what is religious experience?

[Kant we all...]

Cris, it looks as though you already took the last word. I'll let you have it, but that does not mean you're "right". (And to be quite honest, I think you, from what you've said, have demonstrated that you have less reason not to believe than I have reason to believe.)

(Also, as for the evolution comment, I do not necessarily deny it [however, how could it be an empirical fact if no one actually ever stood there, with his own two eyes, and "observed" it? No human being has ever lived so many billions of years, have they? Isn't it duly arrogant to assume that something which holds true on certain occasions in microbiology must necessarily hold true for the ENTIRE UNIVERSE? And that the level of Carbon 14 in the atmostphere was always the same? and that the level of oxygen was always the same? and that the earth was rotating at the same speed as it is now? How, pray tell, could you possibly "know" without making a drastic deduction?], I was simply using it as an example--demonstrating that you telling me your conclusions about religion is almost as absurd as a physicist telling an English professor about William Blake. YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS. Stop, therefore, trashing other minds with your willful nonsense. Perhaps you should go a-foruming with the other atheists outside of the "religion" department.) (Looks like I took the last word after all.... I suppose you'll take it back, though, before it's all over....)

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by man_of_jade
If to believe in fantasy is idiodicy, then most of the world must be duped. If its a fantasy, then why does almost 9/10 out of every person believe in some form or another of it?

99% of people used to believe that you could fall of the end of the Earth. That doesn't make it true.

Most of those people believe it because that is how they were raised. Only a small percentage actually look at their religion objectively.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Kant we all...
(And to be quite honest, I think you, from what you've said, have demonstrated that you have less reason not to believe than I have reason to believe.)
You have the Bible to believe. They have contradictions in the Bible/church to disbelieve.

however, how could it be an empirical fact if no one actually ever stood there
It's just a theory... but a theory with tons of evidence that supports it. It is accepted as fact however because no logical alternative has been presented.

And that the level of Carbon 14 in the atmostphere was always the same? and that the level of oxygen was always the same? and that the earth was rotating at the same speed as it is now?
Actually, scientists think that all these things have changed.

How, pray tell, could you possibly "know" without making a drastic deduction?
geology

YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS. Stop, therefore, trashing other minds with your willful nonsense. Perhaps you should go a-foruming with the other atheists outside of the "religion" department.
If you can not support your religion it is either flawed or you are missing a basic concept. Others on this forum are quite capable of explaining their religion...

 

[man_of_jade]

Persol:
The same arguement can be applied the opposite way.

 

[Cris]

Man of jade,

If to believe in fantasy is idiodicy, then most of the world must be duped.

This indeed seems to be true.

If its a fantasy, then why does almost 9/10 out of every person believe in some form or another of it? HOW did a "fantasy" spread, and become so popular?

Not very long ago pretty much every person on the planet believed that the world was flat.

Are you suggesting that just because the majority believe something then it must be true? If so then at some point in the past the world must have been flat.

Truth is not determined by a democratic vote, no matter how strongly people feel that democracy is a good thing. In the absence of factual support majority opinions tend to be about things people WANT to be true or have been led to be true by powerful influences. For the past few thousand years religious influences have far outweighed scientific objectivity. It is going to be a long and painful process to wean people away from the tendency to believe superstitions that have survived for thousands of years and to teach them to think objectively and critically.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by man_of_jade
Persol:
The same arguement can be applied the opposite way.

Well you really can't... and I'll demonstrate

You have the Bible to believe. They have contradictions in the Bible/church to disbelieve.
This is the only one that goes both ways.

It's just a theory... but a theory with tons of evidence that supports it. It is accepted as fact however because no logical alternative has been presented.
This clearly supports evolution.

Actually, scientists think that all these things have changed.
Doesn't support either.

geology
Doesn't support either.

If you can not support your religion it is either flawed or you are missing a basic concept. Others on this forum are quite capable of explaining their religion...
Cris has been supporting his point. He has always done so.

 

[Cris]

Kant,

The last word. Apart from……

Cris, it looks as though you already took the last word. I'll let you have it, but that does not mean you're "right".

These debates have been in progress for thousands of years so I doubt we’ll end it between us any time soon.

(And to be quite honest, I think you, from what you've said, have demonstrated that you have less reason not to believe than I have reason to believe.)

Too many negatives; I think you are saying – You have more reason to believe than I have for not believing. Very debatable, but perhaps another time.

