Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consciousness particularly seems to be an area of particular interest to you which we would all have to acknowledge is an area very much still unexplored and not at all well understood, by science or anyone else.
Theists do acknowledge this. In fact it is one of the current main focuses of the "god of the gaps" tactic that theists generally employ.
The history of discourse with theism is that theists will gravitate towards areas that we do not understand, and fill those gaps in our knowledge with their fantastical nonsense. In the early days of our civilization this was things like Thunder, Lightening, Epileptic Ceasures, Disease, Crop Failures, locust plagues and so forth.
Things that we simply did not fully understand, or understand at all, were fuel for the fire of theistic nonsense. They were expressions of gods displeasure, or satanic possession or all sorts of hog wash.
But as we came to understand these things more and more the theists were forced to retreat. The conversation between theism and modernity has only EVER been one directional. The steady erosion of the former by the latter. There has never been a question for which the best answer was once scientific, for which the best answer now comes from religion. The converse however is clear.
Yet much of the universe still remains a mystery to us and so the theists still have fuel for their fire. They likely always will. They will find something understood and declare to you that the _only possible_ way to explain it is to invoke references to a god or deity.
"Consciousness" is just one of the current hobby horses they focus on for this but in general the record will never change, will keep getting played, and the same canard they have tried to pull on you for centuries continues regardless. "You do not know? Then god!".
Yes. 'consciousness' the current flavour of the month for arguing for 'God' is an area that is very interesting and needs further investigation, and is getting it. A lot of work has been going on and evidence has been found to suggest that a number of experiences that we think of as religious can be traced to things happening to various bits of the brain.
Mystic argued that this may be so, but that might only mean that 'consciousness-God' is using that method to contact with us, or it is the effect on the brain of it doing so.
While this smacks of 'explaining away' unwanted evidence, it is of course possible and I haven't heard of any sound disproof of it. What is logic, though is to say that both explanations are possible, so it is incorrect to say for definite that one is believably the right explanation.
Skeptics will of course, prefer the lobe - pressure argument (I do myself). Theists will prefer the God -effect explanation. That is ok, so long as neither pretends that the proven answer is yet to hand. There is a lot of work to do yet.
Mystic argued that this may be so, but that might only mean that 'consciousness-God' is using that method to contact with us, or it is the effect on the brain of it doing so.
Yes that is another common theist trick. Accept the science but simply declare that the science is just how god is doing it. Evolution Theists like Kenneth Miller do this. They fully accept Evolution but think that evolution is just the method by which god created life.
The trick being played here essentially is to avoid substantiating the existence of god in any way whatsoever... but instead keep ones definition of god congruent with what we have observed to be true. "X is true? Sure, because X is how goddunnit". Completely unsubstantiated but completely infalsifiable too... which is just where "faith" wants it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
it is of course possible and I haven't heard of any sound disproof of it.
Nor should you. Unsubstantiated assertion requires no disproving. That which is asserted without evidence is to be dismissed without evidence. "Possible" it is of course. But that does not make it credible, likely, substantiated or useful. Or anything other than outright fantasy.
For me it is not about "preferring" one explanation over another, as you put it, but rather it is about acknowleding the simple fact that one proposition has at least some substantiation. The other, none at all.
That's how I see it, too. Another theist fallacy is this 'believe or not' thing. Consistently the weight of evidence is ignored and indeed sometimes evidence is dismissed or overlooked altogether as irrelevant, and it is you either believe it or you don't, which brings us back to the 'blind faith' thing.
Your point also touches on this thorny '100% thing.(I do find modes of theist-think fascinating ) Though often denied, theist apologetics often uses this requirement of 100% disproof of some god -claim or other before they will accept it, which is actually the reverse -side of this possible god -explanation gap for god argument.
Any argument no matter how far -fetched, if it cannot be disproved (at least to the extent where to continue to deny it would make the denier look stupid -but that is another trait or tactic), then possible God is kept on the table and that is enough to justify faith.
Mr5150 is right that theists do not rely on blind faith (unless there is no alternative to hand), but I see that they do use any possible -God explanation as a peg to hang the religious Faith on.
The meditating mind is in contact with our reality unfettered by the "neat little boxes" we normally compartmentalize it into because of our senses.
