quote:If you desperately search for something you will eventually find it...whether it's really there or only in your mind. And that's the problem.
Indeed. The central mechanism of religious faith is prayer, which allows no negative indicators of effectiveness. Virtually anything that happens can be interpreted as an answer to prayer, including the perception that no answer was given. By the very act of praying, you are investing yourself in an expectation or hope that you will receive an answer. If you perceive an answer, then prayer works. if you do not perceive an answer, then prayer may or may not work. There is no response to prayer that would indicate that prayer does not work.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Completely disagree. As I have said before it is QUITE possible to get a negative response to prayer.
Many people pray and get no answer, many people pray and get negative responses to their prayers.
How do you rationally explain somebody praying for something they really want and then feeling strongly that they ought not to ask for it? A subconcious conscience that checks the first tier conscience?
Just because some people simply latch on to anything that happens and call it an answer to prayer does not mean that there are not tangible results that prayer produces.
How much have you even prayed Matt, that you are such an expert on its nuances?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Completely disagree. As I have said before it is QUITE possible to get a negative response to prayer.
Not a negative response to prayer. A response that somehow says that prayer doesn't work.
quote:How do you rationally explain somebody praying for something they really want and then feeling strongly that they ought not to ask for it? A subconcious conscience that checks the first tier conscience?
Um...yeah. When compared to "a supreme being that created everything in the universe and is deeply concerned about the daily goings-on of my life doesn't want me to have what I'm praying for", a 'subconscious conscience' is infinitely more rational.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Completely disagree. As I have said before it is QUITE possible to get a negative response to prayer.
I think you misunderstand. I don't mean that you never hear the answer "no." I mean that the act of praying can never produce evidence that it is not effective. The doctrine of prayer includes allowances for God not wanting to answer, for the person praying to not be worthy of a response, or to the person praying not recognizing that they have been responded to.
It's like flipping a coin and calling heads every time, then crediting your powers of prophecy in the 50% of the time that it does land heads-side-up, while dismissing the tails-side-up tosses as mis-throws.
quote:How do you rationally explain somebody praying for something they really want and then feeling strongly that they ought not to ask for it? A subconcious conscience that checks the first tier conscience?
The same way that I intuit that I should not make a choice for something I desire. Only with praying added on. There are usually good reasons to suspect the value of that which is desired in such cases.
Also, there's no reason to believe that things would not have turned out OK regardless of the choice. I've made several poor choices, without which I would not have ended up moving out of state, marrying to the woman I am now married to, with six wonderful children, and a great career.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:How much have you even prayed Matt, that you are such an expert on its nuances?
More than I can enumerate, though I gave up on doing it in earnest some time ago. I'll still whisper an occasional silent prayer in my head - it's a pretty low investment activity - sort of like pinging a dead IP address just to see if there's anything there. I also attend Sacrament Meeting with my wife every week, help out in the nursery and with boy scouts, and participate in all the ward activities except temple days.
I know how it's supposed to work. I just don't see any evidence that it actually does work. For being the universal conduit to God, it's pretty darn hit and miss.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Completely disagree. As I have said before it is QUITE possible to get a negative response to prayer.
I think you misunderstand. I don't mean that you never hear the answer "no." I mean that the act of praying can never produce evidence that it is not effective. The doctrine of prayer includes allowances for God not wanting to answer, for the person praying to not be worthy of a response, or to the person praying not recognizing that they have been responded to.
So prayer is complicated, that doesn't mean it does not work.
You might as well argue that because so many people make mistakes in their arithmetic, and there is no way to either catch those mistakes as they happen or nullify the negative results produced by miscalculation that therefore learning how to do arithmetic is pointless.
Learning to decern truth from error is as important an lesson as any. If prayer was idiot proof, and desired results were 100% guarenteed people would pray constantly and do little else.
edit: BTW I did not notice your post count, though its belated, welcome to Hatrack Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So prayer is complicated, that doesn't mean it does not work.
Only complicated enough to obscure an objective analysis of its effectiveness.
quote:You might as well argue that because so many people make mistakes in their arithmetic, and there is no way to either catch those mistakes as they happen or nullify the negative results produced by miscalculation that therefore learning how to do arithmetic is pointless.
