Christians and Atheists are 99.99% in agreement

[Gawen]

Excellent points, Juliet...*clappin*

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Religious visions happened before Jesus arrived and still happen to people who have no idea Jesus exists, eg isolated tribes in the Amazon basin and the Congo. Now if there were multiple examples of common experiences coming out of unpolluted sources we could say there was some evidence for a common cause, but one would still have to establish that the cause was supernatural before one could attribute deistic intent.

If a Muslim has a religious vision they will attribute that to Allah. Each visionary will attribute their personal vision to their particular version of god. So if personal religious experiences were to share a common cause all visions would be inspired to extol the virtues of a particular deity. Thus ALL visions would be attributable for example to say Allah. But they are not are they? So what we see happening here is personal preferential interpretation of a totally subjective experience, with no commonality except that influenced by the individual's personal biases induced by education and/or culture.

If one had a 'vision' would one admit to having hallucinations, which would make people worry about one, or would one claim a spiritual vision that would enhance one's position in ones societal group? I would say the latter. What is a vision other than a hallucination or dream? Before we gained some understanding of the purpose and operation of the brain we had no alternative but to posit an external influence that created visions (hallucinations or dreams). We now know that an external influence is not needed. We understand the operation of the brain sufficiently to understand that chemical imbalances, physical structure and injury can cause extreme visions.

So having a vision may convince the individual that have experience god, but that interpretation isn't rally valid as simpler explanations exist that do not require the existence of an interventionist deity.

The individual having the experience, assuming the person is otherwise healthy, is in the best position to determine whether or not it constitutes a true experience of God. If the individual is otherwise psychotic or brain damaged, this principle would not apply. But for the otherwise competently functioning, well-educated, introspective adult, a religious experience can be both enlightening and convincing, not only bringing a level of confident faith, but also producing a sense of peace and well-being, and eliminating a great deal of existential angst. In such cases, there is a valid reason for believing that an encounter with God has occurred, whatever the social/cultural dressing that goes along with it.  These experiences, while not capable of convincing anyone else, give the believer a basis for faith that is no irrational.  Whether some "simpler explanations" exist is debatable. Occam's Razor is a nice rule of logic, but it is not invariably true.  Sometimes the truth is more complex.  I'm sure you could think of examples.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But personal experience is subjective and history is questionable so faith on that basis is irrational isn't it? One would not buy a second hand car based on a dream and that had no service history and an odometer reading at odds with the age of the car would one?

The answer to your first question is "no." In a religious experience, the individual may be convinced that he/she has encountered a personal being.  If I meet a person physically, I have some basis for believing that person exists.  The only difference in a religious experience is that the physical element of a body is missing. But when you meet a person physically, you are not just meeting a body - there are also the intangible elements of mind and personality that are present in the experience.  Those cannot be measured by any instrument, but they are present just the same.  Think of a spiritual experience as simply being the experience of another person on the other side of a veil.  This renders your second question irrelevant.  This faith is not based on a "dream", but more on the experience of driving the car.  This, coupled with whatever information you get from the history of the faith (which, as with any car, is not 100% complete), and the information you get from others who have driven similar cars (other believers), all work together to create a rational basis for purchasing the car.  It's not 100% certain, of course, which is why it's called faith.  You exercise faith every time you get in your car, you know.   

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.

I disagree.  My personal experience of God does not absolve me of responsibility for my actions.  I'm not talking about an experience where God tells me to do something specific.  I'm talking about the presence of the divine, an ecstatic experience where an individual becomes convinced of the reality of God in some manner. Now, if I had such an experience, and felt that God was telling me to kill someone, I would still be responsible for filtering that purported message through my own sense of logic and morality, as well as through the general teachings of that particular faith.  Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone.  He is reported to have healed and helped people.  For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent.  It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith).  So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Ecurb Noselrub, what I meant by 'meaningful' was more in line with something that makes sense in a way, which includes false information and fallacies and is more subjectively-based than objective. Because of this, you have people of all geographical locations and cultures interpreting their religious experiences in accordance with what's meaningful to them both culturally and biologically/psychologically.

