Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

So let's see some examples of experience of the supernatural accompanied by the methodology which confirms that said experiences are indeed ones of the supernatural.

And while you're about it you may as well ask him why everyone else's experiences of different supernatural "somethings" entirely are false but his is correct. He'll never answer either of course, but hey...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So let's see some examples of experience of the supernatural accompanied by the methodology which confirms that said experiences are indeed ones of the supernatural.

I cannot give you an experience Shaker, No one can.
In terms of the methodology one has to ask if there is a complete natural (but not naturalistic) explanation. If there is not then the experience stands.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Experience of the supernatural would do it.

And how would you know that it is something supernatural that you are experiencing?



[/quote]I'm not sure we can assume naturalism as you seem to.
[/quote]

I have assumed no such thing. However, I don't assume supernaturalism either as you appear to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

And while you're about it you may as well ask him why everyone else's experiences of different supernatural "somethings" entirely are false but his is correct. He'll never answer either of course, but hey...

You deliberately misrepresent me when you say I say others supernatural experiences ''entirely are false''. That has never been my position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And how would you know that it is something supernatural that you are experiencing?



I'm not sure we can assume naturalism as you seem to.


I have assumed no such thing. However, I don't assume supernaturalism either as you appear to.

Fair enough.

As I have said we need to separate experience from the analysis of the experience.
Babies and toddlers experience without knowing what it is but the knowledge comes later with a language framework.

If an experience is not adequately covered by the linguistic framework of naturalism but fits with that of religion then we can ''know'' that one is having a religious experience.

[Shaker]

If an experience is not adequately covered by the linguistic framework of naturalism but fits with that of religion then we can ''know'' that one is having a religious experience.

That's begging the question - assuming from the off the truth of religion and religious experience without even a sniff of a methodology in which to do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's begging the question - assuming from the off the truth of religion and religious experience without even a sniff of a methodology in which to do so.

I think you are taking naturalism as the default position......on what warrant?

Secondly one doesn't assume it from the off a) because one doesn't have the linguistic apparatus and b) because I imply that one sees if it fits into natural experience first.

If anything I am taking the naturalistic position as default on zero warrant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

That's begging the question - assuming from the off the truth of religion and religious experience without even a sniff of a methodology in which to do so.

I think you are taking naturalism as the default position......on what warrant?

Secondly one doesn't assume it from the off a) because one doesn't have the linguistic apparatus and b) because I imply that one sees if it fits into natural experience first.

If anything I am taking the naturalistic position as default on zero warrant.

You'll have spotted this yourself no doubt, but what ol' Percy Pantsonfire is asking you to do here is to justify your claiming of his straw man version of naturalism. Neither you nor anyone else does that of course, but he seems to be so invested now in the lie that he will not or cannot do the honest thing and back away from it.

[SqueakyVoice]

Fair enough.

As I have said we need to separate experience from the analysis of the experience.
Babies and toddlers experience without knowing what it is but the knowledge comes later with a language framework.

If an experience is not adequately covered by the linguistic framework of naturalism but fits with that of religion then we can ''know'' that one is having a religious experience.

"Not adequately covered by the linguistic framework of naturalism"?

Have you even the faintest idea how moronic that is? The ancient greeks didn't have a word for the colour blue. On that basis every time they looked at the sky, they were having a religious experience.

Words fail me. Oh look, I must be having a religious experience as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Not adequately covered by the linguistic framework of naturalism"?

Have you even the faintest idea how moronic that is? The ancient greeks didn't have a word for the colour blue. On that basis every time they looked at the sky, they were having a religious experience.

Words fail me. Oh look, I must be having a religious experience as well.

You are confusing the word words with the phrases linguistic framework.

Besides not having a word for Blue sounds a bit far fetched.

[Bubbles]

You are confusing the word words with the phrases linguistic framework.

Besides not having a word for Blue sounds a bit far fetched.