But mistakes in arithmetic can be demonstrated to those that make them. Can you show me or 0Meg why our prayers were never answered?
quote:If prayer was idiot proof, and desired results were 100% guarenteed people would pray constantly and do little else.
I don't see why that would be the case. I like to figure things out on my own and most people I know are the same. Even if I knew I could magically answer any question with a prayer, I wouldn't take advantage of that power constantly any more than I would play a video game with a walkthrough or strategy guide in my lap.
Besides, you'd think it would be 100% on some of the basic ones like "Is anyone out there?"
quote:welcome to Hatrack
Thanks. I'll try to behave myself. Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only complicated enough to obscure an objective analysis of its effectiveness.
Again, sorry God can't fit into a test tube. It messes up with human agency to have a God we can summon at will.
quote: But mistakes in arithmetic can be demonstrated to those that make them. Can you show me or 0Meg why our prayers were never answered?
Not without having some sort of comprehensive book on both of your lives. And even with that I could surmise incorrectly.
quote: I don't see why that would be the case. I like to figure things out on my own and most people I know are the same. Even if I knew I could magically answer any question with a prayer, I wouldn't take advantage of that power constantly any more than I would play a video game with a walkthrough or strategy guide in my lap.
YOU might be that way, heck I am that way. But can you honestly say you wouldn't see a substantial number of human beings opting for the lazy prayer route?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So prayer is complicated, that doesn't mean it does not work."
But you have not shown it to work. All you have shown is, possibly, correlation. Not causation. And you have shown things which easily occur outside of prayer, nothing that is unique to prayer.
You have not shown that it does.
And as one who has prayed far more often in my life than yuo'd imagine, probably, I've noticed that it does nothing but what I feel it has done. What I imagine it has done.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you're simultaneously telling us that we can't put god in a testube while saying you have all these books that say exactly what god is and what god wants.
Aren't those two statements conflicting?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. Given that you believe prayer is effective, imagine what it would be like if prayer really were ineffective, and the promptings you received from prayer were internally generated. Do you believe this discussion would be any different?
2. If prayer works, why do some sincere prayers go unanswered? What conceivable purpose is there in dismissing earnest inquiry? Isn't there an implicit promise in "if ye lack wisdom..." that is being broken when a prayer goes unanswered?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: So, you're simultaneously telling us that we can't put god in a testube while saying you have all these books that say exactly what god is and what god wants.
Aren't those two statements conflicting?
Um....nope. The more I follow God's councel the more He and his ways are manifest to me. If you become like Jesus who is perfect then the time spent unsure of what God is doing is outnumbered by the amount of time you do know. You start out unsure but hopeful that God exists, if He starts to be more noticeable you continue believing and growing in confidence. At the end of the process is a state where the existance of God is beyond question.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: OK, taking a step back...
1. Given that you believe prayer is effective, imagine what it would be like if prayer really were ineffective, and the promptings you received from prayer were internally generated. Do you believe this discussion would be any different?
2. If prayer works, why do some sincere prayers go unanswered? What conceivable purpose is there in dismissing earnest inquiry? Isn't there an implicit promise in "if ye lack wisdom..." that is being broken when a prayer goes unanswered?
Both excelent points, you will forgive me if I need to form one more post on the rack before my shift ends, as well as finish up for the day. I will try to get to your post tonight, but I might be as late as tomorrow morning.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Um....nope. The more I follow God's councel the more He and his ways are manifest to me. If you become like Jesus who is perfect then the time spent unsure of what God is doing is outnumbered by the amount of time you do know. You start out unsure but hopeful that God exists, if He starts to be more noticeable you continue believing and growing in confidence. At the end of the process is a state where the existance of God is beyond question. "
Yet that's uncannily similar to the process you can also go through with fooling yourself, or brainwashing.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time I've wanted prayer to work, I think back to the Bible where Jesus performed viable, observable miracles, and further, told his disciples that anyone with the faith of a mustard seed would have the power to move mountains. He showed his disciples how to walk on water if they had faith.
Based on those stories, I concluded that either the Bible was incorrect in the truth of those stories, or that no person that I have ever met or heard of has any faith, because I've never seen, heard of, or witnessed a viable, observable, repeatable miracle from anyone alive today.
