Logic tells me God doesn't exist but my heart says otherwise.

[bennyboy]

What causes religious feelings is the same intense feelings a gullible child has Christmas eve. The same intense feelings an insecure boy has pining after a girl from afar. The same intense feelings when someone has a baby.

I think it's fair to say that the feelings you are speaking about are in some cases so powerful that they're what I'd refer to as religious experiences. And I agree that it's probably hormones and evolved brain activities that cause us to have such experiences.

The question is whether the strength of these experiences represents a malfunctioning brain, or whether they represent a motivational mechanism that goes to the core of the human experience. I think the latter is true; and because the strength of the motivating experience is so overwhelming and indescribable, it's not surprising that attempts to describe them (or ritual behaviors developed to reproduce them) end up in a big mess of superstition and mythology.

Religion is our species literal ignorance of their own flawed perceptions. It boils down to "If you want to believe something badly enough you will", and our species hormones and chemical brain activity can very powerful in allowing us to gap fill with falsehoods.

I don't know if this is all that religion is, but I think it is not. I think there are some experiences which are very powerful, and which reveal to oneself an idea or value which is at the core of the human experience. I'd say a religious experience is more an issue of revealing what one is than a chemically malfunctioning brain causes one to accept self-delusion.

[bennyboy]

I think this experience represents a fundamental truth, and one that is perfectly in accordance with the reality of the universe as we see it.

But what if someone else didn't see it that way? What's this "we" business?

By "we" I mean people who are basing their world views on observable facts rather than on superstition. I'd argue the importance of self is a superstitious idea, and the non-importance of the self (due to the total interconnectedness between everything in the universe) is closer to an objective reality.

I'd say "all is one" is probably more factually sound than "I'm super-important, so get out of my way, asshole *honks car horn*."

I don't know that either of those is more factual than the other. What about: all is not one, minus the superimportant-out of my way, asshole, beep beep?

I guess it's subjective. But if the search for truth is an objective one, then I think you can say, objectively, that a person's sense of self-importance is personal, and not useful as a measure of objective truth.

Science is meant to be objective rather than subjective, so I'd argue "all is one," which is literally true in a monist philosophy, is better than "I'm more important than others."

It also has the advantage of bringing a sense of peace: if I'm just a part of the universe, just star dust, just dirt animated by the sun-- then what do I really have to worry about? I'll enjoy my life, make my mistakes, and then all the "stuff" that makes me will be released back into the universe.

Some people could chill, sure, but an opposite and equally "peace inculcating" series of statements could be derived from stating that all is not one. We're talking about what might put some individuals mind at ease at this point...and that's some foggy ground - don't you think?

Yes, maybe. The same goes for death-- some find the idea of oblivion encouraging: "I'll live life as fully as I can, because I have nothing to lose anyway," while others will be crippled by it: "There's no point doing anything, because everything I do will be erased in a couple centuries anyway, and for the rest of eternity after that."

Keep in mind that even these "ancient wisdoms" are continually rehashed for the modern audience. Your appraisal of what those things "means" is not necessarily what they meant, or were taken to mean by the originators(or any specific group in time between the originators and ourselves) - and that's assuming a fairly accurate transmission of data to begin with (often not the case). It's might be a failure of cultural bias to rewrite some other narrative into our shorthand without needing to change so much as a single word.

Are you still referencing something I said? I don't think I'm on the same page as you with this.

I'm more of the opinion that our religious experiences represent anthropological barometers more than any refined truths. Not that this reduces the experiences importance, imo. They tell us where we've been, what was important to us - and yes, what may still be important to us...but really, is it important for any of the reasons mentioned in the texts - should we scour them for wisdom that may simply not be there? Meh, not so much, for me anyway.

I think I'm with you on this. The capacity to have particular deep feelings and experiences might only reveal the particular quirks of the human evolution. Since the experiences are so strong, you can speculate that they may be linked to important stages or facets of our evolution. But if you start looking for objective truths in the historical descriptions, you may end up just running in superstitious circles.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you still referencing something I said? I don't think I'm on the same page as you with this.

