SPLIT: From The terrifying afterlife thread

[Achronos]

That is all good, and I agree. The problem is, religious experiences aren't just limited to your religion alone; in fact, they're not just limited to religion, but to a whole wide range of crazy things I assume you don't believe. I choose to remain skeptical regarding these types of experiences.

That's fine, I'm not offering these as proofs of anything.  My point this whole time has been that those of us who have had such experiences are logically and reasonably justified in our "religious faith" because it is based on an experience that has every bit as much validity as anything else we experience in life.  The Principle of Credulity holds up here.

Throwing some scripture at me doesn't help. Pretend I'm a member of your Bible study or something. What does that mean?

It means that death is the ultimate enemy of mankind.  Yes, from an Orthodox perspective, death is intimately related to sin and in that sense, Jesus' death was "for our sins," but this shouldn't be mistaken for the common judiciary view that Jesus was punished on account of our guilty status due to Adam's "original sin."  Orthodox do not believe this.  The Orthodox view is that man was meant for union with God and Jesus' Incarnation was not "Plan B" but was "Plan A" in the sense that God had always intended to take creation upon himself in order for real union with humans to occur.  Death is the great enemy of this plan, so Jesus had to die in order to defeat death.  Much like he had to take on life in order to unite mankind to himself, he had to take on death in order to free us from it.  Eternal life is the goal and death stands in the way of that.  Death must be conquered.  That happened in the Resurrection.

I know you don't believe any of this, but hopefully this sheds at least a little light on what Orthodox mean when they say "Jesus died for our sins" or otherwise talk about why he "had" to die.  Because it's definitely not for the reasons most like to think it is.

[Gawen]

That's fine, I'm not offering these as proofs of anything.  My point this whole time has been that those of us who have had such experiences are logically and reasonably justified in our "religious faith" because it is based on an experience that has every bit as much validity as anything else we experience in life.  The Principle of Credulity holds up here.

First, let's deal with The Principle of Credulity which states:
If it seems that x is present, then x is probably present. In other words, it is reasonable to believe the world is probably as we experience it to be. Unless there is some specific reason to question a religious experience, therefore, then we ought to accept that it is at least prima facie evidence for the existence of God. How very subjective and full of bullocks. The PoC is a fallacy in itself. On the other hand, I am an atheist who experiences the absence of God. Using the PoC that you hold in high regard, it seems to me the world is godless.

As far as fallacies go, the PoC suffers from a form of "Affirming the Consequent", which means
1) If A then B
2) B
Therefore:
3) A

In this case it's:
1) If A then A
2) A
Therefore
3) A
It leaves no room for any other possibility.

The argument is also a Subjectivist Fallacy.
1) Q is objectively true (because objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone)
2) Q is subjective.
Therefore:
3) Your argument fails.

Prima facie

It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.

Basically, appearances can be deceptive.

PoC also requires a burden of proof, both for the person having the religious experience and for those that the person who had the religious experience to makes claims about to other individuals. Religious experience arguments for the existence of God are not in the realm of rational inquiry, but into the realm of subjective experience. I tend to think the the supposition that those having religious experiences are not really having an experience of the divine but are merely experiencing the world religiously. Philosopher John Hick thought this way as well.

Those who wish to claim they have or are having a religious experience must come to grips of which divine figure/s they are experiencing. If it is an experience within their own tradition or cultural presupposition how do they (or we) know doesn't have some sort of natural but purely psychological bias? If that is the case, which most religious experiences are, how does one know it is not a psychological experience brought on from drugs or simple imagination? How does one know it is not just mental saturation of specific religious imagery or outlook?

The deluded don't know. And that's why they rely on the Principle of Credulity, which is not credible at all.

It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

[Voter]

Is there a named fallacy regarding applying logical fallacies to a position which is pointedly not offered as a proof and limited in scope to the person holding the position himself?

[Achronos]

It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

Um wait a minute, what exactly is a committed atheist?

That seems contradictory, how can one be committed to the non existence of a non existent "being"? Surely you must mean something other than that.

Second, what does one mean buy the phrase "experience the world religiously?" How do you know atheists dont? Christopher Hitchens seems to disagree with you whole heartedly, though he uses the phrase "numinous" as opposed to "religious". There are atheists who go to Church because the "myth" (as they see it) speaks to them, helps give them "meaning", encourages them even though they don't believe any of the "myths".

Don't believe me, there is a brand new book out about the subject:

http://www.christiannontheism.org/members/theconcept

[LegendarySandwich]

It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

Um wait a minute, what exactly is a committed atheist?

