should not God be able to be defined in an individual's terms? is not the relationship between Man and God a personal one of introspection, revelation and redemption?
as for me, for want of a better word, i am my own God. but then again i am not a christian.
Hey good idea. I am God. My dog is God. Pee-wee Herman is God. Non-existence is God. How else can I redefine God?
Hey, I'm going to spread a little God on my sandwhich. What do I mean by God? Mayonnaise of course, duh!
I know, God can mean anything right? How about this sentence;
God, God God God God God God God God, God!
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Hey good idea. I am God. My dog is God. Pee-wee Herman is God. Non-existence is God. How else can I redefine God?
Hey, I'm going to spread a little God on my sandwhich. What do I mean by God? Mayonnaise of course, duh!
I know, God can mean anything right? How about this sentence;
God, God God God God God God God God, God!
having a little trouble with my concept ryan. so instead of asking for clarification, you mock me? you know as i know that is not what i was talking about. but you will feign ignorance and say you were only joking, right?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Actually, physicists have been intrigued by this question for years, the possibility that universe came from a quantum transition from nothing (pure space-time).
Quantum inflation, (the idea that virtual particles can get trapped in a false vacuum to create the early stages of an expanding universe) is indeed a valid hypothesis for the origins of the universe.
It is still not a completely free lunch. The fluctuating particles and anti-particles may combine to have a net energy of zero, however it is not the complete absence of existence that people often imagine scientists are proposing the universe to have come from.
god is everywhere and everything..god is the universe..
this earth we are on is our mother..
mother earth..
all living on mother earth have a spirit..
treess, water, air, flowers, grass, all living beings have a spirit..
even rocks and a dry desert or a cloud delivering rain..
and humans are no better than other life forms..
a god, as in a bible version is not my style..
many religions have contorted learning of spirituality to fit their agendas..
as we all know more lives have been taken over religious blood shred than
all other wars combined..mankind has become off track from within ones
own soul..read about shamanism..
and yea a scientist should believe in mother earth/god the universe..
its all here..the answers..do i know the answers, no..
i do know its about loving everyone,everything and respect to all..
a hard concept to fully live by..
having a little trouble with my concept ryan. so instead of asking for clarification, you mock me? you know as i know that is not what i was talking about. but you will feign ignorance and say you were only joking, right?
It was kind of a joke, but you said we should be able to define God however we like. I heard yesterday that words change, and basically the definition is solely dependant on the person using it, that they should not have to use the dictionary definition, therefor;
Yellow, cranberry peaches fall thursday bludgeon baskets.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't see the use of the word "evil" in Lucy's post. I actually interpreted Lucy's statement as jest, but I guess you get what you expect when your reading text. No tone to hone, to get to the bone of the meaning, not which you apply as your own. Relax, sit back, and suck a tic-tac while you cut people slack and interpret with the bennefit of doubt before talking crap.
it was vaguely tongue in cheek, i got that, but it still expressed his views... which are basically that no good comes of religion and that its chief purpose is degradation. that is simply not true and i called him on it. he's quite capable of defending himself.
sounds like you're getting a little wound up. easy there killer... dont worry, you're not mad at me and don't have any feelings. you're just being flooded with hormones. so perhaps you need to sit back and relax until they subside. and THAT is me being condescending.
god is everywhere and everything..god is the universe..
this earth we are on is our mother..
mother earth..
all living on mother earth have a spirit..
treess, water, air, flowers, grass, all living beings have a spirit..
even rocks and a dry desert or a cloud delivering rain..
and humans are no better than other life forms..
a god, as in a bible version is not my style..
many religions have contorted learning of spirituality to fit their agendas..
as we all know more lives have been taken over religious blood shred than
all other wars combined..mankind has become off track from within ones
own soul..read about shamanism..
and yea a scientist should believe in mother earth/god the universe..
its all here..the answers..do i know the answers, no..
i do know its about loving everyone,everything and respect to all..
a hard concept to fully live by..