In the general, yes, but I'll be more specific. I was putting forward the notion that a "religious experience" as interpreted by you or I, as recorded or communicated by another in the present or from the past -may not- mean anything remotely close to what we have assigned it, to anyone but ourselves.

Think of this sentence
Bill had Jane for dinner.

-Couple of ways to take that, huh?
-Now imagine that this is a religious experience. Hard to do? Not if you're a Maori circa 1750. But how would you make this religious experience make sense to you? Is it within the remit of what you can parse, or is it too far beyond the pale to coax anything approaching truth out of? Mind you, what you did offer as a "fundamental truth in perfect accordance with the reality of the universe as we see it"(was that it?) sounds like no such thing to me. What you offered as superstitious seems concrete in ways that your fundamental truth wouldn't have the power to be. So we're kind of starting off on shaky ground claiming that religious experiences are such and such -to begin with-.

More specifically. Isn't it possible that you took your "fundamental truths" and found ways to paint them over the experience or narratives of others? "All is one" is not exactly "all is interconnected" to begin with. It wouldn't be inconceivable to find yourself arguing with some nutball -even after- agreeing that "all is one", eh? You might say "because energy and science and such" - and he'd laugh in your face, because that doesn't make all one at all (and energy and science are just liberal conspiracies anyway). "It's spirits and magic that make all one - and every child knows that."

It's just a very, very tangled web, I think. Meanwhile..."religious experience" may be a simple flush of biology. It very often -seems to be-. That's not a bug, it's a feature (just to deflect that criticism, not offered by you...but I saw another poster calling religious experience a malfunction...that seems unlikely, if the term even applies). It's also a little bit easier to defend than the idea that our premiere lunch hunting equipment is somehow stumbling across some fundamental truth of the universe every time it dopes us up..... Just the width and breadth of "religious experience" alone would give me pause from attempting to tie it to any fundamental truth. Are we talking about the fundamental truths behind the religious experience of an NDE(as reported by one) or anal sex (as reported by another)? I just don't think that religious experience is fertile ground for fundamental truth.

[bennyboy]

In the general, yes, but I'll be more specific. I was putting forward the notion that a "religious experience" as interpreted by you or I, as recorded or communicated by another in the present or from the past -may not- mean anything remotely close to what we have assigned it, to anyone but ourselves.

In specific cases, that's true, but I think if we are to look at accounts of experiences OTHER people have described through history as being religious, we can probably make a reasonable collection.

There's also the chance that if we can learn enough about past religious rituals, we can use psychology and neurochemistry to deduce what experiences they had-- for example, we can know the effects on our experience of 40 days of fasting, we can study what extended isolation and prayer do to the brain, etc. We can also learn what "holy" plants and mushrooms do (peyote comes to mind).

-Now imagine that this is a religious experience. Hard to do? Not if you're a Maori circa 1750.

I can't comment on what the Maori might have felt. However, I want to be careful to distinguish between two kinds of religious experience: a) a powerful experience of a mystical nature which may subsequently be wrapped up in mythology or theological ideas; b) the experience of performing the rites and rituals of a religious institution. Some would argue that attending mass is a religious experience, because mass is a religious rite. But I'm talking about the qualitative experiences common to many no matter what their denomination.

More specifically. Isn't it possible that you took your "fundamental truths" and found ways to paint them over the experience or narratives of others? "All is one" is not exactly "all is interconnected" to begin with.

By "all is one," I mean that the universe is all one system, and we are each but one part of it. This is in opposition to "I am me, and the world 'out there' revolves around me." There's no great reason for one part of the universe to be considered important, and any others not. You might disagree with this philosophical idea, but my point is that it doesn't involve inventing Sky Daddy, or making mythological constructions, or trying to control anyone, or any of that.