That seems contradictory, how can one be committed to the non existence of a non existent "being"? Surely you must mean something other than that.

He probably means one who feels pretty damn sure that there is no God.

Second, what does one mean buy the phrase "experience the world religiously?" How do you know atheists dont? Christopher Hitchens seems to disagree with you whole heartedly, though he uses the phrase "numinous" as opposed to "religious". There are atheists who go to Church because the "myth" (as they see it) speaks to them, helps give them "meaning", encourages them even though they don't believe any of the "myths".

Nonreligious people can't experience the world religiously, but they can experience it spiritually. There's a difference.

Don't believe me, there is a brand new book out about the subject:

http://www.christiannontheism.org/members/theconcept

I've seen that before. Pretty stupid if you ask me, but whatever floats their boat.

[Achronos]

Unless there is some specific reason to question a religious experience, therefore, then we ought to accept that it is at least prima facie evidence for the existence of God.[/i] How very subjective and full of bullocks.

I never said it wasn't subjective.  Re-read me earlier post where I made it quite clear that I'm not using this as a proof for anything.  It's merely to show that the person with a religious experience is as justified in trusting that experience as they are in trusting any other experience they have.

The PoC is a fallacy in itself. On the other hand, I am an atheist who experiences the absence of God. Using the PoC that you hold in high regard, it seems to me the world is godless.

I don't doubt that.  Did I imply otherwise?

As far as fallacies go, the PoC suffers from a form of "Affirming the Consequent", which means
1) If A then B
2) B
Therefore:
3) A

In this case it's:
1) If A then A
2) A
Therefore
3) A
It leaves no room for any other possibility.

The argument is also a Subjectivist Fallacy.
1) Q is objectively true (because objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone)
2) Q is subjective.
Therefore:
3) Your argument fails.

It only fails if one assumes the person using this line of reasoning is doing so as a proof of God's existence or as a reason for why someone else should believe.  That is not, as I've stated, my purpose.  It is merely to demonstrate that trusting our religious experiences under the Principle of Credulity is as logical and reasonable a thing to do as trusting any other experience we have in life when there is no reason to think otherwise.

Prima facie

It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.

Basically, appearances can be deceptive.

Agreed.

PoC also requires a burden of proof, both for the person having the religious experience and for those that the person who had the religious experience to makes claims about to other individuals. Religious experience arguments for the existence of God are not in the realm of rational inquiry, but into the realm of subjective experience.

Which is precisely why I have not used it for this purpose at all.  I'm not sure why you think I did...

Those who wish to claim they have or are having a religious experience must come to grips of which divine figure/s they are experiencing.

Quite easy to do within Orthodoxy.

If it is an experience within their own tradition or cultural presupposition how do they (or we) know doesn't have some sort of natural but purely psychological bias?

How do we know this about anything?!  This is precisely my point!  There is no way to prove to anyone anything that is experienced by the senses.  There is no way for you to prove to me that you are not a brain in a vat being fed sensory experiences.  Which is why we have no other option besides trusting our experiences when there is no good reason not to.

If that is the case, which most religious experiences are, how does one know it is not a psychological experience brought on from drugs or simple imagination?

Because the person was not experimenting with any drugs and was not utilizing their imagination at the time.  Take these (real) experiences as examples:

“Then, just as I was exhausted and despairingâ€"I had the most wonderful sense of the presence of God.  He was in a particular place in the room about five feet from meâ€"I didn’t look up, but kept my head in my hands and my eyes shut.”

“I was walking along a long, lonely country road by myself…then the experience came.  It lasted about 20 minutesâ€"I sensed a presence on my right, keeping level with me as I went along. “

“Then, in a very gentle and gradual way, not with a shock at all, it began to dawn on me that I was not alone in the room.  Someone else was there, located fairly precisely about two yards to my right front.  Yet there was no sort of sensory hallucination.  I neither saw him nor heard him in any sense of the word “see” and “hear,” but there he was; I had no doubt about it.”

Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.  What we have here, contrary to what you implied earlier, is not a mere outpouring of emotion, but fairly clear descriptions of a direct awareness of a divine presence.

I’m not saying this is proof of anything or that you should believe in God based upon the supposed experiences of others.  I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief.  Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).  

How does one know it is not just mental saturation of specific religious imagery or outlook?

How does one not know this about the computer in front of them?  The book they're reading?  Pick anything, how can you ever prove to someone else your sensory experience?

The deluded don't know. And that's why they rely on the Principle of Credulity, which is not credible at all.

Oh is that why?  I was curious.

It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

Going back to this quote again..."Ask and ye shall receive.  Seek and ye shall find.  Knock and the door shall be opened."