(Also, as for the evolution comment, I do not necessarily deny it [however, how could it be an empirical fact if no one actually ever stood there, with his own two eyes, and "observed" it? No human being has ever lived so many billions of years, have they?

There are two distinct concepts with evolution. One is that evolution has occurred (the facts) and within the vast majority of the established scientific community this is undeniable. The second part concerns the processes under which evolution has occurred and these are described in the form of scientific theories.

For example, you are standing in a room and there is a box in one corner, you then leave and come back later and find that the box is now in a different corner. The box has clearly been moved, this is an undeniable fact. What you didn’t observe is how the box was moved. Within the realm of reason you can theorize that the box may have been moved by someone else or that perhaps a machine moved it. But you can’t be sure unless you obtain more evidence.

The analogy with evolution is that we know that changes have occurred and that man evolved from simpler life forms; these are facts (i.e. the box has been moved). The theoretical part of evolution concerns how the changes occurred (i.e. how was the box moved). It is more appropriate to consider evolutionary theories as being processes that explain how changes occur. Many such processes we understand quite well while others are still being developed.

YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS. Stop, therefore, trashing other minds with your willful nonsense.

I hope my above explanation helps you understand your error. But for more on the differences between evolutionary fact and evolutionary theories try www.talkorigins.org

(Looks like I took the last word after all.... I suppose you'll take it back, though, before it's all over....)

LOL. But of course. Take care.

 

[man_of_jade]

Cris;
Are you implying that almost ninety percent of the world are idiots, while the people who do not believe in religon are superior? That seems rather self centered.

 

[Cris]

Persol,

I hope you don’t mind a little comment here.

It's just a theory...

This comment implies that a scientific theory is somehow like an inferior fact. The word ‘just’ is inappropriate here. You can think of a theory as being a work in progress or a process, but it doesn’t attempt to imitate or be a fact. A theory, in this case, is a process that helps discover facts. It has full value in its own right.

 

[Cris]

Man of jade,

Are you implying that almost ninety percent of the world are idiots, while the people who do not believe in religon are superior? That seems rather self centered.

Superior is not appropriate, rational would be a better term, but otherwise, yes. Why not? There is nothing that says that a majority belief must be correct. And since all those who believe cannot rationally support their belief then isn’t it foolish to maintain such beliefs?

But why would I be self-centered to claim that I am right and others are wrong. Don’t theists say the same thing from their perspective? Aren’t they also self-centered then? As I have shown, the numbers involved are irrelevant. All you have left is the method for determining who is right and who is wrong.

All I have said is that without evidence the religionists cannot know they are right and that they are foolish to jump to an unsupportable conclusion which might very well be completely wrong.

But the 90%/10% is a common ratio concerning human attitudes. If you ever attend any of the courses around that teach how to succeed in life, then a common theme is the fact that around 90% of people do not think for themselves. They tend to follow others and take advice from their neighbors who know little more. In short most of the world population act very much like sheep. The general rule is that only 1% of people ever become truly successful and independent, another 4% do pretty well, and the remaining 95% are close to being failures and never amount to much.

Look at religious beliefs. Do the majority of people objectively research the values of different religions? No of course not. They tend to follow what they are told by their parents or current traditions, whether the teachings are true or not. If you were born in an Islamic country then you would most likely believe that Islam is true, or in India where you would believe that Hinduism is true, etc. Most people do what they are told and never think for themselves.

 

[Kant we all...]

Pardon me, Cris. I wasn't saying that you had no grounds for talking about evolution; I was saying that you had no grounds to dispute religion; by and large because you probably don't really know what you're talking about in regards to it (which you don't, precisely because you are not religious). Sorry, therefore, for the unnecessary argument. Ciao.

 

[man_of_jade]

Cris;
So are you implying that people that follow a religon cannot think for themselves?
And that all religon is irrational?
Also...

But why would I be self-centered to claim that I am right and others are wrong. Don’t theists say the same thing from their perspective? Aren’t they also self-centered then? As I have shown, the numbers involved are irrelevant. All you have left is the method for determining who is right and who is wrong.

I say YOU appear self centered, specifically, because you insulted religon in general several times, WHILE claiming your way is correct, and someone elses isnt. I dont go and insult Athiests in general, as you did to Thiests. Its what you say, and how you say it Cris.

I cannot know that i am right for sure 100%, but can you?