Certainly no prayer I ever prayed was answered with any real knowledge, power, ability, or sign. After 20 + years of trying something and getting no results, it seemed rational to realize calling Santa Clause a different name and expecting magic presents to appear from your list is silly.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet that's uncannily similar to the process you can also go through with fooling yourself, or brainwashing.
I was going to say the same thing, but didn't want to be accused of hyperbole with the brainwashing mention, but since it's already out there I'll add a "me too."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Hyperbole, maybe a little bit. But if I was going to brainwash someone, those steps would be part of the process.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet that's uncannily similar to the process you can also go through with fooling yourself, or brainwashing.
I was going to say the same thing, but didn't want to be accused of hyperbole with the brainwashing mention, but since it's already out there I'll add a "me too."
A tentative "thirded".
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Heh. Hyperbole, maybe a little bit. But if I was going to brainwash someone, those steps would be part of the process.
Mentioning brainwashing is almost like mentioning Hitler - you automatically get dismissed, even if there is an apt comparison, so I refrained.
I do think it is important to note that a person can be convinced of the truth of a proposition (regardless of its actual truth) through repetitive activities which are designed specifically to reinforce said truth. We call it brainwashing when done to others for nefarious purposes but the mechanism is by no means available exclusively in such circumstances.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Goal at the end of a life of prayer and sincere worship is the absolute knowledge of God's existence, then it would seem that having that knowledge and that intimate relationship is a worthy goal, and one of which God approves.
If that is the case, that God WANTS people to be sure of his existence, and know about him, why is it so obscure and difficult? Why all the hiding and inconsistent experiences and nebulous information?
Certainly God has the power and ability to make himself known. If that's what He wants, why don't we all know Him?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That you urge me to experience based soley on subjective feelings that can easily be simulated in a lab without any supernatural aid. And as I've said, feelings, beliefs, are so easily wrong.
I'm sorry but those feelings have YET to be recreated in a lab, so that claim is false.
Ah, you need to read more Oliver Sacks. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That you urge me to experience based soley on subjective feelings that can easily be simulated in a lab without any supernatural aid. And as I've said, feelings, beliefs, are so easily wrong.
I'm sorry but those feelings have YET to be recreated in a lab, so that claim is false.
The claim is accurate, which is why I asked that question about electromagnetic fields.
quote:I'm taking part in a vanguard experiment on the physical sources of spiritual consciousness, the current work-in-progress of Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities. Simplified considerably, the idea goes like so: When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence."
Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use - Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit. Some subjects have emerged with Freudian interpretations - describing the presence as one's grandfather, for instance - while others, agnostics with more than a passing faith in UFOs, tell something that sounds more like a standard alien-abduction story.
And that's just one set of experiments that's eight years old.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That you urge me to experience based soley on subjective feelings that can easily be simulated in a lab without any supernatural aid. And as I've said, feelings, beliefs, are so easily wrong.
I'm sorry but those feelings have YET to be recreated in a lab, so that claim is false.
The claim is accurate, which is why I asked that question about electromagnetic fields.
quote:I'm taking part in a vanguard experiment on the physical sources of spiritual consciousness, the current work-in-progress of Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities. Simplified considerably, the idea goes like so: When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence."
Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use - Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit. Some subjects have emerged with Freudian interpretations - describing the presence as one's grandfather, for instance - while others, agnostics with more than a passing faith in UFOs, tell something that sounds more like a standard alien-abduction story.
And that's just one set of experiments that's eight years old.
While impressive, and very interesting that does not prove that all spiritual experiences can be reduced to a mere controled firing of brain synapsis.
I have already posited how many people could have spiritual experiences and yet have a divergence of opinion. Mistaking a normal experience to be something spiritual is nothing new, I myself have done it before.
MattP:
quote: 1. Given that you believe prayer is effective, imagine what it would be like if prayer really were ineffective, and the promptings you received from prayer were internally generated. Do you believe this discussion would be any different?
Yes, because I know what its like to pray and feel nothing. I also know what its like to mistake soemthing insignificant for something Godly.
quote: 2. If prayer works, why do some sincere prayers go unanswered? What conceivable purpose is there in dismissing earnest inquiry? Isn't there an implicit promise in "if ye lack wisdom..." that is being broken when a prayer goes unanswered?
As you yourself have noted there are many reasons that can void that contract. But there are also misconceptions about how God works. There is no time table, nor is there a guarantee as to how God gives to you that which you have asked for.