Sounds like you got all the answers. I don't have a spirit/soul though, I sold mine to Jeanie.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i dont think im doing a good job explaining god. im not making excuses for god that i will not extend to the universe, to me, they are essentially indistinguishable. god is simply a concept that helps me attempt to understand the unknowable, the impossibly abstract pieces of the puzzle that science itself admits it cannot understand. it is like the remainder, the loose ends. they fall under this concept and give me a sense of perspective that helps me to feel grounded when pondering the seemingly impossible odds that id be sitting here in this tiny little corner of a vast and incomprehensible universe.
and i see no reason to think that is a "huge improvement" over god (i dont really consider god The Creator). to me, it seems at best on equal footing. neither really advances any cause. they have value only in the subjective experience of the individual. some people are fine saying "we dont know, so let's talk about other things." those people make great scientists. other say "im not sure but i feel something about it" and those people tend to make great artists. we need both.
So your 'god' is a god of the gaps? It sounds like we could almost agree on this, since you don't consider god the creator, or by the sounds of it, attribute anything supernatural to god. You sound like you are at the same place as Einstein (never a bad place to be), with the word god representing the part of natural existence that created the universe. Am I understanding you better now?
it was vaguely tongue in cheek, i got that, but it still expressed her views... which are basically that no good comes of religion and that its chief purpose is degradation. that is simply not true and i called her on it. she's quite capable of defending herself.
sounds like you're getting a little wound up. easy there killer... dont worry, you're not mad at me and don't have any feelings. you're just being flooded with hormones. so perhaps you need to sit back and relax until they subside. and THAT is me being condescending.
Actually sounds like a pretty decent analysis. I don't agree with you though, and I don't agree with you saying that Lucy was wrong, that's just your opinion, as hard as you try to force it on someone.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So your 'god' is a god of the gaps? It sounds like we could almost agree on this, since you don't consider god the creator, or by the sounds of it, attribute anything supernatural to god. You sound like you are at the same place as Einstein (never a bad place to be), with the word god representing the part of natural existence that created the universe. Am I understanding you better now?
there was a brief period where i considered that perhaps God was just another word for the big bang.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So your 'god' is a god of the gaps? It sounds like we could almost agree on this, since you don't consider god the creator, or by the sounds of it, attribute anything supernatural to god. You sound like you are at the same place as Einstein (never a bad place to be), with the word god representing the part of natural existence that created the universe. Am I understanding you better now?
yeah, that sounds about right. i pray, but i suppose it's more like meditation. i dont pray for mom not to be sick anymore and expect it to happen. the god i believe in certainly does not meddle in human affairs. it's not a supernatural thing, more a principle of order. when i "pray" it's not for a magic result, it's more an internal look at my small place in this huge universe and how best to live in harmony within it.
Actually sounds like a pretty decent analysis. I don't agree with you though, and I don't agree with you saying that Lucy was wrong, that's just your opinion, as hard as you try to force it on someone.
hey, im not telling lucy he can't dislike religion or that he's wrong for finding it wrong for himself. im just saying it's not his place to condemn an entire institution for the actions of a small few. im on his side, when the religious people do use their beliefs to oppress and persecute people, i'd be right beside him to stop him. but id never for a minute think that they are all like that or that just becos i disagree with a few religious people's actions, the entire idea is corrupt. i think the united states fucks up a lot, doesn't mean that i think just becos the us has serious problems that the entire concept of democracy is corrupt and to be condemned.
likewise, i dont know whether or not you are actually an arrogantly condescending egomaniac, but i do know that your posts come off that way and thus i will challenge you on it.
hey, im not telling lucy he can't dislike religion or that he's wrong for finding it wrong for himself. im just saying it's not his place to condemn an entire institution for the actions of a small few. im on his side, when the religious people do use their beliefs to oppress and persecute people, i'd be right beside him to stop him. but id never for a minute think that they are all like that or that just becos i disagree with a few religious people's actions, the entire idea is corrupt. i think the united states fucks up a lot, doesn't mean that i think just becos the us has serious problems that the entire concept of democracy is corrupt and to be condemned.
likewise, i dont know whether or not you are actually an arrogantly condescending egomaniac, but i do know that your posts come off that way and thus i will challenge you on it.
I'd say religion is a viral concept.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think its a pretty different concept of God. I don't think its really comparable to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim idea of God. Still, I guess its not atheism, so it still counts as religious belief. Its just a matter of interpretation.
i preface this all with the fact i have not read this whole thread, not even close. that said.....just had to higlight the last point made here, b/c that IS it, isn't it? i do not find it surprising that many scientists believe in God, or a god, a concept of god/universe, whatever. it IS quite posssible to believe in science AND to have faith. i am more of a nature/universe thinker, but nonetheless.....i do think many highly intelligent people have faith in God, and i see nothing contridictory there. it IS all a matter of personal interpretation.