[Stevil]

(1) ...was not utilizing their imagination at the time
(2) ...fairly clear descriptions of a direct awareness of a divine presence.
(3) I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief.  
(4) The book they're reading?  Pick anything, how can you ever prove to someone else your sensory experience?

(1) ROFL
(2) the clarity within the examples are of amazing detail "sense of the presence of God", "I sensed a presence", "Someone else was there".
Certainly there were no assumptions being made by the person having the experience.
(3) all assumptions were justified of course.
(4) I generally find if someone else has read the same book as me and we talk about the details contained within it then it becomes apparent that we have read the same book.
WTF!

[Gawen]

Good grief Acronos.
Credulity: readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence.  But you on the other hand...have redefined the definition of 'credulity'.
If I go outside, come back in and tell you it's raining, by your logic, you would consider me a liar or deceived and disbelieve me in any case because you have not experienced my experience in the rain even though you would go outside and stand in the rain experiencing it. But because you can't experience my experience it's not raining when I tell you it is, but it's raining to you because you had your own unique experience of it.

When Legendarysandwich has an experience that he's an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out of his nostrils, you say:

I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief. Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).

I reckon it's time to let loose the psych wards, then.

[Achronos]

Good grief Acronos.
If I go outside, come back in and tell you it's raining, by your logic, you would consider me a liar or deceived and disbelieve me in any case because you have not experienced my experience in the rain even though you would go outside and stand in the rain experiencing it.

On the contrary, this is what you would do.  My logic works the other way around.  See, I'm not trying to invalidate someone else's experiences (under the reasonable Principle of Credulity) whereas you are.  I'm saying that, under completely normal circumstances, we are all justified in trusting our experiences if there is nothing to make that unreasonable.

But because you can't experience my experience it's not raining when I tell you it is, but it's raining to you because you had your own unique experience of it.

You have this backwards...

When Legendarysandwich has an experience that he's an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out of his nostrils, you say:

I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief. Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).

I reckon it's time to let loose the psych wards, then.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read some of what I wrote earlier in regards to the Principle of Credulity.  Because if you read it, and think that I implied in any way whatsoever that it would be reasonable for LegendarySandwich to believe he's an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out his nose, I'm really not sure how much longer I can do this.

I've said the same thing a billion times now and I don't know how else to help you see what you're clearly not seeing.

[LegendarySandwich]

I understand what you're saying, Achronos. I just don't agree with it.

Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

[Gawen]

Probably because I've never experienced Joseph Smith or any of the Buddhist gods (althgouh have studied see below).  They've not cared to make themselves known apparently.  This common, yet laughable, atheistic line of reasoning that we have to have considered every religion in order to reject it doesn't work man...

Then your knowledge base on these unexplored religions is zero and you cannot make an intelligent statement about them. How do you know that one of these religions you have not expored is the correct one and the religion you experience now is brought to you via courtesy the devil?

 

First: My definitions of "apocalyptic" and "superstition" aren't wrong, they just aren't your limited definition.  You would probably call my usage of "Romantic" wrong as well, just because I almost never use it to mean what the editors of Harlequin books think it means.

Well, Christians have been known to redefine words to fit their eschatology.

"Apocalyptic" can mean: etc., etc., etc.

You have been explained to that Jesus' ministry was written in an apocalyptic format, meaning then end of days. I'll tell you further that Revelation was written by a disgruntled Jew AFTER the second temple tear down and means nothing in the way of the end of the world. The end of HIS world, perhaps, as he knew it. It'll be interesting to see your take on that...*chucklin*

Now, if what you mean is that people in the first century expected the world could end at any moment in a very literal and not merely personal sense, you are correct.  When by saying that you imply the modern world has somehow risen above that, you are horribly wrong.  

What I'm saying that Jesus taught the end was near...imminent.

Atheism hasn't made the world ending any less likely,...

Non sequitor.

...it's just removed the supernatural from the equation.

When one can show evidence of the supernatural, I have no choice but to revamp my atheism.

At any moment an asteroid could hurtle into the earth, we are warned if we don't change our wicked ways the polar ice-caps will melt, and there is still the threat of world-ending nuclear or biological warfare.

Yes, and many will ascribe this train of thought by God's hand. It was God's hand that actually hurtled the asteroid...blah blah blah.

Now, superstition means: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary .

(Webster's.  The unfortunate thing about dictionaries is you are subject to the biases and philosophies of the dictionary writers, the current OED definition was meaningless.)

I'll agree with that.