For instance, when primitive peoples saw volcanoes erupt they thought that their god or gods were angry with them, and so tried to appease it in some way, usually involving some sacrifice of valuable goods (in India, for instance, they still "sacrifice" money on one of their religious sort of Thanksgiving holidays).

Would you say that someone "giving" something to the universe, god or a 'higher power' in order to bargain with it in some way is meaningful or rational?  Are the people sacrificing livestock rational?

Such acts can be both meaningful and rational, given the context of the particular cultural circumstances.  If the volcano was, in fact, a god, it would make all the sense in the world to sacrifice to it, if experience had indicated that this gave you some form of advantage.  It wouldn't be rational for me, however, as I have access to knowledge that indicates that volcanoes are not gods, and that there are purely naturalistic reasons for the way they act.  So, my faith is, to an extent, limited or circumscribed by the level of knowledge of my culture.  Knowledge refines and refocuses faith.  Rationality is, to a degree, simply following the rules of logic, but the premises determine if the conclusion is correct.  The more advanced the society, the more likely its premises are correct, but we are perhaps no more adept at following logic than some more primitive cultures.

For me, I have no other explanation for some of my experiences than that an entity I call "God" or "Jesus" exists.  It's my best explanation for what I have experienced. Therefore, for me, it's at least not irrational. Now, if I were psychotic generally or incapable of living life competently, this might not be the case.  But I fare pretty well, so I see nothing irrational about my stance.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You just admitted that you do not buy what is written in the Bible; that scripture is not perfect, therefore not inspired or written by God and that selection of scripture is left to your own devising. Otherwise, a spirit helps you be a good Christian. I do not buy this any more than Tank bought what you wrote to him. [/quote]

I don't think that scripture is perfect, but that does not mean that it is all worthless.  I try to evaluate each writing on its own merits.  For example, I would assign a much higher value to Galatians than to II Peter, primarily for historical reasons.  There is still, for me, a core of validity to the basic message of the early Christian writings, and that defines the parameters of my faith.  So, I don't just "wing it."

And ad others have asked, how do you know it's the Holy Spirit and not a demon or another God trying to fake you out?

I go back to my original experience with the Holy Spirit, which occurred while I was reading a passage out of Matthew about Jesus.  The experience of the Spirit, for me, corresponds to the gospel about Jesus.  I don't ever remotely experience the same thing when I read the Book of Mormon (which I consider to be a fraud), or the Qur'an, or any other scripture.  The experience of the Spirit always corresponds to Jesus, for me.  The Spirit and the gospel are essentially two rails of the same track.  And by the gospel, I mean the basic message, the kerygma or proclamation, found in such places as I Corinthians 15 and several of the sermons in Acts - the earliest formulation of the Christian message about Jesus. The "gospel" for me is not the four canonical books per se, but the core or essence of the message about Jesus.  The Spirit and the gospel "witness" to each other, or confirm each other, in my experience.

[Sandra Craft]

I don't think that scripture is perfect, but that does not mean that it is all worthless.  I try to evaluate each writing on its own merits. 

I'll be the first atheist to admit there are valuable teachings and admirable sentiments in the bible.  Even if Christ was not the first one to suggest it, I've always been impressed by his enlarging the teaching to love ones neighbors to include loving ones enemies as well.  Loving the neighbors is just practical advice (I'm sure we all know how miserable a feud with a neighbor can make things) but loving your enemies, where there might well be no practical advantage to you?  That's radical thinking.

I go back to my original experience with the Holy Spirit, which occurred while I was reading a passage out of Matthew about Jesus.  The experience of the Spirit, for me, corresponds to the gospel about Jesus.  I don't ever remotely experience the same thing when I read the Book of Mormon (which I consider to be a fraud), or the Qur'an, or any other scripture. 