Wouldn't it be interesting to find out what people today mean when they say God, rather than having big logical, abstract and theoretical debates about a (fill in adjective) god and how it can/cannot work according to philosophies?
I have huge respect for religious experiences, or more to the point, the kind of experiences that are labelled as religious, and described through the concepts and language of particular religions. I am more interested in the core of the experience, what it may mean, and how it affects people.
I mean, it is pretty much beyond any doubt that there is something there that is the basis of religions. It isn't all about con-artists, power-grubbing individuals or insanity. (although there will of course be incidences of these as well)
Anyone else with me on this?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Wouldn't it be interesting to find out what people today mean when they say God, rather than having big logical, abstract and theoretical debates about a (fill in adjective) god and how it can/cannot work according to philosophies?
I have huge respect for religious experiences, or more to the point, the kind of experiences that are labelled as religious, and described through the concepts and language of particular religions. I am more interested in the core of the experience, what it may mean, and how it affects people.
I mean, it is pretty much beyond any doubt that there is something there that is the basis of religions. It isn't all about con-artists, power-grubbing individuals or insanity. (although there will of course be incidences of these as well)
Anyone else with me on this?
Peace
Dan
No
The doubt that there is significance in these experiences is the same doubt in alien abductions and so on. The brain is a tricky thing. IMO, taking experience alone as solid evidence is dangerously myopic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The notion of solid evidence isn't so much myopic as eyeless.
I'm with you on that, but I wouldn't say nothing is solid.
For example, when several scientists can implant RF transmitters and electrodes into a brain and radio-control the individuals actions and thoughts. I'd say that's solid evidence that the brain is responsible for actions and thoughts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The doubt that there is significance in these experiences is the same doubt in alien abductions and so on. The brain is a tricky thing. IMO, taking experience alone as solid evidence is dangerously myopic.
I am not talking about taking it as "solid and complete" evidence alone, I am talking about when we have a phenomenon described similarly by lots of different people, we should respect that more.
As regards religious experiences, I am all but certain that there is something going on at the core we don't (yet) understand, even if I generally disregard the dogma, doctrine and politics of religion. And I dont think it's respectful or even wise to disregard it as psychosis, hallucinations or the like.
Anyway, my point was that it's this core that is interesting. Not the trappings of different religions. And getting people to talk about what the core is and peel away the dogmas and whatnot we can get at what is there, even if it's only experiential evidence.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I am not talking about taking it as "solid and complete" evidence alone, I am talking about when we have a phenomenon described similarly by lots of different people, we should respect that more.
As regards religious experiences, I am all but certain that there is something going on at the core we don't (yet) understand, even if I generally disregard the dogma, doctrine and politics of religion. And I dont think it's respectful or even wise to disregard it as psychosis, hallucinations or the like.
Anyway, my point was that it's this core that is interesting. Not the trappings of different religions. And getting people to talk about what the core is and peel away the dogmas and whatnot we can get at what is there, even if it's only experiential evidence.
Peace
Dan
Well, from my perspective. I'm not really interested in what people feel as much as what is true. I've come to accept things aren't always the most ideal.
It's more than likely that religious experiences or alien abductions are just happening in our brains. Psychotic episodes are supposed to be quite common. They also change with the times, we have a lot of alien abductions now, whereas in the old world it was mostly spirits.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, from my perspective. I'm not really interested in what people feel as much as what is true. I've come to accept things aren't always the most ideal.
It's more than likely that religious experiences or alien abductions are just happening in our brains. Psychotic episodes are supposed to be quite common. They also change with the times, we have a lot of alien abductions now, whereas in the old world it was mostly spirits.
I'll read that link when time allows. Appreciate it.
But your final paragraph is also about the interpretations we assign to a phenomenon. My argument is more towards there being a basis from which the phenomena are interpreted. And I dont necessarily believe it to be mere hallucinations, and even so, maybe we then should upgrade our understanding of what hallucinations are.
But perhaps there is something about in that link. I'll get back to you when I have read it at some later time.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
OK, I read the link now.
