How to Authentically Experience God

[amw79]

"Back to the original question, I think this is an issue on which atheists hold a poor position."

With respect,it is not. There is an "atheist position" on one and only issue.Viz a shared disbelief in god(s), period.

I have never argued that believers rare deluded or that there is in fact anything wrong with people of faith in principle.

My own formal studies of a range of belief systems from major religions to some tribal systems led me to conclude that religious/ spiritual beliefs tend to have their own internal logic and are completely rational within context. This is pretty much the consensus in anthropology as discipline. Of course that doesn't mean it's right necessarily,only that I accept the proposition..

Fair enough. However, clearly this issue comes up in atheist/theist discussion, and is used as a corroboration of theist beliefs. Many, admittedly not all, atheists take the position of dismissing religious experience as delusion, and this is the position I am stating is weak.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

However, clearly this issue comes up in atheist/theist discussion, and is used as a corroboration of theist beliefs. Many, admittedly not all, atheists take the position of dismissing religious experience as delusion, and this is the position I am stating is weak.

Agreed, imo,as a general proposition that position is both intellelectually arrogant and ignorant.

[Kyuuketsuki]

And since philosophy alone has never demonstrated anything that means you can never demonstrate the supposed reality of your god. I assume you will no longer make claims about your god in this forum?

Show me one claim that I've made. I don't believe I have made any. I state what I believe. I cannot claim what isn't demonstrably provable, and I haven't.

Early in your stay here you stated something to the effect of it being expected that there is no evidence and the fact that there is none supports your claim to deity.

And I'm saying I wasn't ... I'm saying that ANY claim (no matter what it is) can be evaluated to some degree by conventional empirical means (IOW by science) even if it is to conclude there is no evidence and therefore not worth anything more than the claim that there is a cream cake at the centre of the Earth.

And I repeat, I make no claims.

And I'm saying that implicitly (perhaps even directly, right now I'm too lazy to check ... and more interested in killing Jedi's) you have made such claims.

Which is a logical fallacy.

What? Special pleading, your statements or me not agreeing?

Special pleading.

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='13377' dateline='1239052163']Nothing, in principle, is beyond the investigative reach of science. Is that specific enough for you?

"in principle". Neither of us can know either way. Neither of us can claim one way or the other. About science.

"In principle" effectively means that the limiting factor is resolution (technology and method).

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

However, clearly this issue comes up in atheist/theist discussion, and is used as a corroboration of theist beliefs. Many, admittedly not all, atheists take the position of dismissing religious experience as delusion, and this is the position I am stating is weak.

Agreed, imo,as a general proposition that position is both intellelectually arrogant and ignorant.

Of course that's not arrogant. Then it would be arrogant to deny the schizophrenic that the voices they might hear in their heads are genuine. It all comes down to verifiability of these claims from other sources. It would be arrogant if we had clear indications that these talks with god really yield new information. After hundreds of years of these claims there has not been one such verified event. The only conclusion can be that the arrogance is on the side of the believer that is making these unverifiable claims. It is not arrogant to demand verification, it is arrogant to claim without substantiation. Requiring verification is not arrogance, it is a sensible epistemological approach that is adopted by the scientific method. If we drop this criterion you will have to believe all the Derek Ogilvies, the schizophrenic, the alien abductees, 9/11 truthers, the thieves and conjurers that roam the planet, on their word alone.

The circumstantial evidence is not in favour of genuine religious experience. Never a prediction from it has been tested to hold, quite the contrary, numerous predictions about the end of the world revealed in such a way were contradicted by actual facts. Never essential new knowledge about nature or diseases has been revealed this way. Never these alleged conversations with god have yielded any substantial information that could not have known otherwise.

[amw79]

However, clearly this issue comes up in atheist/theist discussion, and is used as a corroboration of theist beliefs. Many, admittedly not all, atheists take the position of dismissing religious experience as delusion, and this is the position I am stating is weak.

Agreed, imo,as a general proposition that position is both intellelectually arrogant and ignorant.

Of course that's not arrogant. Then it would be arrogant to deny the schizophrenic that the voices they might hear in their heads are genuine. It all comes down to verifiability of these claims from other sources. It would be arrogant if we had clear indications that these talks with god really yield new information. After hundreds of years of these claims there has not been one such verified event. The only conclusion can be that the arrogance is on the side of the believer that is making these unverifiable claims. It is not arrogant to demand verification, it is arrogant to claim without substantiation. Requiring verification is not arrogance, it is a sensible epistemological approach that is adopted by the scientific method. If we drop this criterion you will have to believe all the Derek Ogilvies, the schizophrenic, the alien abductees, 9/11 truthers, the thieves and conjurers that roam the planet, on their word alone.

The circumstantial evidence is not in favour of genuine religious experience. Never a prediction from it has been tested to hold, quite the contrary, numerous predictions about the end of the world revealed in such a way were contradicted by actual facts. Never essential new knowledge about nature or diseases has been revealed this way. Never these alleged conversations with god have yielded any substantial information that could not have known otherwise.

I'm not talking about religious experiences such as miracles, or people who say they know when the world will end through revelation. Quite right that these type of claims require verification, which is inevitably not forthcoming.

However what is clear is that through prayer or meditation, people can have truly life-changing experiences, and for atheists to dismiss those experiences, puts them in a weak position.

As an atheist who has practiced meditation (with no religious undertones or connotations) for many years, there is a state of consciousness to be achieved which many would describe as spiritual (although personally I hate the word for the religious baggage it carries). This state is what I assume religious people are tapping into, for want of a better expression, and then claiming to know the mind of god. Prayer I believe, touches in the same area as meditation. The irony being that they don't need churches, middlemen, worship or faith to acheive this state.