You can accuse me and the goat-herder of being superstitious in sense 1(b) only if you can demonstrate that we are indeed irrational in our attitudes toward God.  But seeing as how the whole point of the argument is whether or not belief in God could be rational sense 1(b) is useless in our discussion.

Not quite there, buckaroo. Gods are supernatural. Belief in Gods is superstition. The "abject" part means nothing in our debate. Just because one is high in spirit in his belief of the supernatural does not raise him out of the supernatural realm and into reality. I have discussed this on this board elsewhere and do not wish to do so again. It is a lengthy subject. Suffice to say that you cannot, in your reality, point to god and show me god because you experience it.

I accuse atheism of superstition in senses 1(a) and 2.

That is because you have an erroneous view of atheism. Many theists do.

I can also argue that most of what is considered "superstition" within Christianity is a misapplication of Christianity.

Only from your superstitious point of view. A Southern Baptist will tell you the exact same thing.

[Gawen]

I understand what you're saying, Achronos. I just don't agree with it.

Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

Yeah, what LS said.

The claim to be having a religious experience looks suspiciously 'human'. When looked at from the angle of deciding how one knows one is having a religious experience of God, why do people presume their experience is good ("I felt something guiding me", or "Someone must be watching over me")/. Unless you have a direct unmediated out-of-body experience with God (which is not possible even for mystics who are still 'trapped' in the mental realm by language) you are merely presuming your experience to be from a good and/or right or correct source. You are using a human-centered ethical criterion of good/right/correct in order to interpret a religious experience.

But could it be that you are being deceived by an evil spirit (or another god) and being led astray? No, you are still be presuming your encounter to be from a bad/evil source. Unless one presupposes that good things come from a good 'spiritual' source there is no way of knowing. Even subsequent 'evidence' or rather cause and effect may be or may become corrupted. Christians (and many other believers) will argue that their experience concurs with the testimony of their Scripture. They can't all be having a real experience of their God. This also takes us back to religious experience is colored by one's culture and tradition and therefore human centered.

Because one claims to have had a religious experience does not mean that God exists. Just because you believe God is there (epistemology) does not mean God is actually there (ontology). You need something more than the 'feeling' of religious experience for verification of that. Verification. This is why religious experiences fail. They cannot be verified sufficiently enough to those that do not have religious experiences, to those that have religious experiences outside your culture and/or tradition and many times by the person having a religious experience. And all this leads us to religious experiences are brought on by the imagination or drugs.

[Achronos]

Well, Christians have been known to redefine words to fit their eschatology

I have no need to redefine words, I stand on their classical definitions.  It's the modern atheist who has tried to frame these words in a near Orwellian manner so that they mean absolutely nothing other than "Christian fallacies".

You have been explained to that Jesus' ministry was written in an apocalyptic format, meaning then end of days. I'll tell you further that Revelation was written by a disgruntled Jew AFTER the second temple tear down and means nothing in the way of the end of the world. The end of HIS world, perhaps, as he knew it. It'll be interesting to see your take on that...*chucklin*

I would be well within the realm of Patristic thought if I took you back to my original definition of Apocalyptic: The apocalypse happens everyday in everyone's world.  Indeed, the end of St John's world (you don't shock me when you say Revelation was written AFTER the destruction of the second temple, the Church has maintained such since the beginning.  You might scare a 19th century dispensationalist, perhaps), or the end of many a Jew's world who happened to live in or around Jerusalem in AD 70.  Let's talk about the different worlds whose end started with the destruction of the Jewish temple: the old pagan polytheistic structure, the Pax Romana, the Old Roman Empire itself.  The Jewish Apocalyptic tradition doesn't prophesy the end of all life, it prophesies the end of life as we know it, the current age.  Daniel prophesies the downfall of the Babylonian Empire and it's take over by Persia, the end of the Persian Empire and it's take over by the Greek, and the end of the Greek Empire and it's take over by Rome.  Revelation prophecies the destruction of Rome and the existence of a thousand year Christian Empire.  Let's see Rome fell in AD 470 and Constantinople lasted... 1000 years.  

What I'm saying that Jesus taught the end was near...imminent.

And it was.  The Temple was destroyed in AD 70.  That generation had indeed not passed away.

Non sequitor.

Not at all.  The mindset hasn't changed, even with a supposedly rational frame of reference.  If anything people are more frightened at the end of the world than ever.

When one can show evidence of the supernatural, I have no choice but to revamp my atheism.

If and when you can be offered a plate of gourmet food and realize it for the feast it is, without saying it is all grass and protein strands you will be halfway there.  But that's not the point.  The point was...

Yes, and many will ascribe this train of thought by God's hand. It was God's hand that actually hurtled the asteroid...blah blah blah.