Interesting I must say, and actually a pretty balanced article. But I must still go with my general objection towards neuroscience when it comes to the brain. Identifying patterns, and centers of various activity does not explain them. It's descriptive science, not necessarily causal. Or as the final paragraph of the article states:
"For all the tentative successes that scientists are scoring in their search for the biological bases of religious, spiritual and mystical experience, one mystery will surely lie forever beyond their grasp. They may trace a sense of transcendence to this bulge in our gray matter. And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of all——namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith."
It's very much a hen and egg problem. And precisely because "objective" and certain information will be hard to achieve on these subjects, I am open to hearing experiential data from people. When science can't resolve the causality (something it often can't, but rely on interpretation of correlation), I want to hear what real humans say they really experience, and if there seem to be central themes or aspects they all touch on, use it as experiential evidence that it happens.
You may be certain it's "only in our brains" there are things going on, but that is just an assumption. It's very much unresolved. Identifying active parts of the brain during religious experiences doesn't change that much. My assumption is that there is something to it outside of our brains, and feel fairly certain of that. And my assumption is based somewhat on personal experiences in that direction.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You may be certain it's "only in our brains" there are things going on, but that is just an assumption. It's very much unresolved. Identifying active parts of the brain during religious experiences doesn't change that much. My assumption is that there is something to it outside of our brains, and feel fairly certain of that. And my assumption is based somewhat on personal experiences in that direction.
OK, I read the link now.
Interesting I must say, and actually a pretty balanced article. But I must still go with my general objection towards neuroscience when it comes to the brain. Identifying patterns, and centers of various activity does not explain them. It's descriptive science, not necessarily causal. Or as the final paragraph of the article states:
"For all the tentative successes that scientists are scoring in their search for the biological bases of religious, spiritual and mystical experience, one mystery will surely lie forever beyond their grasp. They may trace a sense of transcendence to this bulge in our gray matter. And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of all——namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith."
I view it as a survival mechanism. If our species intuitively knew the truth about reality we would probably not have survived this long. Even with this spirituality and religion, we've found ourselves entangled in great wars, ironically in the name of spirituality. I think, or I hope we've evolved enough socially to dispell ourselves of these illusions.
It's very much a hen and egg problem. And precisely because "objective" and certain information will be hard to achieve on these subjects, I am open to hearing experiential data from people. When science can't resolve the causality (something it often can't, but rely on interpretation of correlation), I want to hear what real humans say they really experience, and if there seem to be central themes or aspects they all touch on, use it as experiential evidence that it happens.
You may be certain it's "only in our brains" there are things going on, but that is just an assumption. It's very much unresolved. Identifying active parts of the brain during religious experiences doesn't change that much. My assumption is that there is something to it outside of our brains, and feel fairly certain of that. And my assumption is based somewhat on personal experiences in that direction.
Peace
Dan
Actually, I find it hard to believe that the brain region is deciphering anything external. For waves of photons we have eyes, for waves of electrons we have ears, for solidity we have pressure sensitive skin, for taste we have tongues. But for this we only have a brain and no organ to collect information from the external world. On top of that there are roughly 6,000 different religions, and in the example of Buddhism and some Hindu sects, they do not believe in a God, but rather determinism, and they see the beauty in that. It's no doubt that when I think of the intricacy of the deterministic universe similar patterns would be present in my brain. I think it's awesome.
Now, if you believe experience alone is some kind of evidence. Then you must also consider the following as truths, aliens, ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns, demons, fairies, bigfoot, the lochness monster and the abominable snowman. That's just in our western culture, move into eastern cultures and you have a lot more experiences to account for.
Yet, if I told you the late Francis Crick appeared to me in my room last night and gave me answers to lifes greatest questions, and that transcendence means suicide at a vortex in Sedona. You likely wouldn't believe it, would you? So then how do you discriminate between true experiences and false experiences? My guess, like most people, you believe what you want, and disregard the rest.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Hey good idea. I am God. My dog is God. Pee-wee Herman is God. Non-existence is God. How else can I redefine God?
Hey, I'm going to spread a little God on my sandwhich. What do I mean by God? Mayonnaise of course, duh!