In my own case it was very wise of God to hold off on giving me any sort of answer quickly. There is a difference in being confident that God answers prayers and feeling entitled to an answer because God promises one and you really want one.
-----
As for brainwashing, I am pretty tired of that comment to be quite honest. To me its just as baseless as saying atheists couldn't possibly have any moral framework as they could only really care about themselves and their own feelings.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for brainwashing, I am pretty tired of that comment to be quite honest. To me its just as baseless as saying atheists couldn't possibly have any moral framework as they could only really care about themselves and their own feelings.
Why? We know what the mechanism for brainwashing looks like. What does the mechanism for having a moral framework look like?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, because I know what its like to pray and feel nothing. I also know what its like to mistake soemthing insignificant for something Godly.
How do you believe you can discern a pairing of those two phenomena from a genuine spiritual experience?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:While impressive, and very interesting that does not prove that all spiritual experiences can be reduced to a mere controled firing of brain synapsis.
I haven't said that it does. However, it does disprove your claim that these experiences have yet to be replicated in a lab setting.
It also exemplifies why I find personal spiritual experiences untrustworthy, and would be skeptical of any such experience I had.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, because I know what its like to pray and feel nothing. I also know what its like to mistake soemthing insignificant for something Godly.
How do you believe you can discern a pairing of those two phenomena from a genuine spiritual experience?
You keep asking me to lay out specific guidelines for something that I have already said is unlike any other experience to me. You counter with, "Well those feelings/experiences can be recreated in a lab," and I disagree. We are going in circles.
When it comes to the individual cultivating a relationship with God you have to use your own mental/spiritual faculties. Sure the scriptures provide guidelines as they are records of what God has actually said. But even outlines for finding God in the scriptures do not dabble so much in, "This is what it feels like," or "Common symptoms of spiritual communication are..."
I can describe experiencing God as an outpouring of happiness, but its not like any other happiness I usually encounter. It feels good, it feels comforting, it clarifies my thoughts and gives me purpose.
But that is not by any stretch of the word a blue print for what communique from God are. A person being told off by God won't feel happy during the chastisement.
Again the best I can offer are,
When it happens, it feels different from anything else; its familiar yet VERY distinct.
and
If the experience promotes happiness, and makes you want to be a better person then its likely from God. The experience should feel personal and not generic, as well as feeling purposeful.
Twinky: No, that experiment merely shows that people can be fooled into thinking they are having spiritual experiences. The fact plenty of people did not even mention God but thought of their dead grandparents, friends etc shows that its not as simple as you seem to believe. They didn't find some sort of button in the brain that explains everything. Not only that, I never made any mention of feeling like there was the presence of somebody else in the room with you.
And like I have said many times already, showing that people can have counterfeit spiritual experiences does not prove that legitimate ones are impossible.
Tom:
quote:Why? We know what the mechanism for brainwashing looks like.
Very well, but are you really willing to say that all those who join a religion as a result of a "spiritual experience" are more or less victims of brainwashing? Do I rub you as brainwashed?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While God will resist being put in a box, there are times when He will answer you directly with a strong impression that comes to your mind; and there are times when He leaves it to you to figure out that He wants you to use your own faculties and develop wisdom in the effort; and there are times when He may answer a request for Him to give you a specific sign. The sign should be something definitely out of the ordinary that is not apt to happen by chance. Also, it must be a situation where it is appropriate to ask for a sign--something you could not reasonably be expected to figure out for yourself. Also, allow God some leeway in the precise way inwhich He chooses to give the sign. In my experience, God has often shown a kindly sense of humor in the way He gives the requested sign--almost overdoing it emphatically, or finding some other way to take you by surprise while yet being unmistably an asnwer to your request.
It is stunning to realize there really is a God who will answer you, who cares enough about you to enter into your life and give you guidance. And when He shows you a friendly sense of humor, you feel a joyfulness and a personal bond growing with a real Person.
Having said that, let me re-emphasize that asking for a sign must never take the place of something it is your responsibility to do, like discern right from wrong, or figure out what is right from resources you have already been given (such as the Bible).