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Cris
This comment implies that a scientific theory is somehow like an inferior fact. The word ‘just’ is inappropriate here.

I use the word just alot... even when it isn't called for

I just wanted to point out that scientists do not believe this is fact, they understand it is 'a work in process'.

 

[Cris]

Kant,

Pardon me, Cris. I wasn't saying that you had no grounds for talking about evolution; I was saying that you had no grounds to dispute religion; by and large because you probably don't really know what you're talking about in regards to it (which you don't, precisely because you are not religious). Sorry, therefore, for the unnecessary argument. Ciao.

OK. I see.

It has certainly been some 30 years since I was an active practicing Christian (Baptist), but I have always had an interest in the subject. Back in the UK I lived in a small village with a very active Church group. For many years I attended the Sunday morning debate sessions where I was the lone atheist. The group leader was a lay minister who was also a retired lawyer (barrister) so our discussions often became very “precise”, albeit very polite. That was good fun. I played the devil’s advocate usually and was usually outnumbered and overwhelmed by Christian dogma. But I learnt a great deal about Christianity during that time, even more than the conferences I attended when I was a teenage/young adult Christian.

I think you are making an error in assuming that only religious people are qualified to hold knowledge concerning religion. You may also be judging me unfairly because I adopted a deliberate confrontational style in this particular thread. The forum has lost some of its activity recently, mainly to the world affairs (IRAQ Issue), but a controversial and confrontational thread usually encourages and infuriates people into active debate. I see I still have your attention. I take a softer line sometimes as well.

 

[Kant we all...]

OH! Wellthen. I had no idea. The fact that you were once Baptist dismisses you from the argument even more than that you are now an atheist! Surely even atheists know more about true Church doctrine than Baptists..... Oh, I kill me.......

 

[Cris]

Man of Jade,

So are you implying that people that follow a religon cannot think for themselves?

Not so much “cannot” but “do not”. I believe most people are capable but most aren’t particularly interested in religion. Remember that the vast majority who claim to be Christian only do so because it is part of their tradition. Most, you must agree do not attend Church and only attend religious services at weddings and funerals. These are the sheep as regards religion which is not that important to them and if someone in authority clearly showed that religion was not a good idea then I doubt it would take much effort for people to change their views.

And that all religon is irrational?

If you produce an argument where the premises are not factually supported then the resultant conclusion is technically irrational (outside of reason). As far as I can tell no religion has ever produced any credible evidence to support their claims hence all religions are technically irrational.

I say YOU appear self centered, specifically, because you insulted religon in general several times,

I’m not sure that ‘self-centered’ makes much sense here. Certainly I have no respect for religion since I think it is detrimental to the human race, but that would make me a humanitarian and someone concerned for humanity is hardly someone who is self-centerd.

WHILE claiming your way is correct, and someone elses isnt.

I’m not sure that I have said that. My main point is that religionists CANNOT KNOW that they are correct. If it can be shown that a god exists then religionists would be correct, until then religionists and atheists will be unable to determine the existence or non-existence of gods. But I guess my way is the proposal that reason is the correct way and if reason is absent then that is the wrong way. That seems to me like a very defensible position. Isn’t the religionist position one of ‘believe us because we say so”, how can that attitude be defended?

I dont go and insult Athiests in general, as you did to Thiests.

I try to make a distinction between the theist position as not being tenable and individuals for whom I usually have significant respect. To ridicule an idea, a thing or a concept, seems to be valid forms of constructs for debate and argument. I try to draw the line at showering abuse and insults at specific individuals. But where have I insulted all theists? Do you consider calling all theists irrational for their religious beliefs an insult? If you consider my statement as untrue then all you need do is provide evidence for the existence of a god. Until then my alleged insult is really a precise and factual observation.

Its what you say, and how you say it Cris.

I know it is infuriating isn’t it. Perhaps I am seeking revenge for all the times when I was younger and theists did it to me.

I cannot know that i am right for sure 100%, but can you?

No I can’t, and when I am unsure, or lack facts, then I do not claim I know. Contrast that with the theist position that does claim to know that a god exists.

 

[Cris]

Kant,

OH! Wellthen. I had no idea. The fact that you were once Baptist dismisses you from the argument even more than that you are now an atheist! Surely even atheists know more about true Church doctrine than Baptists..... Oh, I kill me.......

LOL. Ah so maybe now you know why I’m an atheist – see it looks like we have something in common.