Let me ask this, do you believe such an experience is equally valid if it does occur to someone who is reading the Qur'an, or Book of Mormon, or, for that matter, listening to stories featuring Kwan Yin or Rainbow Crow?  Or if they're reading a collection of essays by a naturalist?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Let me ask this, do you believe such an experience is equally valid if it does occur to someone who is reading the Qur'an, or Book of Mormon, or, for that matter, listening to stories featuring Kwan Yin or Rainbow Crow?  Or if they're reading a collection of essays by a naturalist?

If someone has a subjective experience that convinces them that they have been enlightened in a particular way, I'm really not in any position to dispute them.  As I said, my experiences are convincing to me - I don't expect anyone else to be convinced by them.  I accept that people of different faiths and world views (including naturalistic ones) have had very moving personal experiences.  What I would like to see is a discussion among those people to see what the common threads are. 

I've communicated with atheists who have had quite phenomenal experiences, such as one who knew the exact moment when his father died, even though he was thousands of miles away.  I think these experiences point to realities that are beyond our current level of knowledge.  Science is wonderful and I accept its findings, but I do not think that it is the only source of information about reality.  My epistemology is multifaceted, I suppose.

[Sandra Craft]

If someone has a subjective experience that convinces them that they have been enlightened in a particular way, I'm really not in any position to dispute them. 

I suppose part of my question, which I should have made clearer, is if you subscribe to the notion that all gods are one god, or that all paths lead to god?

[Tank]

Religious visions happened before Jesus arrived and still happen to people who have no idea Jesus exists, eg isolated tribes in the Amazon basin and the Congo. Now if there were multiple examples of common experiences coming out of unpolluted sources we could say there was some evidence for a common cause, but one would still have to establish that the cause was supernatural before one could attribute deistic intent.

If a Muslim has a religious vision they will attribute that to Allah. Each visionary will attribute their personal vision to their particular version of god. So if personal religious experiences were to share a common cause all visions would be inspired to extol the virtues of a particular deity. Thus ALL visions would be attributable for example to say Allah. But they are not are they? So what we see happening here is personal preferential interpretation of a totally subjective experience, with no commonality except that influenced by the individual's personal biases induced by education and/or culture.

If one had a 'vision' would one admit to having hallucinations, which would make people worry about one, or would one claim a spiritual vision that would enhance one's position in ones societal group? I would say the latter. What is a vision other than a hallucination or dream? Before we gained some understanding of the purpose and operation of the brain we had no alternative but to posit an external influence that created visions (hallucinations or dreams). We now know that an external influence is not needed. We understand the operation of the brain sufficiently to understand that chemical imbalances, physical structure and injury can cause extreme visions.

So having a vision may convince the individual that have experience god, but that interpretation isn't rally valid as simpler explanations exist that do not require the existence of an interventionist deity.

The individual having the experience, assuming the person is otherwise healthy, is in the best position to determine whether or not it constitutes a true experience of God. If the individual is otherwise psychotic or brain damaged, this principle would not apply. But for the otherwise competently functioning, well-educated, introspective adult, a religious experience can be both enlightening and convincing, not only bringing a level of confident faith, but also producing a sense of peace and well-being, and eliminating a great deal of existential angst. In such cases, there is a valid reason for believing that an encounter with God has occurred, whatever the social/cultural dressing that goes along with it.  These experiences, while not capable of convincing anyone else, give the believer a basis for faith that is no irrational.  Whether some "simpler explanations" exist is debatable. Occam's Razor is a nice rule of logic, but it is not invariably true.  Sometimes the truth is more complex.  I'm sure you could think of examples.

Personally if somebody told me they had spoken to God I would consider that prima-facia evidence that they were mad. Sorry about that as it implies that I think you are 'touched' and there is no two ways about it, I think you are. 

But in a day-to-day sense you are perfectly functional and represent no threat to those around you so in that sense I'd treat you as a harmless eccentric. A good person with an odd world view because it's your actions that you should be judged by not your thoughts.

