The Sunday Assembly - Surprising BBC?

[Sebastian Toe]

Oh yes And I'm pretty sure many on here have felt "God coming on or in" and have sought distraction ........since we are all human beings.

...and how does someone ' beat back' the supreme being and creator of all that there is?
With a stick maybe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How would anyone recognise that event?

I think probably in all sorts of ways including "protesting too loudly".

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I find myself as someone who is convinced that that whom I have experienced is Christ against those who are convinced that that whom i have experienced is not Christ.

On this one again I see.

Last time this came up you said that we are like scientific instruments, built to detect God.

I Pointed out the scientific instruments that detect things are calibrated against known standards. However, there is no God standard, as no one can point to an actual genuine experience of an objectively true God. Many claims but that is all they are at the moment. You talk about your experience fitting a religious narrative/ linguistic framework but that is all it is,  but so what. Your claims for a God experience match other claims for a God experience, but not one of the claims has got beyond the claims stage.

In other words how can you be certain that your God detector hasn't been calibrated with iron Pyrite?

[Gonnagle]

Dearie Me,

Well I think Harrowby's link was very interesting, much more interesting than discussing Vlads favourite pin up boy or militant atheism ( what ever militant atheism is )

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On this one again I see.

Last time this came up you said that we are like scientific instruments, built to detect God.

I Pointed out the scientific instruments that detect things are calibrated against known standards. However, there is no God standard, as no one can point to an actual genuine experience of an objectively true God. Many claims but that is all they are at the moment. You talk about your experience fitting a religious narrative/ linguistic framework but that is all it is,  but so what. Your claims for a God experience match other claims for a God experience, but not one of the claims has got beyond the claims stage.

In other words how can you be certain that your God detector hasn't been calibrated with iron Pyrite?

As far as I know our eyes are not quality controlled before we come off the production line and yet are UHD ready.
On the other hand I agree that ones God harmonisation apparatus needs repairing and , praise be, there is one capable of that.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

As far as I know our eyes are not quality controlled before we come off the production line and yet are UHD ready.

You are right about the eyes. What's all this about a blind spot! A bit of QC would have been handy. Intelligent Design, I think not.

On the other hand I agree that ones God harmonisation apparatus needs repairing

So, not only are our eyes faulty, but our God-o-meter is up the spout as well! Shoddy manufacturing if ever I saw it.

and , praise be, there is one capable of that.

Or maybe you need to call Rogue Traders?

Anyway, any chance of an answer to the actual points I made?

Also, not sure the "praise be" type stuff suits you, I certainly don't normally associate it with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are right about the eyes. What's all this about a blind spot! Intelligent Design, I think not.

So not only are our eyes faulty, but our God-o-meter is as well!

Anyway, any chance of an answer to the question?

I think you are stretching metaphors here. All I am doing is challenging your notion of assumed incompetence in detection to the point of non detection.

You are just touting another version of assumed psychological incompetence.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I think you are stretching metaphors here. All I am doing is challenging your notion of assumed incompetence in detection to the point of non detection.

You are just touting another version of assumed psychological incompetence.

No, more a matter of logical incompetence. I asked you how you have calibrated your God-o-meter?

Why not for once engage with the actual point made. You drew the analogy with a detector, and I pointed out that in the normal run of things you calibrate it against a known standard. However, you don't have a known standard so how can you be sure you are measuring what you think your are?

Your point is actually extremely arrogant in that we should just take your word for it. I don't think any one denies you your experience, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to show how your experience of God leads to evidence of an objectively true God? It's a simple enough question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, more a matter of logical incompetence. I asked you how you have calibrated your God-o-meter?

Why not for once engage with the actual point made. You drew the analogy with a detector, and I pointed out that in the normal run of things you calibrate it against a known standard. However, you don't have a known standard so how can you be sure you are measuring what you think your are?

Your point is actually extremely arrogant in that we should just take your word for it. I don't think any one denies you your experience, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to show how your experience of God leads to evidence of an objectively true God? It's a simple enough question.

Nobody is expecting you to take any bodies word for anything.
I am an existentialist and don't believe that second hand is always first best.

Neither do I see humans as totally mechanical.

So I don't expect you to take my word for it since you have to have your own experience of God. We are all God detectors with a spanner in the works.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Nobody is expecting you to take any bodies word for anything.
I am an existentialist and don't believe that second hand is always first best.

Neither do I see humans as totally mechanical.

So I don't expect you to take my word for it since you have to have your own experience of God. We are all God detectors with a spanner in the works.

I don't have such an experience. Since a god possessed of the omins and a desire to be in a relationship with me would know how to achive this experience, it kind of shoots you in both feet I would have thought.

Why the spanner in the works? Surely not perfect then.

No doubt you will come back with something along the lines of "he respects your choice to not be in a relationship with him etc, etc..

This doesn't wash though as being made aware (to an extent that you can't deny their existence) is not the same a forcing you to be in a relationship with them.  i.e. that person would be some kind of gnostic antitheist.