Please remember my original point (even though maybe too strongly worded) wasn't this positive assertion about the nature of reality. It was that a religious experience can alter one's world view in a powerful way-- but does not necessarily have to be at odds with what we know about reality. So instead of just thinking the idea "We are all connected, and mutually co-dependent" a religious experience might allow one to have a strong emotional connection to the idea which makes it come vividly to life, so to speak.

[The Grand Nudger]

A qualitative experience common to many is what the maori would have felt when they were -really- into gnawing on their enemies bones. The initiating event is different, the framework is different, the experience - likely- the same as communion, or drawing down the goddess.

I suspect that those who have a religious experience centered around the notion of total interconnectedness (or anything) do a fair amount of mythicizing. Honestly, the minute we say "religious experience" we're beyond the point of strongly held philosophical opinions, aren't we? It can also yield control and coercion on others. What do you think honor killings are about (it's not just the girl who's honor is in danger, we're all connected, especially family)? Hamingja, largely the same. It doesn't have to, obviously. But that strong emotional connection is a motivator, as you've said, and I'd have to call it a neutral motivator. Whatever the idea, noble or shitty - it's going to motivate. I think the whole thing is interesting, but, ultimately - nothing I'd condone as a method of setting ones opinions or even buttressing an otherwise arguable position. Far better, I think, to accept these experiences for what they are and acknowledge that they impart no added significance to the concept/object in reality, and no knowledge to the participant either (and that seems to be what often rubs up against what we know of reality, a person who has a "religious experience" doesn't seem to think that their position is just as true after the experience as it was before, generally much more so). The ability of those experiences to alter our worldview is -precisely why- we ought to take them with a grain (or truckload) of salt, don't you think?

(I've had an experience like this, btw, big - knock you on your ass, new eyes, never happen again one - but I'd never tie it to any truth I'd like to hold or use it as a support for the same. Wouldn't do me any good....but that might just be me.)

[Whateverist]

(I've had an experience like this, btw, big - knock you on your ass new eyes never happen again one - but I'd never tie it to any truth I'd like to hold or use it as a support for the same.)

So feeling shouldn't dictate what we think is true. Likewise thinking can't decide what we should feel. Still the two need each other. Thinking can attempt to conceptualize the source of significance. But feeling tells you when you're getting warmer or colder. Reconciling these two important inputs is an act of individuation. It builds identity. It feeds back on how we interpret and manage our internal states. That in turn reflects on how we interpret and interact with others.



There, that's better. Mind the wet spots. Could be slick.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hehehehe, yeah of course. Bennys angle though is that a person can have a "religious experience" without said experience somehow rubbing up against reality. I don't think that's true. I think the the "religious experience" is subversive on many levels (so I layed out a few). To have a religious experience that didn;t rub up against reality you'd have to have a religious experience akin to "ham sandwiches are made with ham"

-not exactly a common religious experience.

Personally, I think that religious experiences seem to be much more commonly associated with things I'd call a-factual - and that the nature of a religious experiences is as far from factual in it's mechanism and effect as could be imagined. Take some fact, then have a "religious experience" about it...I bet it's just a smidge less factual in your mind than it was beforehand. Even if all that smidge amounted to was a stronger connection to the idea or the truth of the matter based upon an "emotional connection" gained (assuming it wasn't already there as a causative influence for the experience in the first place).

[bennyboy]

A qualitative experience common to many is what the maori would have felt when they were -really- into gnawing on their enemies bones. The initiating event is different, the framework is different, the experience - likely- the same as communion, or drawing down the goddess.

Yes, this may be the case.

I suspect that those who have a religious experience centered around the notion of total interconnectedness (or anything) do a fair amount of mythicizing. Honestly, the minute we say "religious experience" we're beyond the point of strongly held philosophical opinions, aren't we?