The Bible teaches me that angels who rebelled against God and were cast out of heaven dwell on this earth with us--and are now called devils. These devils are able to observe us unseen, have the experience of thousands of years of observing humans, and are absolutely obsessed with getting back at God by hurting us and leading us astray, perhaps supposing that if they can get enough humans to join them, God will either have to forgive them along with humans, or else kill all humanity along with them.
Because of the above, when I pray for a sign, I never do it out loud, or give any clue what I am thinking. Only God can read our minds; the devils are not allowed to--but they are very good at deducing things from our expressions, tone of voice, and behavior. I take precautions so that the devils will have less opportunity to fake an answer that would not be in my best interest.
Some of you may be able to receive and believe what I have said in this post. Perhaps you know these things by experience for yourself, as well. It is entirely true in my own experience. God does sometimes provide signs, and does so in a way that shows originality and often even humor--in a way that lets you know that Someone is there, responding to you.
But while this may be very compelling to those who have this experience, it is still subjective experience, and the Bible teaches us that only It, the canon of Scripture, can serve as the basis for our faith. That authority is supremely reliable, because it is verified by fulfilled Bible prophecy, written in the pages of history, proving that the Mind who Inspired the writing of the Bible can only be the Creator God who has the power to know the end from the beginning, and bring about the end He determines, regardless of what man and devils may do. Our senses can be deceived. Anything subjective can be mistaken. Only the Word of God can provide an objective basis for our faith.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When it happens, it feels different from anything else; its familiar yet VERY distinct.
Then you didn't answer my question. If THAT experience were generated internally, rather than by God, do you believe this discussion would be any different?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Very well, but are you really willing to say that all those who join a religion as a result of a "spiritual experience" are more or less victims of brainwashing?
The brainwashing comments were not directed at anyone who had a spiritual experience. They were directed at the specific technique of repetition and reinforcement that you mentioned in a previous post.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:When it happens, it feels different from anything else; its familiar yet VERY distinct.
Then you didn't answer my question. If THAT experience were generated internally, rather than by God, do you believe this discussion would be any different?
Well if we are assuming it was all internally generated of course it would be similar if not identical.
I might as well argue that if you had had a genuine experience from God and I had yet to have any sort of spiritual experience would our discussion be any different?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, that experiment merely shows that people can be fooled into thinking they are having spiritual experiences.
All it takes is one person to feel like they've had a "spiritual experience" in the course of this experiment for your assertion that "the feelings have not yet been replicated in a lab setting" to be falsified. According to the reseracher, there was a lot more than one such person.
quote: The fact plenty of people did not even mention God but thought of their dead grandparents, friends etc shows that its not as simple as you seem to believe.
In my opinion, it shows the similarity between what religious people call "spiritual experiences" and a variety of other human experiences that are not traditionally labelled "spiritual." I think it suggests that "spiritual experiences" lack the uniqueness you and many others attribute to them.
quote:And like I have said many times already, showing that people can have counterfeit spiritual experiences does not prove that legitimate ones are impossible.
For the second time, I'm not attempting to prove that, nor am I making that assertion and attempting to support it with evidence (a more likely proposition than proof, which is a word that ought to be used much less frequently in these discussions).
In my view, though, simple naturalistic explanations for these experiences make claims of "legitimate" ones less likely to be true.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:All it takes is one person to feel like they've had a "spiritual experience" in the course of this experiment for your assertion that "the feelings have not yet been replicated in a lab setting" to be falsified. According to the reseracher, there was a lot more than one such person.
I have already said that counterfeit experiences are entirely possible, I've even gone so far as stating that God can communicate with somebody and they can still misunderstand.
I am skeptical that what these people in the experiment experienced are identical to what I have felt. Obviously I cannot prove it either way unless they put me on the table and do the same experiment.
quote:In my opinion, it shows the similarity between what religious people call "spiritual experiences" and a variety of other human experiences that are not traditionally labelled "spiritual." I think it suggests that "spiritual experiences" lack the uniqueness you and many others attribute to them.
To me it does the opposite, it shows me a stark difference in what I call a spiritual experience and what they are calling a spiritual experience.
quote: In my view, though, simple naturalistic explanations for these experiences make claims of "legitimate" ones less likely to be true.
I can agree with this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I might as well argue that if you had had a genuine experience from God and I had yet to have any sort of spiritual experience would our discussion be any different?
The point is that any wholly internal experience of God is indistinguishable from an identical internal experience not of God. Your faith seems to rest on the belief that these experiences cannot possibly be generated internally.