It's true, I looked it up and ended up starting a thread elsewhere

[Dicky Underpants]

I cannot give you an experience Shaker, No one can.
In terms of the methodology one has to ask if there is a complete natural (but not naturalistic) explanation. If there is not then the experience stands.

In which case, I experienced Brahman when I was 21. I don't know what the 'natural' explanation of this experience was, but looking back on it over the years, I'm sure it wasn't Brahman. If it was Brahman, how do I determine that my experience of 'ultimate reality' was less authentic than your experience, which is defined by completely different parameters? The fact that you have continued to believe that your experience conveyed something of the ultimate truth of things is neither here nor there. You may well have simply been reinforcing a delusion, simply because other people claim to have had such experiences in a similar religious context.

However, even in within similar religious contexts the experiences differ so markedly to be truly considered authoritative.

[jeremyp]

I cannot give you an experience Shaker, No one can.

He didn't ask you to give him an experience, he asked you to describe an example of an experience.

In terms of the methodology one has to ask if there is a complete natural (but not naturalistic) explanation. If there is not then the experience stands.

There's always a completely natural possible explanation and that is that the experience was imagined.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

There's always a completely natural possible explanation and that is that the experience was imagined.

Quite, but ooh any of the various non-divine explanations for the experience are sooo much less exciting than the notion that a universe-creating god had paid a personal visit so, um, best just to pretend that they don't exist eh?

You'd think that the bewildering multiplicity of other people who think they've had experiences every bit as deeply felt as yours about any number of different gods, spooks, ghouls and ghosties would give the "I've had an experience therefore the cause to which I attribute it must be true" merchants pause, but it seems not - as indeed should the worrying aspect that the cause these folks reach for is almost invariably the one that's culturally most proximate to them.

Funny that.   

[Dicky Underpants]

jeremy,

Quite, but ooh any of the various non-divine explanations for the experience are sooo much less exciting than the notion that a universe-creating god had paid a personal visit so, um, best just to pretend that they don't exist eh?

Very well summed up. I can't fully explain my personal visitation of 'Brahman', but I've no doubt that steeping myself in oriental mysticism and reading about experiences of this kind had something to do with it. At any rate, it did not prove to be particularly relevant to living my life after a year or two, and I eventually began to regard it as a purely physically determined phenomenon - some weird product of brain chemistry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

Very well summed up. I can't fully explain my personal visitation of 'Brahman', but I've no doubt that steeping myself in oriental mysticism and reading about experiences of this kind had something to do with it. At any rate, it did not prove to be particularly relevant to living my life after a year or two, and I eventually began to regard it as a purely physically determined phenomenon - some weird product of brain chemistry.

Yes, it's very odd isn't it. Given the many ways we can be fooled (or fool ourselves) into thinking even the most profound experiences of supposed divinities are properly attributed when they're not, why on earth would anyone just dismiss those various real world explanations in favour of a supernatural one for which there's no investigatory method of any kind? It's this, "I really, really think that god paid me a visit, therefore - um - god must have paid me a visit!" certainty that leaves me looking askance.

Then throw in the fact that the gods such people reach for are almost invariably the ones that just happen to be most culturally proximate. And then throw in that they'll often try to support their confidence with an argumentum ad populum ("lots of other people have had my experience too") oblivious not only to the fact of many more people "experiencing" different gods entirely, and to the workings of memetics - introduce to a long lost tribe any new religious belief and suddenly they'll start experiencing its gods too - and the whole thing looks shakier and shakier as a proposition.

I really think that, if I woke up tomorrow convinced that a god had looked in in the night, I'd want to exhaust every damned alternative explanation before thinking I was right about that. And yet here we see "I experienced god" stories of such casual certainty that you have to wonder if only people of a deeply credulous and incurious nature go for them.

Odd indeed.     

 

[BeRational]

So we are agreed then, a spacesuit and a supply of breathable  gaseous life sustaining non poisonous air, then we are good to go?