Maybe the word has more baggage for some than it does for me. When I talk about religious experiences, I'm speaking qualitatively. I think you could have a philosophical religious experience-- in fact, when I first started learning about QM and entanglement, I did have a strong experience that I'd describe as such.

It can also yield control and coercion on others. What do you think honor killings are about (it's not just the girl who's honor is in danger, we're all connected, especially family)? Hamingja, largely the same. It doesn't have to, obviously. But that strong emotional connection is a motivator, as you've said, and I'd have to call it a neutral motivator.

That's right. Religious experiences can lead to behaviors that most people consider deleterious. But in history, I think it's the misinterpretations of OTHERS about one's experiences that are usually the killers. I don't think Jesus (if he existed) would have condoned the Crusades, for example.

Far better, I think, to accept these experiences for what they are and acknowledge that they impart no added significance to the concept/object in reality, and no knowledge to the participant either. The ability of those experiences to alter our worldview is -precisely why- we ought to take them with a grain (or truckload) of salt, don't you think?

I don't think it's possible to take a religious experience with a grain (or truckload) of salt. That someone has had an experience so powerful probably means that a central conflict in the person's subconscious has finally been resolved. Whatever the objective truth is, the religious experience has revealed to the person's conscious mind something that has been hiding at the core-- i.e. the truth about who/what that person is.

(I've had an experience like this, btw, big - knock you on your ass, new eyes, never happen again one - but I'd never tie it to any truth I'd like to hold or use it as a support for the same. Wouldn't do me any good....but that might just be me.)

Yeah, it depends what the experience is, and what you take from it. I've had powerful experiences that changed me forever; I've also had some that seemed to reveal a deep truth but over the years I've let go as connected to juvenile development rather than any issue that is important to me now that I'm more mature.

---

Hehehehe, yeah of course. Bennys angle though is that a person can have a "religious experience" without said experience somehow rubbing up against reality. I don't think that's true. I think the the "religious experience" is subversive on many levels (so I layed out a few). To have a religious experience that didn;t rub up against reality you'd have to have a religious experience akin to "ham sandwiches are made with ham"

-not exactly a common religious experience.

Personally, I think that religious experiences seem to be much more commonly associated with things I'd call a-factual - and that the nature of a religious experiences is as far from factual in it's mechanism and effect as could be imagined. Take some fact, then have a "religious experience" about it...I bet it's just a smidge less factual in your mind than it was beforehand. Even if all that smidge amounted to was a stronger connection to the idea or the truth of the matter based upon an "emotional connection" gained (assuming it wasn't already there as a causative influence for the experience in the first place).

Ironically, I think that many atheists have an experience I'd describe as of a religious quality when they finally and completely let go of their religious baggage. In some cases, this is a really powerful emotional and mental experience, and might even involve a personality crisis or a mini-nervous breakdown.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah....I don't know that we're talking about the same sorts of religious experience. Learning about QM is mind opening, challenging...but when I think religious experience I think clouds open, light seems to shine down in a beam on you - you hear music, nothing can touch you -the bad guys can't even see you because you're channeling Ares.

Or, for those inclined, feeling the warmth of god as a physical force.

Sensing the presence of christ, the numinous...

That sort of thing (really, anything that falls on the periphery of incredibly grandiose "sensing"). Let me ask you this. When a born again christian says he had a religious experience, that he felt the presence of god-and that this led him to christ. Do you imagine that your philosophical experience regarding QM is similar to what he's describing?

[Whateverist]

Yeah....I don't know that we're talking about the same sorts of religious experience. Learning about QM is mind opening, challenging...but when I think religious experience I think clouds open, light seems to shine down in a beam on you - you hear music, nothing can touch you -the bad guys can't even see you because you're channeling Ares.

Hah, I should have guessed you would have experienced that. Sounds like good ole' adrenaline to me. Of course adrenaline can be eyes-peeled-wide, simultaneous realization/execution. Or it can be done with incomplete abandon/commitment. The results will be drastically different.