At some point, even if the cause of these experiences were outside your brain, they must interface with your brain for you to be able to consider their meaning, remember them, communicate them, and take action on them. Is it that much of a stretch that the causal spark of these experiences might also exist within your brain?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:At some point, even if the cause of these experiences were outside your brain, they must interface with your brain for you to be able to consider their meaning, remember them, communicate them, and take action on them. Is it that much of a stretch that the causal spark of these experiences might also exist within your brain?
No, but I don't believe that to be the case. Taking all the other events of my life into account, that explanation is just not correct to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: All it takes is one person to feel like they've had a "spiritual experience" in the course of this experiment for your assertion that "the feelings have not yet been replicated in a lab setting" to be falsified.
I don't think that's true. Just because someone describes their experience as "a spiritual experience" doesn't mean that their feelings were anything close to what another person also describes as "a spiritual experience." The term is way too broad. I would describe both eating really good chocolate and kissing as "sensual experiences" but one certainly isn't replicating the other.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taking all the other events of my life into account, that explanation is just not correct to me.
And do you examine each of those events (even the seemingly meaningless ones) with a sober contemplation of cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and the extraordinary ability of your mind to recognize patterns and relationships where none actually exist?
This sort of skeptical inquiry seems extremely rare amongst my religious friends. I know one person who's primary "proof" for the veracity of his faith is that he came across a person who he only knew by name in a city of 200,000 during a religious mission. He put the odds of that encounter at 1 in 200,000 and states that figure every time he recounts the story.
First, the person was an adult male in his 40s, which would account for something less than 1/5 of the population. He was also encountered on a busy street near his place of employment. It's still a pretty unlikely event, but it was nowhere near as unlikely as my friend wanted it to be. Getting struck by lightening, which has an actual probability of occurring to you at around 1 in 200,000 does happen, but few people believe it's a miracle when it happens to them.
By marking every supposed miraculous coincidence and "spiritual" feeling in the "plus" column and not even allowing a "minus" column, religion seems to be a one-way street by which one can convince oneself and fellow travelers of the truth of a notion for which there is no real evidence. Like a murder trial where only evidence for the defense is permitted, even those that leave the faith don't show possible errors in the theology, rather those people are considered to have simply "lost their testimony."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: He put the odds of that encounter at 1 in 200,000 and states that figure every time he recounts the story.
Well, just remind him that we live in a country with 300,000,000 people. So, statistically, if something has 1 in 1,000,000 odds, it's happened to around 300 people.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: All it takes is one person to feel like they've had a "spiritual experience" in the course of this experiment for your assertion that "the feelings have not yet been replicated in a lab setting" to be falsified.
I don't think that's true. Just because someone describes their experience as "a spiritual experience" doesn't mean that their feelings were anything close to what another person also describes as "a spiritual experience." The term is way too broad.
In the experiment I linked, the responses were broad as well: subjects generally reported having spiritual experiences that reflected their individual religious backgrounds.
The assertion was that the feelings associated with a personal spiritual experience have yet to be replicated in a lab. Clearly, the feelings associated with the personal spiritual experiences of at least some of those 900+ people have been replicated in a lab, which falsifies the assertion. As BlackBlade noted, though, to determine whether the feelings he personally associates with spiritual experiences have been replicated in a lab, he would have to try the experiment himself... and even that might not answer the question.
The trouble is, the "my spiritual experiences aren't like that" rejoinder makes it extremely easy for theists to write off all of the experiments done in this vein as inapplicable to whatever their personal brand of "spiritual experience" happens to be. I think that begs an analogy to the god of the gaps.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my sticking points is that we are willing to give God so much slack, when it makes absolutely zero sense to do so.
If you expect your child to do something, you obviously need to make it clear to them what you want them to do. You can't stand in the back room and mumble into a pillow, and then expect the child to understand you.
If your boss pointed at a desk and threw brick though the window, you wouldn't know if he wanted you to organize it, file the papers, repair the wobbly leg, move it to a better location, donate it to charity, sit there yourself... It's horrible communication. Only a crazy person would work in that kind of office.
