Atheism

[Crossless2.0]

So, back on my post number 184 of this thread, I responded to you, and posed a question (which you conveniently ignored).

Here it is again,

I have a friend (an old surfing buddy) that became addicted to alcohol and drugs, was living on the street and doing petty crimes.

One day he walked into a Hindu temple in Los Angeles, and he claims he had a religious experience where he saw Hindu gods, and they communicated with him (the god told him to clean up his life, and that he was hurting his loved ones).

He literally quit alcohol and drugs that day. Cleaned up his life, and now owns a small business, and has a great family. He is still Hindu.

So, what do you think is more likely, he had a real experience with the Hindu god, that caused him to clean up his life, or, he had a real experience, like a change in mental states, that he misinterpreted as communication with Hindu gods?

I'd still like to get your take on this.

I think the built-in awareness of the divine coupled with his knowledge of the right thing to do worked to convince your friend that he experienced a Hindu god. Before you ask why that same reasoning does not apply to Christianity, this is what I wrote a few pages back:

For this argument to work, you have to show that the religious experiences are the same (or largely the same).  A few points:

1. Picture the world of the first/second/third centuries. Christianity was spreading across the Roman empire to India.

Right.

There were no 'cultural' Christians. The converts were not atheist.

Right.

They had their religion and religious experiences yet they chose Christianity.

Apparently. But that fact doesn't impress you as "truthfully" meaningful if it leads to a different faith. Then, the methods that result in religious experiences and may lead to the a new faith are "incomplete and wrong".

Even today, we have millions per year changing religions. We can infer from this that religious experiences are not all created equal.

Perhaps. Rather than focus on the experience, I'm more interested in the interpretations derived from the experience, and in vastly many cases those will be informed by what the person having the experience brings to the table. Those millions who change religions each year may do so for a cocktail of reasons that have little or nothing to do with an alleged encounter with the supernatural.

2. Concepts of those experience are objectively different:
     a. My understanding is that Muslims are not big on inner ongoing religious experiences. They believe in an authoritative God that is too holy and distant to developing a personal relationship that is a constant resource helping you navigate your daily life.

I can't speak with any authority on this, but I doubt those Muslims who are part of the Islamic mystical tradition feel this way. I suppose, in your view, such Muslims are making the same "mistakes" as Hindus and Buddhists, as per points 'b' and 'c' -- i.e., they are 'inferior' because they involve personal effort and search.

d. Christians believe that God (Holy Spirit) is actually present with you and is a catalyst for such things as the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Yes, that's a part of Christian belief. It's worth pointing out, however, that those allegedly inferior methods used by Hindus and Buddhists also often result in precisely those qualities you label 'fruits of the spirit'.

There is an actual causal connection between God and us on a daily basis . . .

Is this still you telling us what Christians believe, or have you slipped into making an assertion of fact?

. . . not a search for something that can be achieved with enough effort.

So St. John of the Cross got it all wrong. All he needed was Paul's doctrine of grace, and he could have avoided all that troublesome contemplation. Got it.

3. A base level of religious experiences throughout history is evidence that the human mind recognizes the supernatural.

I would replace 'recognizes' with 'posits'.

Methods of pursuit can be different, incomplete, and wrong.

Then I guess it's a good thing for you that your religion doesn't require such effort, aside from accepting those gifts you allegedly receive from the Holy Spirit.

It's convenient, anyway.

4. All religions have some version of religious experience.

Yes.

All religions are exclusive.

No, they aren't. Or at least they all weren't, before the Abrahamic faiths drove them to extinction in the West. Not all pagans converted because of a positive experience of the Holy Spirit.

Aside from your claim that Christians 'really' encounter the Holy Spirit (as opposed to interpreting their experiences through a NT lens), I don't see where you provided Simon Moon's friend any reason to doubt his experience of Krishna or whatever. "You don't need to meditate or perform any particular discipline (or concern yourself with strict observance of the Law, in Paul's view)" is a good marketing gimmick, but it makes for a lousy measure if we're concerned about the truth or falsehood of one's interpretation of experience.