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

[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.