[Purple Rabbit]

I did not dismiss the experiences itself but only the unverifiable claims that are based on it. I do believe some people sincerely have these experiences. And as a matter of fact I hold that the spiritual is taken hostage by the religious and the proponents of the occult. Atheists should reclaim the spiritual from its theistic captivity. Stripped to its essence the spiritual refers to very human personal contemplation and feelings of unity and harmony with others, life and the universe. So far I'm with you.

I do not believe however that the majority of the religious is tapping into these experiences at all. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this.

[amw79]

I did not dismiss the experiences itself but only the unverifiable claims that are based on it. I do believe some people sincerely have these experiences. And as a matter of fact I hold that the spiritual is taken hostage by the religious and the proponents of the occult. Atheists should reclaim the spiritual from its theistic captivity. Stripped to its essence the spiritual refers to very human personal contemplation and feelings of unity and harmony with others, life and the universe. So far I'm with you.

I do not believe however that the majority of the religious is tapping into these experiences at all. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this.

I can't quote you any studies I'm afraid, just anecdotally I'd say that the 'oneness' the religious claim to feel with god during prayer, seems to me to be linked to the stripping away of 'the self' associated with deeper forms of meditation. But this is admittedly conjecture on my part. I'm extremely interested in this side of religion as atheists can never win the long term argument with the religious so long as there's denial that people can have life-changing, or life affirming spiritual experiences or seek to reduce the validity of said experiences.

[Anto Kennedy]

I don't understand how so many people around the world can have different experiences of a supposed deity. I mean, we're all atheists here (or something along those lines), so generally we believe that none of these religions is true. If none of them are true, then why do so many people have a supposed experience with god?

For Christians it might be supernatural healing, or speaking in tongues, or a vision or dream which comes true. Now, I call myself an agnostic on my way to atheism, but I believe some of these people. Obviously, some of them are just trying to look important, but I've spoken to trustworthy people whom I respect who can describe a specific experience with god.

I'm not suggesting it's god who is giving people these experiences, I'm suggesting there is something going on that cannot simply be put down to, "they're deluded". I think it's naive and arrogant to write them all off as wrong. I think something is happening, and science just doesn't understand it yet.

I want to know what you guys think is happening. Assuming some of them are being honest, are they simply deluding themselves? Are they creating an experience with some untapped part of the human brain that we haven't discovered yet?

What's actually happening?

I have my own ideas, but I want to hear a few of yours.

Start doing some research on peak experiences.

PLUS FOUR (++++) A rare and precious transcendental state, which has been called a 'peak experience', a 'religious experience,' 'divine transformation,' a 'state of Samādhi' and many other names in other cultures. It is not connected to the +1, +2, and +3 of the measuring of a drug's intensity. It is a state of bliss, a participation mystique, a connectedness with both the interior and exterior universes, which has come about after the ingestion of a psychedelic drug, but which is not necessarily repeatable with a subsequent ingestion of that same drug. If a drug (or technique or process) were ever to be discovered which would consistently produce a plus four experience in all human beings, it is conceivable that it would signal the ultimate evolution, and perhaps the end, of the human experiment.

Alan Shulgin, biochemist on the Shulgin rating scale.

That technique or process is what I've been researching throughout my career. Apparantly I've found it, I just need some ginuea pigs

[Purple Rabbit]

I can't quote you any studies I'm afraid, just anecdotally I'd say that the 'oneness' the religious claim to feel with god during prayer, seems to me to be linked to the stripping away of 'the self' associated with deeper forms of meditation. But this is admittedly conjecture on my part. I'm extremely interested in this side of religion as atheists can never win the long term argument with the religious so long as there's denial that people can have life-changing, or life affirming spiritual experiences or seek to reduce the validity of said experiences.

The road to atheism can have life-changing effect on a spiritual level. Drugs can. My first gaze through a telescope did. The birth of my children was. I do not see your point. Why should we validate religious experiences on a different level?

[amw79]

I can't quote you any studies I'm afraid, just anecdotally I'd say that the 'oneness' the religious claim to feel with god during prayer, seems to me to be linked to the stripping away of 'the self' associated with deeper forms of meditation. But this is admittedly conjecture on my part. I'm extremely interested in this side of religion as atheists can never win the long term argument with the religious so long as there's denial that people can have life-changing, or life affirming spiritual experiences or seek to reduce the validity of said experiences.

The road to atheism can have life-changing effect on a spiritual level. Drugs can. My first gaze through a telescope did. The birth of my children was. I do not see your point. Why should we validate religious experiences on a different level?

I didn't necessarily mean we should validate them certainly not on 'a different level (bad phrasing on my part, sorry). More that they should not be dismissed as merely delusional, which is often the first instinct of some atheists. I believe that once 'religious/spiritual experiences' are more fully understood, the associated 'supernatural' aspects of these experiences can be removed, and we'll simply be left with states of mind that are acheiveable, potentially beneficial, and available to all, without the need to assign theistic dogma to what is a physiological occurence.

Incidentally, I agree that all sorts of things can have life changing effects, but I think that prayer and meditation both allow the mind to settle into a singularly specific state, fundamentally different than those you have mentioned (i.e. looking through a telescope). Again, this is admittedly assertion on my part, and could well be off the mark, however the writings of some of the Eastern contemplatives, point to a level of experience unlike that of the day-to-day familiarity. This is not to say that this experience is better, or higher; simply different.