Not really no - we still parse reality in much the same ways when meditating. We just train our consciousness to deal with that in a slightly different way - through a training of our moment to moment attentions and preconceptions about what it means to be the thinker of our thoughts - or as you put it "The participant and the observer simultaneously".
But this is not really an unfettering as such and all the same limitations still apply in many way. You are merely attempting to make meditation seem more mystical and magical and special than it actually is in order to construct a kind of "guru pedastal" from which to assert whatever you will off the back of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
There was an immediate sense of oneness with everything . . . but I didn't lose my sense of self or objective perspective . . I was participant and observer simultaneously.
There is nothing surprising - or special - in this either. Certainly nothing to justify the decades you spent - since that experience - trying to validate your personal decision to call that experience "god" - or to suggest that you had encountered any kind of consciousness external to yourself.
The feeling you describe is a well known one. Difficult - maybe even impossible - to attain for many people - but well known and common all the same. We can perturb the brain chemically or physically and cause the exact same experience you descibe quite easily. Many street drugs do it. The "God Chair" does it.
Through meditation all you are doing is perturbing the brain. That _some_ people doing that therefore have the same experience we can bring about chameically or physically - is not the least bit surprising.
I have little doubt that if you actually did have the experience you describe - and are not just making it up to bolster your theistic agenda - that it was genuinely moving for you. Most people who have it are not left unaffected by it. Meditation has greatly affected who and what I am too. It changes people in different ways. It makes me calmer and less likely to be agressive or insulting to others - more calm and patient - with more empathy and investment in human morality and ethics - but clearly it does not affect everyone in that way.
But that emotional investment you have in the experience has compromised your objectivity in parsing it or evaluating it. You do not want to accept that the experience is relatively common place. There is nothing _actually_ special about it - and despite how personally moving it is - is actually in many ways mundane.
Evidence for a god however it is not - and the only reason you have for thinking you encountered a consciousness outside or above your own - or somehow linked with the consciousness of others - is that you simply want it to be so. A lot.
In the rest of your post you talk about using science to support your explanations. But you have not done that. At all. You have simply allocated the evidence you have not got to the realm of "dark energy" which science knows nearly nothing about - and that is about it.
So rather than use science to support your claims - you are using science to find ways to brush any requirement to support your claims under a very large carpet of human ignorance. You seek out areas we are completely ignorant about - and put your "explanations" there.
She may not be too familiar with your thesis, Mystic, but she has got it pretty much right on the way you put it together, because no doubt she has seen it before. It is the standard method of assembling validation of the god belief, whether it was indoctrinated from childhood, sold through one or more evangelical ploy or trick or, as in your case, through the mystical experience (1) which is real enough, but, if you had been a Muslim it would be the Quran you are pushing as the summit of human religious thought or, if in the east, Krishna or Buddhism.
The particular religion you are arguing for, indeed the particular god you arguing for, is indeed where the wishfulness comes in. I know that you disagree and argue (with no success yet) that 'God' is obvious, provable and undeniable. We for our part, see clearly that this is simply the old, old theist fallacy of starting with God - belief and then rummaging around for anything that might help to make it look believable.
I think it my duty to Poppyhead to say that, despite your denial, I think she had it dead right.
(1) Though many here (like Cruithne) might well want to see a post or link to your story of the experience you had.
Oh, I'm familiar with Mystics Philosophical theology, just because you can't see it doesn't make it real. (well, quite frankly it does when presenting)
If only I can explain how I "feel" it. Unsharable in the logical sense but if I happen to be so lucky as to stumble upon the same subconscious plain as Mystic I might get a glimpsed explanation of God through some sort of mental rush like you get during the first snow or after hiking up a large mountain or s?x. I call it the "euphoric definition" as I've heard it before. I have read my share of Robert Anton Wilson. lol
Still, in hindsight, it's a "wish" to be proven to oneself, which inevitably leads to convincing others or what I like to call sharing. lol Which is all good when done with like minds but make for a terrible debate with a sever lack of material. Leaving others to think you're bonkers.
Maybe Mystic should just seek out the downtrodden and start a following like the rest. Amazing what your ears will accept when facing hardship. Mysticology has a nice ring. But all in all no different as you've stated from all the other BS one will hear when discussing a God like creature whose created a totality of existence.