Oh, look, you shot right past the point and continued on your "Supernaturalism is silly" merry-go-round.  Point there, point gone again, point there, point gone again.  When the world finally does meet it's end, however that might be, it's not going to matter if it was God's hand that hurled the asteroid or just a hurtling bullet set into place by physics after the big bang that took 4 billion years to meet it's target.  World gone, poof, bye bye mankind.  The point is: it's no more or less silly to believe the world is going to end at any moment, when in fact it is a very likely that it could end at any moment.  You might think the Egyptians silly for believing a god caused the Nile to flood every year but there was nothing silly about the Egyptians planning their crops around that event.

Not quite there, buckaroo. Gods are supernatural. Belief in Gods is superstition. The "abject" part means nothing in our debate. Just because one is high in spirit in his belief of the supernatural does not raise him out of the supernatural realm and into reality. I have discussed this on this board elsewhere and do not wish to do so again. It is a lengthy subject. Suffice to say that you cannot, in your reality, point to god and show me god because you experience it.

Who said anything about "abject"?  *rereads his statement*  Nope, nothing about "abject" up there.  The word "irrational" appears up there, and the definition is "an irrational abject frame of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition".  If the point of the argument is whether or not belief in God is rational or irrational, then the word "Superstitious" applied to a belief in God is meaningless, it considers your side of the argument already proved, which it is not.

That is because you have an erroneous view of atheism. Many theists do.

So you assert, but you don't prove.

Only from your superstitious point of view. A Southern Baptist will tell you the exact same thing.

I would actually agree with a Southern Baptist on many points.  The only areas of which they would accuse me of superstition is in the usage of icons and prayers to saints.  I go easy on them, they haven't read enough and don't drink, no wonder their minds don't think clearly.

[Gawen]

All I can say any further is:

So you assert, but you don't prove.

As do you.

[Achronos]

Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

Neither would I.  I'm not speaking of hearing voices in one's head (or outside one's head for that matter).

The claim to be having a religious experience looks suspiciously 'human'.

Would you expect it to be otherwise?  We aren't talking about pillars of fire here.

When looked at from the angle of deciding how one knows one is having a religious experience of God, why do people presume their experience is good ("I felt something guiding me", or "Someone must be watching over me")/.

I'm not sure I understand the question.  They aren't presuming the experience they're having, they're just describing it.  It's not a neutral experience to which they're ascribing their own meaning.

You've made it clear how poorly you understand Orthodoxy, but if you were familiar with our spiritual tradition you'd find that our experience of Christ is remarkably consistent.

Unless you have a direct unmediated out-of-body experience with God (which is not possible even for mystics who are still 'trapped' in the mental realm by language) you are merely presuming your experience to be from a good and/or right or correct source. You are using a human-centered ethical criterion of good/right/correct in order to interpret a religious experience.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on (obviously not personal experience!) but this isn't true.  At any rate, the experience is much, much more than a feeling of goodwill.

Because one claims to have had a religious experience does not mean that God exists.

Alas!  We are finally on the same page!  I have said this from the beginning.  My sole point this entire time has been that a materialist has no grounds with which they can deny the experience of another human being.

And this is what it all boils down to.  Because I do not think there is airtight proof for God.  I believe there is enough, however, to allow a reasonable and logical person to open themselves up to the possibility of God.  And there are literally billions of people throughout history that have done this very thing and have had experiences that they cannot deny.

Now, before you jump all over that and say it means nothing, please remember that I'm not using this as proof or evidence of God. I'm merely pointing out that we are all in the same boat as far as our sensory experience is concerned, and that the materialist has no legitimate grounds to scoff at those who believe because of their own experiences.

I hope you're beginning to see the difference because you keep addressing these as if I were offering them as reasons for someone to believe in God, which I'm not.

Just because you believe God is there (epistemology) does not mean God is actually there (ontology).

Agreed.

You need something more than the 'feeling' of religious experience for verification of that.

Depends on what you mean by "feeling" because you yourself said all we can ever really know is what we experience with our senses.  Are you saying you need something more than "feelings" (our sensory experience) for verification of something?  If so, you're in serious trouble!

Verification. This is why religious experiences fail. They cannot be verified sufficiently enough to those that do not have religious experiences,

I've said this all along.  My personal experience is no reason for you or anyone else to believe.  It's a way for me to explain why I believe and why you have no grounds on which to deny me those reasons, since all one can do is evaluate their experiences in accordance with reason and logic (for the most part).

And all this leads us to religious experiences are brought on by the imagination or drugs.

Accept for those multitude of times where the imagination wasn't being utilized and drugs had not been taken.