More Religious Nutters

[Elok]

Originally posted by Perfection
Well, I think Aga doesn't explain jargon enough, but I don't think you should dismiss him simply becasue of that. When I don't understand something generally I ask, "WTF are you talkin' 'bout d00d" or some other thing.

And really, this terminology is pretty helpful because everyday words are sloppy and have multiple meanings. It just carries an annoying learning curve.

I don't find it at all helpful. And it's not just the jargon in itself, he actually tries to use the language to force the conversation in his direction. I'd cite examples, but that would involve opening a new tab and I'm feeling lazy. So whatever.

Well, I don't think it's self-evident and actually believe it to be false. Certainly you are correct that many cues come from external sources, but you shouldn't make the jump that all are without carefully looking for counterexamples.

Consider puberty. I didn't start desiring girls because of any external sense, rather because my brain itself changed.

Another one is dreams, while their content certainly is influenced by what we've previously sensed, what exactly we dream, when we dream, how long we dream, and the order of events in what we dream by-and-large aren't.

One final one is inspiration. You could be staring at your navel for a half hour attempting to solve some problem. Your sense data isn't changing but when you arrive at some solution your emotions change from say puzzlement to elation.

So in short, it's not just sense data that matters, there is internal stuff in the brain that play an important role too. Thus the assumption that religious experience must be exertnal sense instead of the actions of internal brain stuff is a pretty poor one.

I'm not denying that there are internal processes (they have to exist for reasoning to occur). Nor do I mean that religious experiences are triggered by sensory data (what organ would do the sensing?). I was not making that argument at all; I guess I shouldn't have used the word cues. I meant that it "takes cues" only in the context of imagination/ideation/whatever you want to call it.

No matter how fantastic the imagination is, we invent alterations or variations on what we have seen. Even H.P. Lovecraft, master of the insane and grotesque, made Cthulhu out of a man, a squid, and a bat. If you've ever had a religious experience, you know it's...very different, not easily described because it's not comparable to anything in ordinary human experience. It just doesn't feel like the sort of thing your brain could make up. They're also rare--not continual and sporadic like schizophrenic hallucinations--and, unlike hallucinations, are not necessarily sense-oriented. I just mentioned this as an aside, and it turned into a whole long argument. And I told Agathon from the beginning that there was no use in him talking about experiences he'd never had, but he insisted I was wrong, because he was a philosopher, and...and that's how we got into this mess.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Elok
No matter how fantastic the imagination is, we invent alterations or variations on what we have seen. Even H.P. Lovecraft, master of the insane and grotesque, made Cthulhu out of a man, a squid, and a bat. If you've ever had a religious experience, you know it's...very different, not easily described because it's not comparable to anything in ordinary human experience. It just doesn't feel like the sort of thing your brain could make up. They're also rare--not continual and sporadic like schizophrenic hallucinations--and, unlike hallucinations, are not necessarily sense-oriented. I just mentioned this as an aside, and it turned into a whole long argument. And I told Agathon from the beginning that there was no use in him talking about experiences he'd never had, but he insisted I was wrong, because he was a philosopher, and...and that's how we got into this mess.

I've had what I believe to be analagous to "religious experiences" before (zenlike clarity). However, due to the fact that I'm a wierdo science guy my experiences tend to be about physics and mathematics.

What is really interesting to me is that I once had this sort of experience when I was thinking about something involving graph theory and came up with an interesting observation. It later figured out that I was completely mistaken about my observation.

So for me religious experiences don't count for squat because they've been provably wrong for me!




A good rule of thumb from science to consider is that observations should be repeatable and coherant. These sort of one-time events can and should be dismissed as mental flukes, your brain doing something weird rather then obsessing on them and trying desperately to explain them fully.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Elok
No matter how fantastic the imagination is, we invent alterations or variations on what we have seen. Even H.P. Lovecraft, master of the insane and grotesque, made Cthulhu out of a man, a squid, and a bat. If you've ever had a religious experience, you know it's...very different, not easily described because it's not comparable to anything in ordinary human experience. It just doesn't feel like the sort of thing your brain could make up. They're also rare--not continual and sporadic like schizophrenic hallucinations--and, unlike hallucinations, are not necessarily sense-oriented. I just mentioned this as an aside, and it turned into a whole long argument. And I told Agathon from the beginning that there was no use in him talking about experiences he'd never had, but he insisted I was wrong, because he was a philosopher, and...and that's how we got into this mess.

Do you think it's possible to speculate on why God would give you such experiences but not skeptics like Aggy?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
No matter how fantastic the imagination is, we invent alterations or variations on what we have seen. Even H.P. Lovecraft, master of the insane and grotesque, made Cthulhu out of a man, a squid, and a bat. If you've ever had a religious experience, you know it's...very different, not easily described because it's not comparable to anything in ordinary human experience. It just doesn't feel like the sort of thing your brain could make up. They're also rare--not continual and sporadic like schizophrenic hallucinations--and, unlike hallucinations, are not necessarily sense-oriented. I just mentioned this as an aside, and it turned into a whole long argument. And I told Agathon from the beginning that there was no use in him talking about experiences he'd never had, but he insisted I was wrong, because he was a philosopher, and...and that's how we got into this mess.

