A lot of times its selfishness that people need to believe in god, its what they can get out of it, we like to believe in an after life because we are scared of death and can't imagine not being alive. So we use god as an escape, and we use him also like a security blanket, most of us don't really grow up, we are frighted of the world, and so believing gives us a sense of security.

(October 3, 2014 at 7:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I guess the difference is only which one we chose to believe at the end?

At the end of life, you mean?

(October 3, 2014 at 10:03 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 7:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I guess the difference is only which one we chose to believe at the end?

At the end of life, you mean?

No I just meant after the conflicting views, which one we decide to believe.

(October 3, 2014 at 10:30 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 10:03 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: At the end of life, you mean?

No I just meant after the conflicting views, which one we decide to believe.

Oh! lol I was way off.

Yea, good point. Reality just 'is,' though...and never changes, even if we don't believe it. Logically, I know that to be true. But, how to explain all those years as a Christian, when I felt a sense of comfort from prayer, for example. Did I only imagine that I was comforted?

I identify myself as an atheist, but there are times that I think it would have been easier to have never questioned my faith.

Ignorance is bliss. It truly is.

(September 28, 2014 at 10:24 am)MysticKnight Wrote: There is also the problem that when we were kids, we have no strong faith in God other then following what our parents taught us as true. We simply followed. If that was the basis to our faith in God, when and how did it change?

Because you are now growing up.

(October 3, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: In red I have placed psychological phenomena that we know to exist (OBE not *actually* "being out of body," but clearly the illusion or hallucination of such experiences are as real as anything; I have never seen any convincing evidence that a person *actually* left their body and reported in precise detail events that were simultaneously occurring in some other location where the person was not present).
In blue we have obvious trouble making sense of what "communion with God" even means, not to mention there is zero evidence that God is anything more than projection of the ego or the wider, typically unnoticed, scope of subconscious feeling.

That's right. I'm talking about experience, not about factual assertions about the sources of those experiences. "Communion with God" as I mean it is a what-it's-like verbal description, not a factual assertion. One of the spiritual experiences people often describe is a presence in or around them, or a feeling of connection to something that they can't put their finger on.

Quote:I don't doubt that through your experiences you can gain a much firmer understanding, even scientific knowledge of human nature and psychology; metaphysics, on the other hand? Highly unlikely.

Again, I'm talking about the category of experience which is usually referred to in metaphysical terms, not to a positive assertion about any metaphysical reality. In fact, the difference between spiritual or metaphysical experiences and spiritual or metaphysical factual claims was kind of my point-- one has clear value, and the other quite possibly does not.

Quote:I don't think the situation requires that anyone needs to avoid "entire categories of experience." We simply need to approach these experiences as honestly and objectively as possible.

The reproduction of some very moving and important experiences requires special mental states-- some through meditation, some through drug use, some through fasting, some through ritual, etc.

It is my belief that to be qualified to discuss the merits of an experience in its own right, one has to have it. There are plenty of people, however, who will discard as bullshit some very enlightening experiences simply because there is no easy way to judge them without doing the work to have them.

Let's say I say, "If you do LSD and look at this poster, you can have experience X, and it's like this. . ." What's the right way to respond to this? By observing how LSD affects the brain, and generalizing that to verbal reports? By saying LSD makes the brain misfire, and so whatever experience you have is irrelevant? By taking LSD and comparing notes? In my opinion, only the last one represents a proper scientific approach to mind, since it is the only one which involves making direct observations. But I think most scientists will not do this, because they've attached a stigma to drug use, and are thereby unwilling to do what it takes to have that category of experience.

The same goes for Hindu or Buddhist meditation experiences. They've got hundreds of texts, records of experience, they coach each other in how to prepare the mind to have experiences, they debate the philosophical meaning of their experiences. They, in my opinion, are involved in a science of the mind. Then some dude comes along with an EEG, says, "Meditating causes a lengthening of wave X, and an increase in the amplitude of wave Y," and they think they can evaluate or enumerate those hard-won experiences. There's a real arrogance in discarding the importance of experiences which one is not willing to have oneself, I think.

^ I fully agree, Ben. I think it's fair to say that scientists and atheists who ignore the significance that these experiences contain, as insights into the nature of human consciousness and its entire (often subconscious) scope--which include religious or mystical states--are not being terribly scientific or rational.

(October 4, 2014 at 11:07 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: ^ I fully agree, Ben. I think it's fair to say that scientists and atheists who ignore the significance that these experiences contain, as insights into the nature of human consciousness and its entire (often subconscious) scope--which include religious or mystical states--are not being terribly scientific or rational.

What, then, is the significance of these experiences?

(October 4, 2014 at 3:55 pm)Chas Wrote: What, then, is the significance of these experiences?

good and peaceful sleep in the night?

(October 4, 2014 at 3:55 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 11:07 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: ^ I fully agree, Ben. I think it's fair to say that scientists and atheists who ignore the significance that these experiences contain, as insights into the nature of human consciousness and its entire (often subconscious) scope--which include religious or mystical states--are not being terribly scientific or rational.

What, then, is the significance of these experiences?

I think it probably varies from person to person but some indisputable benefits reported universally and throughout history include an enhanced sense of freedom or will power, determination in the face of fear or conflict, increased peace in times of mental distress, a broadening of one's perspective that can and has led to important discoveries about one's self or the world at large, and sometimes even the cure of physical ailments, psychosomatic or otherwise.