Yet we seem to think it's right and normal that an all powerful being, who we presume has our best interests at heart, who we presume wants to have a meaningful relationship with us, refuses to ever give us a clear answer, allows us to wander blindly, allows most of us to go astray completely, allows us access to countless contradictory directions - none of which we can be sure did or didn't come from Him, and then will reward or punish us - for eternity - based on these actions.
If you came into work, and there were thousands of post-it notes with various directions all over the office, each of your co-workers told you different things that you were supposed to be doing, and your boss was nowhere to be seen - although occasionally while you were working a loud boom or flash of light would momentarily distract you, how could you ever do your job? Why would you keep working there?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taking all the other events of my life into account, that explanation is just not correct to me.
And do you examine each of those events (even the seemingly meaningless ones) with a sober contemplation of cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and the extraordinary ability of your mind to recognize patterns and relationships where none actually exist?
This sort of skeptical inquiry seems extremely rare amongst my religious friends. I know one person who's primary "proof" for the veracity of his faith is that he came across a person who he only knew by name in a city of 200,000 during a religious mission. He put the odds of that encounter at 1 in 200,000 and states that figure every time he recounts the story.
First, the person was an adult male in his 40s, which would account for something less than 1/5 of the population. He was also encountered on a busy street near his place of employment. It's still a pretty unlikely event, but it was nowhere near as unlikely as my friend wanted it to be. Getting struck by lightening, which has an actual probability of occurring to you at around 1 in 200,000 does happen, but few people believe it's a miracle when it happens to them.
By marking every supposed miraculous coincidence and "spiritual" feeling in the "plus" column and not even allowing a "minus" column, religion seems to be a one-way street by which one can convince oneself and fellow travelers of the truth of a notion for which there is no real evidence. Like a murder trial where only evidence for the defense is permitted, even those that leave the faith don't show possible errors in the theology, rather those people are considered to have simply "lost their testimony."
I've yet to encounter an idea much less a group where no matter how right they were EVERYONE agreed with it. If 6 million Mormons all left the church right now, I would seriously consider the reason for such a huge exodus, but that by itself would not persuade me that what I believe is wrong.
And you are wrong that religious conversion is a one way street. I taught a woman who no matter what we tried simply did not get a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon, nor could she attend church on a regular basis. I didn't have an answer for her as to why she was getting nothing. All I could suggest was that she evaluate anything in her life that could be making communication impossible but I didn't call her a sinner for asking politely to not continue with the discussions.
As far as I am concerned its up to God to explain his actions to each individual, not me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you expect your child to do something, you obviously need to make it clear to them what you want them to do.
This is not always true. There are many times where a parent wants a child to do something, but wants the child to choose to do it, without having to be told to.
I don't think God's intentions are to get us to do exactly what He wants us to do. He is not like a boss at work, trying to get work done. Rather, I think it is more about getting us to be the sorts of people that He would like us to be. And that means what we do can sometimes matter less than why we do it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is not always true. There are many times where a parent wants a child to do something, but wants the child to choose to do it, without having to be told to.
These parents do communicate clearly to their children outside of these specific circumstances, right? And aren't the choices the parents want children to make in these circumstances based on what they've learned from their prior clear communication?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hope most parents want their child to make decisions based not just upon what those parents explicitly told that child, but also upon what the child has observed for himself or herself.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but I can't observe God. The complaint is that God is vague in his interactions with the physical world to the point that it's difficult to argue convincingly that he's actually there unless you're talking to someone that already agrees with you.
You seem to be equating the absolute absence of God in the lives of his unbelieving children with the occasional reluctance of an otherwise attentive parent to provide guidance in specific situations.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, why should we believe that your experiences are different?
We have your word, and the words of all the others.
Each of you says essentially the same thing. And when they sound the same to an outside observer, have the same effects, and can in fact be simulated in a lab, what is one supposed to ocnclude?
What would you conclude if this was the evidence presented in some other, non-religious psychological thing?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you are wrong that religious conversion is a one way street.
The evidential process is what I'm referring to. Every time you label a particular experience "God" you increase your evidentiary support of God, while you allow no consideration to subtract from that evidence. The best you can do, (and this is rare, in my experience) is to decide after the fact that perhaps one of those "spiritual" experiences wasn't spiritual after all, usually because of interference from the real world such as when a friend's sexually abusive father was called by inspiration to be an LDS Bishop where he served for several years before being reported.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