Just a lengthy version with manipulative wordage. "If you have no prior knowledge, you probably won't get it" "If you are stupid, don't bother reading on" etc. etc. etc. Writing skills apart, a good read for someone looking maybe, but a terrible argument for existence. IMO, of course.
just because you can't see it doesn't make it real. I presume we can read as just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't real.
I have sometimes wondered whether a rush of the Mystical would make a theist of me. I have read of people who have experienced what certainly sounds like what hit Mystic, but they did not always get the idea that it was contact with an invisible creative cosmic mind.
I know that Mystic was an atheist before he had the godrush. Atheists come in all sises and I do not know what sort of atheist Mystic was or what thinking he had done about the various questions before he got this experience.
I would like to think that, if it hit me, I would remain pretty much as I am other than having experienced the Mystical experience. I am sure that I have experience the deconversion 'release' even though I was never a theist, and it was letting go of the need to wonder about whether Biblegod was real. that was the release, not giving up belief.
just because you can't see it doesn't make it real. I presume we can read as just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't real.
I have sometimes wondered whether a rush of the Mystical would make a theist of me. I have read of people who have experienced what certainly sounds like what hit Mystic, but they did not always get the idea that it was contact with an invisible creative cosmic mind.
I know that Mystic was an atheist before he had the godrush. Atheists come in all sises and I do not know what sort of atheist Mystic was or what thinking he had done about the various questions before he got this experience.
I would like to think that, if it hit me, I would remain pretty much as I am other than having experienced the Mystical experience. I am sure that I have experience the deconversion 'release' even though I was never a theist, and it was letting go of the need to wonder about whether Biblegod was real. that was the release, not giving up belief.
Indeed as I have. The ability to just say, "I don't know" what lies out there beyond my knowledge therefore I can leave it be. I'm an atheist because I don't need to make it up.
That is my wonderful epiphany.
I agree with you though, atheists come in all shapes and from what I've read, with the amount of meditating Mystic was into I am surprised it took so long to have the God fantasy. Humans are wonderfully complex creatures, we are amazing and can do amazing things. And that, I know, I have seen, and can prove to an audience. Unfortunately our amazing ability often comes with a price. As I watched the news yesterday to see that a man had axed his 13 year old son to death because in his mind he was a demon. For some it's an epiphany which they think enriches their lives and is harmless enough, for others it can be a very harmful mental illness capable of killing others. It's a fine line, IMO. I take it with a bit of caution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njyZRt_DGtU
Last edited by PoppySead; 01-10-2014 at 11:35 AM..
Yes. 'consciousness' the current flavour of the month for arguing for 'God' is an area that is very interesting and needs further investigation, and is getting it. A lot of work has been going on and evidence has been found to suggest that a number of experiences that we think of as religious can be traced to things happening to various bits of the brain.
Mystic argued that this may be so, but that might only mean that 'consciousness-God' is using that method to contact with us, or it is the effect on the brain of it doing so.
While this smacks of 'explaining away' unwanted evidence, it is of course possible and I haven't heard of any sound disproof of it. What is logic, though is to say that both explanations are possible, so it is incorrect to say for definite that one is believably the right explanation.
Skeptics will of course, prefer the lobe - pressure argument (I do myself). Theists will prefer the God -effect explanation. That is ok, so long as neither pretends that the proven answer is yet to hand. There is a lot of work to do yet.
Thanks, Arq. This is a reasonable explanation of the current situation. We do know that the brain responds to measurable (but weak) EM fields and that these are frequently interpreted by the brain as a "presence" or out-of-body experiences. Skeptics see this as brain malfunction or misinterpreting of random noise or firing precipitated by the EM fields in specific parts of the brain. I see it as evidence that the brain is capable of responding to field energies . . . including the universal field that establishes our reality. Since 95% of the field energy/mass that establishes our reality is dark or unmeasurable . . . I believe it is the actual field our brain is supposed to respond to during devout prayer or meditation. I see the types of responses from the measurable fields (less than 5%) as mere indicators of the actual responses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Though often denied, theist apologetics often uses this requirement of 100% disproof of some god -claim or other before they will accept it, which is actually the reverse -side of this possible god -explanation gap for god argument. 
Leaving others to think you're bonkers. 