I know, God can mean anything right? How about this sentence;
God, God God God God God God God God, God!
having a little trouble with my concept ryan. so instead of asking for clarification, you mock me? you know as i know that is not what i was talking about. but you will feign ignorance and say you were only joking, right?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Quantum inflation, (the idea that virtual particles can get trapped in a false vacuum to create the early stages of an expanding universe) is indeed a valid hypothesis for the origins of the universe.
It is still not a completely free lunch. The fluctuating particles and anti-particles may combine to have a net energy of zero, however it is not the complete absence of existence that people often imagine scientists are proposing the universe to have come from.
this earth we are on is our mother..
mother earth..
all living on mother earth have a spirit..
treess, water, air, flowers, grass, all living beings have a spirit..
even rocks and a dry desert or a cloud delivering rain..
and humans are no better than other life forms..
a god, as in a bible version is not my style..
many religions have contorted learning of spirituality to fit their agendas..
as we all know more lives have been taken over religious blood shred than
all other wars combined..mankind has become off track from within ones
own soul..read about shamanism..
and yea a scientist should believe in mother earth/god the universe..
its all here..the answers..do i know the answers, no..
i do know its about loving everyone,everything and respect to all..
a hard concept to fully live by..
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
It was kind of a joke, but you said we should be able to define God however we like. I heard yesterday that words change, and basically the definition is solely dependant on the person using it, that they should not have to use the dictionary definition, therefor;
Yellow, cranberry peaches fall thursday bludgeon baskets.
it was vaguely tongue in cheek, i got that, but it still expressed his views... which are basically that no good comes of religion and that its chief purpose is degradation. that is simply not true and i called him on it. he's quite capable of defending himself.
sounds like you're getting a little wound up. easy there killer... dont worry, you're not mad at me and don't have any feelings. you're just being flooded with hormones. so perhaps you need to sit back and relax until they subside. and THAT is me being condescending.
Sounds like you got all the answers. I don't have a spirit/soul though, I sold mine to Jeanie.
So your 'god' is a god of the gaps? It sounds like we could almost agree on this, since you don't consider god the creator, or by the sounds of it, attribute anything supernatural to god. You sound like you are at the same place as Einstein (never a bad place to be), with the word god representing the part of natural existence that created the universe. Am I understanding you better now?
Actually sounds like a pretty decent analysis. I don't agree with you though, and I don't agree with you saying that Lucy was wrong, that's just your opinion, as hard as you try to force it on someone.
there was a brief period where i considered that perhaps God was just another word for the big bang.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah, that sounds about right. i pray, but i suppose it's more like meditation. i dont pray for mom not to be sick anymore and expect it to happen. the god i believe in certainly does not meddle in human affairs. it's not a supernatural thing, more a principle of order. when i "pray" it's not for a magic result, it's more an internal look at my small place in this huge universe and how best to live in harmony within it.
hey, im not telling lucy he can't dislike religion or that he's wrong for finding it wrong for himself. im just saying it's not his place to condemn an entire institution for the actions of a small few. im on his side, when the religious people do use their beliefs to oppress and persecute people, i'd be right beside him to stop him. but id never for a minute think that they are all like that or that just becos i disagree with a few religious people's actions, the entire idea is corrupt. i think the united states fucks up a lot, doesn't mean that i think just becos the us has serious problems that the entire concept of democracy is corrupt and to be condemned.
likewise, i dont know whether or not you are actually an arrogantly condescending egomaniac, but i do know that your posts come off that way and thus i will challenge you on it.
I'd say religion is a viral concept.
its prevalence would indicate it's molecular.
http://shoutfile.com/v/k8MebEru/Satan_Is_Dead
hahaha, Greenville, Mississippi. I had some good times in that town many moons ago.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i preface this all with the fact i have not read this whole thread, not even close.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I have huge respect for religious experiences, or more to the point, the kind of experiences that are labelled as religious, and described through the concepts and language of particular religions. I am more interested in the core of the experience, what it may mean, and how it affects people.
I mean, it is pretty much beyond any doubt that there is something there that is the basis of religions. It isn't all about con-artists, power-grubbing individuals or insanity. (although there will of course be incidences of these as well)
Anyone else with me on this?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
No
The doubt that there is significance in these experiences is the same doubt in alien abductions and so on. The brain is a tricky thing. IMO, taking experience alone as solid evidence is dangerously myopic.