I've had religious experiences, as you describe them. They were very human, much like believing a con. You wouldn't know it if Jesus touched your heart or whatever you want to call it, because your human senses don't tell you **** bud. That's why you have to use your rational mind to come to truth.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Do you think it's possible to speculate on why God would give you such experiences but not skeptics like Aggy?

It doesn't matter whether or not I'd had them too. What matters is whether they provide evidence for belief in a god.

Elok now believes that our ideas must be caused by external entities, so that there is some sort of limitation on what we can think. But where is the evidence for this claim?

It's also plainly true that multiple causes can make us think of the same thing, because they can produce the same brain states.

For example, I could think I see a pink elephant because there is actually a pink elephant in my visual field, or I could have the very same experience due to a mental illness, a drug or the government putting implants in my brain. For example, it was common for LSD patients to say that they had seen colours which they had never seen before in real life.

All that is needed for the same experience is the same brain state, and that could result from a variety of causes.

I could experience pink, even if I'd never really seen it, because experiencing pink is simply a brain state that may be produced by various causes (including non pink things).

So if Elok is going to say that certain experiences warrant belief in God, he has to give us some reason that it is God causing these experiences and not some other cause. This he refuses to do.

[SlowwHand]

Belief is in your heart. You have it or you don't. End of story.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Belief is in your heart. You have it or you don't. End of story.

I'm pretty sure it's in your mind.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Belief is in your heart. You have it or you don't. End of story.

Sounds like you've been reading ancient Greek physiology texts.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Do you think it's possible to speculate on why God would give you such experiences but not skeptics like Aggy?

Because I enjoyed it, but I imagine Aggy would find it horrifying or offensive?

[Perfection]

My experience was pleasant, and I'm a hardass atheist.

[Elok]

Yes, but I'm not talking about "Zenlike clarity." That can be achieved quite simply by extended meditation. If you'd felt what I'm talking about, you'd know it.

Also, Agathon has spent most of this thread showing that he would not appreciate such a phenomenon if it happened. I suspect Jesus could descend from heaven and jab him in the butt with a branding iron and he still wouldn't believe, because reason tells him that such an event is highly unlikely and reason > senses. Why should God waste His time and Agathon's with a message that won't be heeded?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, but I'm not talking about "Zenlike clarity." That can be achieved quite simply by extended meditation.

Religious experience and Zen are considered highly related. That "God node" can induce both.

Originally posted by Elok
If you'd felt what I'm talking about, you'd know it.

But you've given me no descriptiono f what it is, so how could I?

Originally posted by Elok
Also, Agathon has spent most of this thread showing that he would not appreciate such a phenomenon if it happened. I suspect Jesus could descend from heaven and jab him in the butt with a branding iron and he still wouldn't believe, because reason tells him that such an event is highly unlikely and reason > senses. Why should God waste His time and Agathon's with a message that won't be heeded?

I think it's rather silly to think that God couldn't engineer a message to convince Aga. For example, He could include very accurate predictions of the future or the like.

Aga just wouldn't go for such an experience because it would be vivid, bizzare or contain religious elements.

[Provost Harrison]

I wouldn't even mind but 666 isn't supposed to be the number of the beast anyway. Apparently it is Grand Rapids that has to worry now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_(number)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok

No matter how fantastic the imagination is, we invent alterations or variations on what we have seen. Even H.P. Lovecraft, master of the insane and grotesque, made Cthulhu out of a man, a squid, and a bat. If you've ever had a religious experience, you know it's...very different, not easily described because it's not comparable to anything in ordinary human experience. It just doesn't feel like the sort of thing your brain could make up. They're also rare--not continual and sporadic like schizophrenic hallucinations--and, unlike hallucinations, are not necessarily sense-oriented. I just mentioned this as an aside, and it turned into a whole long argument. And I told Agathon from the beginning that there was no use in him talking about experiences he'd never had, but he insisted I was wrong, because he was a philosopher, and...and that's how we got into this mess.

But in your description there is no point of talking about religious experience at all, since you are saying they are outside of the realm of experiences that can be shared.

More imrpotantly, you are not only "religious", but follow a specific sect with specific ideas. Is a "religious" experience that specific? What about an "religious" experience tells you that Jesus was the son of the God of Israel, as opposed to tell you that Muhammad is the last prophet of said God?

To me the most important evidence against "religion" (as opposed to mysticism) is the fact that individuals who have these "religious" experiences have through history come up with wildly divergent and contradictory theories for explination, and unlike in the field of the science, where varied, different, and contradictory theories also come up, there is NO way to actually come to an agreement or understanding, while in science it is possible to come up with AN answer, not thousands.

[Fake Boris]

Everybody knows that beauty doesn't exist as an objectively descriptible object, yet people believe in beauty. Why should things be different when it comes to God ?