But really, Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, J witnesses, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are all effectively indistinguishable from each other. All believe something that cannot be factually supported.

What more need I know?

Didn't you have the last word some time ago?

 

[Kant we all...]

"But really, Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, J witnesses, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are all effectively indistinguishable from each other. All believe something that cannot be factually supported."

Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics have a few things in common; namely, that they acknowledge that the historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, was God Incarnate--the Christ; however, "Catholic" often comes with a misconception attached: i.e., to be "Catholic" is to be truly Christian--the church was founded as simply "Christian", and, over time, through patriarchs like Saint Augustine of Hippo and such, they began to "refer" to themselves as "Catholic" (because the church was supposed to be for everyone, hence "universal"). To be short: all of these others (e.g., Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, &c.) left the True Church. As for Mormons, all I know is that they are not Christians (though they would never say it); they are not Christians primarily because they do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was God (yet if he is not God, then how was his suffering really "worth" anything?). Jehovah's Witnesses--I haven't the slightest what they believe, save to say that they are wrong. Moslems believe, as well, in the God of Abraham, as do Jews and Christians; yet (in my opinion) their "revelation" (i.e., revelations to Mohammed) is questionable (again, in my opinion). Finally, Hindus and Buddhists are more properly to be considered philosophers than theists. Hindus are actually not "theistic", but "pantheistic"--they believe that everything is God (a posteriori), that everything is One...most of them believe in this anyway (it is actually difficult to pinpoint Hindus because they have so many thousands of gods). But Buddhists are atheists. How, then, can you compare them to Catholics, or even to Hindus?

So as far as something being "factually supported", that all depends on what you regard as "facts". What are "facts", after all? Must something be "empirical" to be factual? It is a fact that I experience the taste of coffee, or chocolate, or pizza, but can you "observe" someone's internal "experience" of that taste? No; you can only base it on your own experience--but one can scarcely be 100 percent "sure" that another's personal taste-experience is exactly the same, or even remotely similar. And so what of religious experience? Is it utterly impossible that mystics and intuitive people experience the presence of God? Can science account for subjective emotion? Imagination, fantasy, you say? Yet who has undergone a change of heart from reading The Lord of the Rings? Moreover, (to be very pragmatic about it) we have said very little about what is to be regarded as true religion: true religion has its foundation not in objective, scientific knowledge, but in Love. And what is love? I say it is Committment. For the bottom line is that I would never believe the atheist who told me that he was in love with someone or some thing. Perhaps he has this "feeling"--but feelings are fleeting. Love is a committment. And if there is no God, then nothing is committed to anything else. Nature holds everything together, right? But what holds Nature together? There are two possibilities, I'll grant you: 1) Coincidence; or 2) Providence. And while the scientist and skeptical philosopher are shouting "Chance!" and "Chaos!" and "There are NO cause/effect relationships!", the economist and the statistician are ostentatiously laughing at them. Back to the note of love, how many people have died, willfully, honorably, for their Atheism? Yet why do Christians (to this day) continue to offer their lives for the Gospel? Ignorance? Or Conviction? One must consider that certain notions of our humanity are there for a reason; I mean conscience, fear, love, conviction, and the like. Shall we consider these things as trivial, as false, even though those who we have considered noblest throughout history embraced them with their all? What I find odd is that, in an effort to become more human--that is, more "reasonable"--modern man rejects vital elements to his humanity (e.g., emotion, integrity, honesty, courage, honor). Why are such things not allowed to be compromised with so-called "reason"? And is it not just as likely that they are part of the package, that they are within the composition of Reason itself?

 

[man_of_jade]

Cris;

Not so much “cannot” but “do not”. I believe most people are capable but most aren’t particularly interested in religion. Remember that the vast majority who claim to be Christian only do so because it is part of their tradition. Most, you must agree do not attend Church and only attend religious services at weddings and funerals. These are the sheep as regards religion which is not that important to them and if someone in authority clearly showed that religion was not a good idea then I doubt it would take much effort for people to change their views.

I, for one, believe in Religon not because it was tradition for my family. I didnt believe in God or anything really untill I had a rather deep, spiritual experience. Its not something im going to share here, though. Its kind of personal, you understand.

If you produce an argument where the premises are not factually supported then the resultant conclusion is technically irrational (outside of reason). As far as I can tell no religion has ever produced any credible evidence to support their claims hence all religions are technically irrational.

