One must go through years of training after which time their training can be validated by others before them whether or not their understanding is correct.

According to who and on what authority? There are many that claim direct perception of a god/s that would disagree with the need for "years of training" to come to that direct perception.

People that haven't gone thorugh this training are not qualified to question their direct experience since they have not themselves gone through the training to know enough whether or not their truth claims are true

What a load of old horse poo. You're saying that a student or someone that has just started learning about something cannot question anything until they're qualified. I'd have to say that even the unqualified can question that which they're told. Whether of course they understand the answer is a different issue. I suppose it then falls on the qualified to explain it in a manner that the unqualified will understand.

Now, when it comes to knowing Lenny, I am qualified. You are not and thus by your own argument cannot question Lenny. Do you really support that?

(just as someone without a physics education is not in a position to question the truth calims of a Ph.D physicist)

Again I would disagree. When I was in school my physics teacher made statements that I did question. I guess we're all different but I questioned everything. They then showed me, the unqualified, that the statement was true - without me needing to be qualified. They said that a ball will roll down a hill - and showed me, the unqualified that it did actually happen. You can't do the same with your god, and I can't do the same with Lenny.. That is why I used Lenny as an example as opposed to a physicist and yet LG doesn't understand that.

I would further add that the truth claims of those with advanced training in physics sounds every bit as nonsensical to the layman as the truth claims as the enlightened-"spooky action at a distance," "light is a both a wave and a particle",etc.

Not really, no. I mean sure, you can write an article specifically for those educated in the subject matter, but that same article can be written with the layman in mind, in a manner that the layman can understand.

-Let's take you as an example. You have repeatedly pointed out that you have advanced training in psychology and therefore others without that training are not in a position to question your understanding.

Sure they are, otherwise nobody would ever attain qualification in the same subject and nothing new would ever come from it.

And yet, you, with no religous training or experience whatsoever

Apology accepted for your incorrect assumption.

claim to be in a position to question the truth claims of those that have gone through the training.

Well, your inaccurate assumptions aside, I might as well restate that an unqualified person can question the claims of anyone - be they qualified or not. You claim to have direct perception of a space being I will question that - what evidence do you have, how did you come to get direct perception etc etc.

You are a hypocrite.

How do you come to that bizarre conclusion? It is you espousing that the unqualified can't question the qualified. I made no such statement.

 

[Sarkus]

Wrong. People without the training are not in a position to determine whether what has been shown to them is true or not.

It's not a matter of whether they accept what is shown to them as true or not - it is a matter of them being SHOWN THE EVIDENCE.

First, Are you saying physicisct have come up with nothing they claim as true? I doubt it.

Only those things that are scientific FACTS - such as gravity.

Of course there is no material evidence for an immaterial phenomenon. You demanding such is insane.

I'm not asking necessarily for "material" evidence - just EVIDENCE!

Otherwise you are asking people to "believe" you on nothing other than your say-so - which is Appeal to Authority.

Physicists HAVE EVIDENCE.

Wrong, my entire argument is that one must have training in the field to determine whether the truth claims within that field are true.

Please provide such a "truth claim", as an example.

There is evidence to support my claims.

What claims?
Make the claim and then we can see whether there is evidence.

When monks go through years and years of training they achieve the same results independent of time and place.

And this is evidence of what, exactly?
"Direct perception of God"?

Rubbish.

It might be evidence that if you follow a certain process (meditation) you reach a certain result - but that is NOT evidence that the result is "Direct perception of God".

Furthermore, please describe the result that you get.
Then please provide evidence that other people get "the same results".

This is the same as physicists being able to duplicate experiments and arriving at the same results.

No it's not!

If I hold my breath underwater and start drowning, and see a tunnel with a light at the end, and determine that this is a "Direct Perception of God", and then other people are told that if they do the same (hold breath underwater) then they too will see the same tunnel with a light - and they do - and thus achieve "Direct Perception of God" - is THIS evidence that it really was a "Direct Perception of God" (DPG).

No.
It is evidence of purely material reaction in the brain that, based on their "training", they interpret as a DPG. It is self-fulfilling nonsense.

Replicable experiments are how one proves a theory as true. True in science, true in religion.

The difference is that in science you can replicate the experiment REGARDLESS OF TRAINING!!!!

YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE TRAINED.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE AN EXPERT.

YOU MERELY SET UP THE SAME EXPERIMENT IN THE SAME WAY AND GET THE SAME RESULTS.

Sure - a trained scientist might interpret the results - but OBJECTIVELY (i.e. needle goes up = X. needle goes down = Y).
You CAN NOT DO THAT with religion - especially if you HAVE TO BE TRAINED IN ORDER TO PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT. You already have the massive bias.

You would have to go through the religous training to be in a position to judge if their results are true just as you have to have training in physics to be able to judge their results. What don't you get about this?

I don't get how you can honestly think the two are comparable.

No I am advocating that one must be qualified to be able to make a determination whether or not the claims someone is making are true. What don't you get about this?

See above.

Appeal to autority means you are expected to bleieve something just because an authority says it. I'm saying the exact opposite. I am saying one must undergo enough training(no matter what the field) so that one can determine for oneself if what the authority is saying is true. I am saying for me to accept the equations of physicists would be me accepting something on faith since I don't have enough training to understand the equations, just as someone accepting the claims of an enlightened person is faith if they haven't gone throught the training themselves to get the understanding.

BUT THE PHYSICIST CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO THE UNTRAINED!! EVIDENCE WITHOUT ANY SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.

Your Religious "experiments" just can not do that.
Not only do you have to be "trained" to carry out your religious experiments, you are then told what the results will be prior to carrying them out - so when they work your "training" will tell you how to interpret them - i.e. SUBJECTIVELY.

I don't have a 'believe to believe" argument. So why don't you respond to my actual argument instead of the one you apparently wish I had made?

Yes you do have that argument.
YOU: "Be trained - perform experiment - training says that if experiment works it must be X - experiment works - it must be X. If experiment doesn't work then the training wasn't sufficient."

SCIENCE: "Perform experiment - record results - interpret results as objectively as possible and in light of all the other evidence available."

Your "believe to believe" argument is a self-fulfilling one once you start down the "training" you advocate.

It's a pity you can't see this.

 

[grover]

Snake,
-The links I previously posted should demonstrate what I mean when I say that the mystical experience is identical across cultures/ religion (only the terminology is different). You don't expect be to be spoonfed do you?
-Lenny: Like I previously said if only one person has the experience of Lenny then it is clearly a hallucination. But if people from different time in culture all start claiming to have seen Lenny and give matching descriptions then that wouldn't be a hallucination. (Name one documented case of cross-culttural mass hallucination and I'll cahnge my position on this).
-"According to who and on what authority? There are many that claim direct perception of a god/s that would disagree with the need for "years of training" to come to that direct perception." I would counter agrue that many people that claim to understand certain scientific principles don't actually understand these correctly. This would not be apparent to someone that doesn't understand the principles correctly but would be crystal clear to someone that did. As I pointed out earlier most followers of religion are absolutely clueless about religion as evidenced by their inability to even follow the most basic tentets of said religion. This is exactly the same as saying evolution is nonsense because it sounds doens't sense when someone that doens't understand it explains it.
-"Now, when it comes to knowing Lenny, I am qualified. You are not and thus by your own argument cannot question Lenny. Do you really support that?"
You have to understand that I think the average religous fundamnetalists understanding of God is totally misguided. I'm not making the claim that one should believe in God/lenny just because one is told to. I'm making the claim that there is a training one could undergo to see God for oneself. If you can tell me what steps I can take to see Lenny, and I actually do see Lenny then I would believe in him.
"Well, your inaccurate assumptions aside, I might as well restate that an unqualified person can question the claims of anyone - be they qualified or not. You claim to have direct perception of a space being I will question that - what evidence do you have, how did you come to get direct perception etc etc." Then why have you several times pointed out that you have training in psychology and I don't and therefore my opinion on the subject is dismissed.
"How do you come to that bizarre conclusion? It is you espousing that the unqualified can't question the qualified. I made no such statement."
Yes, you did.

 

[grover]

Snake, you said: "It is you espousing that the unqualified can't question the qualified. I made no such statement."

As a man qualified in the field we are now discussing vs a man that isn't.. yes, I am. I have seen group hallucinations quite a few times.

Here ya go hypocrite.