Holy empirical verifiability, Batman!
http://www.evidencescience.org/projects/index.html#formal
The notion of solid evidence isn't so much myopic as eyeless.
I'm with you on that, but I wouldn't say nothing is solid.
For example, when several scientists can implant RF transmitters and electrodes into a brain and radio-control the individuals actions and thoughts. I'd say that's solid evidence that the brain is responsible for actions and thoughts.
As regards religious experiences, I am all but certain that there is something going on at the core we don't (yet) understand, even if I generally disregard the dogma, doctrine and politics of religion. And I dont think it's respectful or even wise to disregard it as psychosis, hallucinations or the like.
Anyway, my point was that it's this core that is interesting. Not the trappings of different religions. And getting people to talk about what the core is and peel away the dogmas and whatnot we can get at what is there, even if it's only experiential evidence.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well, from my perspective. I'm not really interested in what people feel as much as what is true. I've come to accept things aren't always the most ideal.
This article covers a lot of the research into religion and the brain
https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/e938e40271ec394c85256a4a00626175?OpenDocument&Click=
It's more than likely that religious experiences or alien abductions are just happening in our brains. Psychotic episodes are supposed to be quite common. They also change with the times, we have a lot of alien abductions now, whereas in the old world it was mostly spirits.
But your final paragraph is also about the interpretations we assign to a phenomenon. My argument is more towards there being a basis from which the phenomena are interpreted. And I dont necessarily believe it to be mere hallucinations, and even so, maybe we then should upgrade our understanding of what hallucinations are.
But perhaps there is something about in that link. I'll get back to you when I have read it at some later time.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Interesting I must say, and actually a pretty balanced article. But I must still go with my general objection towards neuroscience when it comes to the brain. Identifying patterns, and centers of various activity does not explain them. It's descriptive science, not necessarily causal. Or as the final paragraph of the article states:
"For all the tentative successes that scientists are scoring in their search for the biological bases of religious, spiritual and mystical experience, one mystery will surely lie forever beyond their grasp. They may trace a sense of transcendence to this bulge in our gray matter. And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of all——namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith."
It's very much a hen and egg problem. And precisely because "objective" and certain information will be hard to achieve on these subjects, I am open to hearing experiential data from people. When science can't resolve the causality (something it often can't, but rely on interpretation of correlation), I want to hear what real humans say they really experience, and if there seem to be central themes or aspects they all touch on, use it as experiential evidence that it happens.
You may be certain it's "only in our brains" there are things going on, but that is just an assumption. It's very much unresolved. Identifying active parts of the brain during religious experiences doesn't change that much. My assumption is that there is something to it outside of our brains, and feel fairly certain of that. And my assumption is based somewhat on personal experiences in that direction.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Nice post, PeaceDan.
Time (echo, echo, echo)...
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I view it as a survival mechanism. If our species intuitively knew the truth about reality we would probably not have survived this long. Even with this spirituality and religion, we've found ourselves entangled in great wars, ironically in the name of spirituality. I think, or I hope we've evolved enough socially to dispell ourselves of these illusions.
Actually, I find it hard to believe that the brain region is deciphering anything external. For waves of photons we have eyes, for waves of electrons we have ears, for solidity we have pressure sensitive skin, for taste we have tongues. But for this we only have a brain and no organ to collect information from the external world. On top of that there are roughly 6,000 different religions, and in the example of Buddhism and some Hindu sects, they do not believe in a God, but rather determinism, and they see the beauty in that. It's no doubt that when I think of the intricacy of the deterministic universe similar patterns would be present in my brain. I think it's awesome.
Now, if you believe experience alone is some kind of evidence. Then you must also consider the following as truths, aliens, ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns, demons, fairies, bigfoot, the lochness monster and the abominable snowman. That's just in our western culture, move into eastern cultures and you have a lot more experiences to account for.
Yet, if I told you the late Francis Crick appeared to me in my room last night and gave me answers to lifes greatest questions, and that transcendence means suicide at a vortex in Sedona. You likely wouldn't believe it, would you? So then how do you discriminate between true experiences and false experiences? My guess, like most people, you believe what you want, and disregard the rest.
A video you might find interesting...........
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I forgot my headphones today :(
This guy looks familiar though.