I realise what I wrote was blunt, but I see not good reason to lie about what I think, any more than you should.

[Tank]

But personal experience is subjective and history is questionable so faith on that basis is irrational isn't it? One would not buy a second hand car based on a dream and that had no service history and an odometer reading at odds with the age of the car would one?

The answer to your first question is "no." In a religious experience, the individual may be convinced that he/she has encountered a personal being.  If I meet a person physically, I have some basis for believing that person exists.  The only difference in a religious experience is that the physical element of a body is missing. But when you meet a person physically, you are not just meeting a body - there are also the intangible elements of mind and personality that are present in the experience.  Those cannot be measured by any instrument, but they are present just the same.  Think of a spiritual experience as simply being the experience of another person on the other side of a veil.  This renders your second question irrelevant.  This faith is not based on a "dream", but more on the experience of driving the car.  This, coupled with whatever information you get from the history of the faith (which, as with any car, is not 100% complete), and the information you get from others who have driven similar cars (other believers), all work together to create a rational basis for purchasing the car.  It's not 100% certain, of course, which is why it's called faith.  You exercise faith every time you get in your car, you know.   

No one does not exercise Faith when getting in a car, one exercises judgement based on previous experience in the real world. As for your spiritual interaction with others I'll believe that when I see consistent, reproducible evidence. Although I don't dismiss out of hand that there could be as yet unexplained 'psychic' communication between people.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I do not think that a "personal experience" of God is a good basis for belief, because it totally absolves someone of responsibility for their actions or using any kind of personal discretion.
God has "told" a lot of people to do some pretty horrible stuff.

I disagree.  My personal experience of God does not absolve me of responsibility for my actions.  I'm not talking about an experience where God tells me to do something specific.  I'm talking about the presence of the divine, an ecstatic experience where an individual becomes convinced of the reality of God in some manner. Now, if I had such an experience, and felt that God was telling me to kill someone, I would still be responsible for filtering that purported message through my own sense of logic and morality, as well as through the general teachings of that particular faith.  Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone.  He is reported to have healed and helped people.  For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent.  It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith).  So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.

So, if God told you to kill someone, you wouldn't do it?

[Attila]

[Jesus, for example, never killed anyone or told his disciples to kill anyone.  He is reported to have healed and helped people.  For him now to tell me to kill would be blatantly inconsistent.  It would also offend any sense of morality or logic that I have (part of which is informed for me by the Christian faith).  So I deny that it relieves me of personal responsibility.

Hi Bruce,
I guess you haven't read Luke 19:27 recently. Which part of  "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." is unclear on the subject? Presumably Jesus would want you to kill me (and I'm such a sweet guy  ). I certainly don't want Jesus or anyone else to be a king over me. Thanks to Michael Parenti for the quote, by the way. There are loads of others where that came from. A bit of a nutter, that Jesus guy.
ciao,
Attila

[Attila]

I've always been impressed by his enlarging the teaching to love ones neighbors to include loving ones enemies as well.  Loving the neighbors is just practical advice (I'm sure we all know how miserable a feud with a neighbor can make things) but loving your enemies, where there might well be no practical advantage to you?  That's radical thinking.

Hi BCE,
Actually I think it could rather bad advice depending on how you interpret it. It depends on which way the power arrow is pointing. It sounds like something that a landowner or his minion might preach to a serf. Cui bono? seems an appropriate question to pose here.
ciao,
Attila

[Too Few Lions]

I'll be the first atheist to admit there are valuable teachings and admirable sentiments in the bible.  Even if Christ was not the first one to suggest it, I've always been impressed by his enlarging the teaching to love ones neighbors to include loving ones enemies as well.  Loving the neighbors is just practical advice (I'm sure we all know how miserable a feud with a neighbor can make things) but loving your enemies, where there might well be no practical advantage to you?  That's radical thinking.

nothing radical there I'm afraid, Jesus was just repeating the words of the philosophers. Greek philosophers were teaching the exact same thing centuries before Christianity.