Until you need food or drink.

So good to go for a few hours

[Sebastian Toe]

Until you need food or drink.

So good to go for a few hours

You can go three days without water and three weeks without food so plenty of time to get down to the shops.

[BeRational]

You can go three days without water and three weeks without food so plenty of time to get down to the shops.

No shops no food no animals no plants. All dead

[Sebastian Toe]

No shops no food no animals no plants. All dead

You forgot the super massive secret bunker where there are shops a plenty. Stores to last for centuries seemingly.

[Leonard James]

I really think that, if I woke up tomorrow convinced that a god had looked in in the night, I'd want to exhaust every damned alternative explanation before thinking I was right about that. And yet here we see "I experienced god" stories of such casual certainty that you have to wonder if only people of a deeply credulous and incurious nature go for them.

Odd indeed.     

 

Which is why I say that "God", if he really wants to convince us that he exists, will have to not only do something which breaks all natural laws, but also let everybody know when he is going to do it.

Personal contact is a non-starter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Dicky,

Yes, it's very odd isn't it. Given the many ways we can be fooled (or fool ourselves) into thinking even the most profound experiences of supposed divinities are properly attributed when they're not, why on earth would anyone just dismiss those various real world explanations in favour of a supernatural one for which there's no investigatory method of any kind? It's this, "I really, really think that god paid me a visit, therefore - um - god must have paid me a visit!" certainty that leaves me looking askance.

Then throw in the fact that the gods such people reach for are almost invariably the ones that just happen to be most culturally proximate. And then throw in that they'll often try to support their confidence with an argumentum ad populum ("lots of other people have had my experience too") oblivious not only to the fact of many more people "experiencing" different gods entirely, and to the workings of memetics - introduce to a long lost tribe any new religious belief and suddenly they'll start experiencing its gods too - and the whole thing looks shakier and shakier as a proposition.

I really think that, if I woke up tomorrow convinced that a god had looked in in the night, I'd want to exhaust every damned alternative explanation before thinking I was right about that. And yet here we see "I experienced god" stories of such casual certainty that you have to wonder if only people of a deeply credulous and incurious nature go for them.

Odd indeed.     

 

A fine exposition of your own beliefs, well done.

I see you are peddling the old memetics schitick as a blind for merely stating the bleeding obvious.

[Dicky Underpants]

I really think that, if I woke up tomorrow convinced that a god had looked in in the night, I'd want to exhaust every damned alternative explanation before thinking I was right about that. And yet here we see "I experienced god" stories of such casual certainty that you have to wonder if only people of a deeply credulous and incurious nature go for them.

Odd indeed.     

 

I basically agree, blue, though at one time I would have thought there were 'many paths to God' and any strange experience was grist to the mill of sustaining a belief in the divine. There are many people who feel the lack of ultimate meaning in their lives very keenly (and I was one of them), and it took me a long time to realise that because some people have a desire to feel that they are of ultimate significance, this desire must apodeictically (lovely word) have its fulfilment somewhere.
I'm certain Vlad hasn't grasped this, for all his talk about your 'stating the bleeding obvious'. Can't help thinking that phenomenology - let alone epistemology - are quite his thing somehow, for all his references to academic philosophy. I do just wish he'd learn to distinguish between the spelling of the possessive adjective, 2nd person <your>, and the contracted form of 'you are' - <you're>, though.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Where has Hope gone?

A whole thread of his own to reveal a new way of looking at the world and still we are kept waiting.

[Hope]

Where has Hope gone?

A whole thread of his own to reveal a new way of looking at the world and still we are kept waiting.

And, as I've said several times before, you'll be waiting for the same length of time as I and others will be waiting for the answer to my companion question about evidence that a naturalistic approach is the only valid approach to reality.  Its tantamount to you discussing the validity of an orange, whilst I and others debate ther validity of a cow.  The two issues don't match up with each other.