See above

I’m not sure that ‘self-centered’ makes much sense here. Certainly I have no respect for religion since I think it is detrimental to the human race, but that would make me a humanitarian and someone concerned for humanity is hardly someone who is self-centerd.

How is it detrimental?

I’m not sure that I have said that. My main point is that religionists CANNOT KNOW that they are correct. If it can be shown that a god exists then religionists would be correct, until then religionists and atheists will be unable to determine the existence or non-existence of gods. But I guess my way is the proposal that reason is the correct way and if reason is absent then that is the wrong way. That seems to me like a very defensible position. Isn’t the religionist position one of ‘believe us because we say so”, how can that attitude be defended?

I believe in the truth. I have experienced a few things which I cannot explain by any scientific means, not without some severe holes in the "rational" side of the arguement. I believe in something usually if I had an experience with it, or if a friend who I could trust told me about something that happened to them.

I try to make a distinction between the theist position as not being tenable and individuals for whom I usually have significant respect. To ridicule an idea, a thing or a concept, seems to be valid forms of constructs for debate and argument. I try to draw the line at showering abuse and insults at specific individuals. But where have I insulted all theists? Do you consider calling all theists irrational for their religious beliefs an insult? If you consider my statement as untrue then all you need do is provide evidence for the existence of a god. Until then my alleged insult is really a precise and factual observation.

If there was something i could present to you to try convince you, I would. But along somewhat with Kant's coffee analogy, you cannot experience what I have, I cant share my memories with you or exactly how I felt then.

I know it is infuriating isn’t it. Perhaps I am seeking revenge for all the times when I was younger and theists did it to me.

If you are seeking revenge for what happened years ago, why take it out on complete strangers who you dont even know?

No I can’t, and when I am unsure, or lack facts, then I do not claim I know. Contrast that with the theist position that does claim to know that a god exists.

I claim to know that a god exists because I had an experience. If I had something I could show you, believe me I would show you right away.

 

[Cris]

Man of Jade,

I, for one, believe in Religon not because it was tradition for my family. I didnt believe in God or anything really untill I had a rather deep, spiritual experience.

Remember I said the majority that claim to be Christian are not particularly interested, but there will be a few such as yourself who are interested and are prepared to debate on forums such as this. I’ve tried debating with some of my local casual Christian friends but they really don’t know enough to be able debate in any meaningful way.

How is it detrimental?

It focuses attention away from solving the human mortality problem and it encourages war. All the time you believe that you will survive death then a glorious death fighting in a claimed just war can be seen as acceptable and justifiable. Without a belief in an afterlife life becomes extremely precious and such people are highly unlikely to risk losing their life in any war. In an atheist world there would be no wars.

I believe in the truth.

What does that mean?

I have experienced a few things which I cannot explain by any scientific means, not without some severe holes in the "rational" side of the argument.

Remember that science does not have all the answers. There is most likely far more that we don’t known than we do. The problem I have with religion is that it tries to shortcut the discovery process and jumps straight to the creation of an entire new imaginary realm and claims it truth.

I believe in something usually if I had an experience with it, or if a friend who I could trust told me about something that happened to them.

If the effect is real and not the result of a delusion then why not do the work and investigate it as a science project. It seems to me that crediting anything unexplainable to a religious experience is just the lazy way out. Or if you don’t know how to start the investigation then why not just admit that the effect cannot be explained? It seems perfectly acceptable to expect that there will be things that we have not yet discovered. One should not expect to have an explanation for everything.

If there was something i could present to you to try convince you, I would. But along somewhat with Kant's coffee analogy, you cannot experience what I have, I can’t share my memories with you or exactly how I felt then.

Emotions can be extremely powerful. Without independent verification of your experience how can you distinguish between an alleged religious experience and an emotional delusion? Remember we know that such delusions exist and are significantly understood. Isn’t it more likely that you are merely overly emotional, rather than have been the target of a mystical experience originating from an alleged non natural realm?

If you are seeking revenge for what happened years ago, why take it out on complete strangers who you dont even know?

Yup, life just isn’t fair is it?

I claim to know that a god exists because I had an experience.

That isn’t really true is it? What you really mean is that you have experienced something you cannot explain and have arbitrarily assigned its cause to something that that you cannot know exists. It might easily have been caused by something entirely different. Without evidence of a god all you are doing is believing what others have told you and they don’t know any better than you. And the chain has been in existence for thousands of years.