How to Authentically Experience God

[fr0d0]

I like the way you put that. No, there is no single reason (in terms of actually existing objectively) my God is more valid. 100% correct. Spot on.

Which brings us right back to the question I asked in another thread, Is it therefore valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied?

Same answer. Yes yes yes! It is entirely valid to assume no as well as yes. It has to be.

Which is why anything more you say on the subject is immaterial. We both accept that bit. Let's move on.

Until that point is addressed there is, for the rationalist, no moving on because nothing you can say about your god matters ... IOW, if the answer to my question is yes, it's a pointless philosophical conversation dealing with things that debatably might be but most likely are not.

As I've said yes does that close it then? I agree, without proof we remain in philosophical territory.

Religions (all religions) make implicit claims about the universe we live in, a claim (any claim) can be examined and evaluated for its merit or lack thereof ... the significant difference between religious claims and scientific ones is that the former are usually (always?) wrong.

Like I said in the statement you quoted, you're referring to literalist hogwash there. I don't accept that hogwash, so those claims don't apply to me. You can't therefore use them against me. Use them about Christianity as a very wide definition, sure. But doing that you could say almost anything. I don't think it's helpful. I'm trying to present logical reasoning to you for my beliefs. Not someone else's. I can't justify those any more than I could justify yours.

Again that is a dodge ... I am not being literalist here, I am saying that any claim advanced has no more right to be excepted from the usual means of evaluation than any other. Unless you can justify why that exception is so it is nothing more than special pleading.

I didn't say you were being literalist. I said you were using literalist statements as the subject, that I myself don't accept.

I'm trying to answer you here. Yes, those statements (which I don't agree with) I'd agree require special pleading.

I agree that religious claims in the area of science are wrong. I said so on this forum only yesterday. On this we agree.

Not really (and I'm not even sure I said that) ... what I think is wrong is any implication that realms claimed by religion are IN ANY WAY AT ALL not the domain of science.

Can you be specific? I agree that we can't restrict science by saying that you can never know. Just that science at the moment doesn't have the means to do it.

[athoughtfulman]

But Frodo, if the evidence suggests that the existence of a god or supernatural being is highly unlikely, wouldn't you say it is more reasonable to not believe rather than to believe?

And even if we take the idea that it's equal either way (that its just as reasonable to not believe in god as it is to believe in god), then as soon as we specify a specific god, the balance is destroyed.

So it might be fairly reasonable to believe in a supernatural being, but when one asserts that they know the specific nature of this being, they are going against reason.

[fr0d0]

thoughtful, yes I would say that it's more reasonable to not believe than to believe. No problem. Kyu has said recently that humans are predisposed to believe. Perhaps he could expound on that.

We go on description of the nature of this being, and see how it pans out rationally. I didn't pick 'god' the undefined being, I picked a defined God. The subject of my faith is defined.

I follow reasoning that God's nature is as observed. That it can be observed and statements about it can be asserted and others not. So statements about God's nature can be specific.

All of this is superfluous to the non believer.

[athoughtfulman]

All of this is superfluous to the non believer.

Fair enough, that's fairly reasonable, but definitely of no substance to the non believer.

It seems you recognise that it is about faith and not empirical evidence which is an honest, respectable position to take - at least for a religious person

[fr0d0]

All of this is superfluous to the non believer.

Fair enough, that's fairly reasonable, but definitely of no substance to the non believer.

It seems you recognise that it is about faith and not empirical evidence which is an honest, respectable position to take - at least for a religious person

Haha! No problem thoughtful

[Kyuuketsuki]

Which brings us right back to the question I asked in another thread, Is it therefore valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied?

Same answer. Yes yes yes! It is entirely valid to assume no as well as yes. It has to be.

Which implicitly means you are not here to convert or to persuade others of the value of your views ... I will now wait to see whether that is true.

Until that point is addressed there is, for the rationalist, no moving on because nothing you can say about your god matters ... IOW, if the answer to my question is yes, it's a pointless philosophical conversation dealing with things that debatably might be but most likely are not.

As I've said yes does that close it then? I agree, without proof we remain in philosophical territory.

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?

Again that is a dodge ... I am not being literalist here, I am saying that any claim advanced has no more right to be excepted from the usual means of evaluation than any other. Unless you can justify why that exception is so it is nothing more than special pleading.

I didn't say you were being literalist. I said you were using literalist statements as the subject, that I myself don't accept.

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.

I'm trying to answer you here. Yes, those statements (which I don't agree with) I'd agree require special pleading.

Which is a logical fallacy.

Not really (and I'm not even sure I said that) ... what I think is wrong is any implication that realms claimed by religion are IN ANY WAY AT ALL not the domain of science.

Can you be specific? I agree that we can't restrict science by saying that you can never know. Just that science at the moment doesn't have the means to do it.

Nothing, in principle, is beyond the investigative reach of science. Is that specific enough for you?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Which implicitly means you are not here to convert or to persuade others of the value of your views ... I will now wait to see whether that is true.

I welcome your watchful eye.

As I've said yes does that close it then? I agree, without proof we remain in philosophical territory.

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.

I didn't say you were being literalist. I said you were using literalist statements as the subject, that I myself don't accept.

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.

I'm trying to answer you here. Yes, those statements (which I don't agree with) I'd agree require special pleading.

Which is a logical fallacy.

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

Can you be specific? I agree that we can't restrict science by saying that you can never know. Just that science at the moment doesn't have the means to do it.

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

So Fr0d0 - if there is no real reason to believe God exists objectively any more than the FSM or Santa then in what way DOES he exactly exist?! According to you?

How is there any more reason to believe God exists than the FSM, etc - in any way shape or form? - if there's no more evidence for an objective existence then how is there any more evidence for a NON-objective existence of some kind exactly?.. - Whatever that would be?!

And so whatever that kind of evidence and existence you say is - how is there any more of this evidence for "God" than for instance, Santa? Then?

EvF

[amw79]

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

To dismiss people's most important personal experiences, as delusions or hallucinations is counter-productive. The theist feels vindicated, as to them its certainly not an hallucination; the atheist seems arrogant, and unwilling to consider subjective accounts of 'religious experience'.

Obviously some accounts are nonsense, but broadly speaking there's a body of subjective religious experience which show similar experiences amongst different faiths - sense of calm, one-ness, feelings of love for others etc...

The fact that meditation and prayer can elicit these responses again and again, suggest that there is a level of consciousness we can achieve outside of normal everyday experience by adopting certain known practices. This does not confer any type of supernatural status to the experiences, and does not require belief in a deity, church attendance, acceptance of miracles etc.

That this state of consciousness has been hijacked by the religious (i.e. "I felt the presence of Jesus/Allah/Zeus"), does not invalidate the experience itself. By the same token, a personal experience of joy or serenity lends no credence to believing that Jesus is the son of god (insert god/prophet of choice).

There is clearly a genuine experience, which no doubt will be scientifically explainable at some point, and this experience could well be shown to be beneficial to our health, mental states, ability to empathise. The point is that this experience is undoubtedly available to all, at any time, with no acceptance of either a deity or religious dogma required.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

"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..