To reiterate, the main issue the spanner in the works. Why would a prefect, many Omni God create such a situation.

If he is perfect then it must mean a universe in which some people don't believe in him is better than one were everyone does. Otherwise he would have created it differently. Why then the need to proselytise? If a universe in which unbelievers exist is perfect then our should be celebrated.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have such an experience. Since a god possessed of the omins and a desire to be in a relationship with me would know how to achive this experience, it kind of shoots you in both feet I would have thought.

Would you desire a relationship with God though?.............I think that's the point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Would you desire a relationship with God though?.............I think that's the point.

Would you desire a pet dragon called Percy who eats Ritz crackers and likes having his tummy tickled?

I think that's the point.

If you disagree though, doubtless you'll feel the need to tell us what on earth desiring something to be true has anything whatsoever to do with it actually being true.

Won't you?

[Hope]

If you disagree though, doubtless you'll feel the need to tell us what on earth desiring something to be true has anything whatsoever to do with it actually being true.

Won't you?

I suspect that many Christians, and other religious people would answer you by saying that it has nothing to do with desire, but with experience.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

I don't think so Vlad.  A person is either, by nature, inclined to have spiritual experiences or not.

I think perhaps you'll need to tell us what you mean by "spiritual experiences" before we consider whether anyone actually has them rather than just thinks they've had them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

I suspect that many Christians, and other religious people would answer you by saying that it has nothing to do with desire, but with experience.

First, you need to tell Vlad that rather than me - he's the one who introduced the idea of desiring something to be relevant here.

Second, you still have the mountain to climb of explaining why thinking you've "experienced" something means you have actually experienced it, rather than made a false attribution of cause.   

[Hope]

Second, you still have the mountain to climb of explaining why thinking you've "experienced" something means you have actually experienced it, rather than made a false attribution of cause.

OK, I have experienced a number of things during my life, from a stroke to trekking in the Himalayas.  I would say that the experiences I have had of God at work, both in my life and the lives of others are comparabe in nature and quality to the first two experiences I mentioned.

Not quite sure why you feel that it is a "mountain to climb of explaining". 

[Sebastian Toe]

I think probably in all sorts of ways including "protesting too loudly".

WTF does that mean?

Describe some of the other ways ......

[Sebastian Toe]

Would you desire a relationship with God though?

Who wouldn't?

How do you actually achieve it though?

[SweetPea]

The thing is Blue, spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the brain. It's nought to do with 'thinking'. Thinking actually inhibits a spiritual experience.

Let go (of everything.... all thoughts) and..... "Be still* and know that I am God".

*in every sense...

[Maeght]

The thing is Blue, spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the brain. It's nought to do with 'thinking'. Thinking actually inhibits a spiritual experience.

Let go (of everything.... all thoughts) and..... "Be still* and know that I am God".

*in every sense...

How can we experience anything without the brain's involvement?

[Brownie]

Brownie,

I think perhaps you'll need to tell us what you mean by "spiritual experiences" before we consider whether anyone actually has them rather than just thinks they've had them.

............................

Or believes they've had them .  I'd settle for either, never having had such an experience, as long as it's just a gentle feeling.  A peaceful sense of wonderment.

No voices or visions thank you, I'd think I was psychotic!

[torridon]

Neatly side stepped.

All claims of esoteric experience are baffling to those who do not have them.

Do you think people could be committed to not having them?
I know someone who described God trying to come into his life and him beating God back.

Another side step I think.

Maybe the person you are describing in this latest swerve is you, disguised ?

Is there anything about this experience that is not explicable in naturalistic terms ?  The explanation in terms of a supernatural deity trying unsuccessfully to get through to someone casts god as a bit of fail. Perhaps he wasn't trying hard enough.  So much for omnipotence. 

The explanation is psychological terms is not so hard to swallow though.  All humans have divided, conflicted minds. We have a war going on between left brain and right brain; we have tensions between instincts and conscious thought processes; we have inherited all manner of prejudicial baggage and peculiarities from our cultural upbringing and our DNA.  Maybe this 'god trying to come in' is just religious-speak for describing the tension between parts of the individual that sought spiritual experience, and the rational individual that couldn't swallow all the supernatural beliefs that appeared to be required to go with it.

Maybe that is why Buddhism has found fertile ground amongst the disenchanted of western christendom who struggle to believe the ancient supernatural claims of Abrahamic faiths in a modern context. It offers a route to spiritual experience without paying an entrance fee in terms of proscriptive beliefs which jar the rational mind.

[torridon]

The thing is Blue, spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the brain. It's nought to do with 'thinking'. Thinking actually inhibits a spiritual experience.

I don't think that is quite right SP.  All experience is delivered by the brain, that is what brains do.  If you stub your toe, it is the brain that fabricates the sensation of pain, and recasts it as if it were coming from your toe. If you enjoy looking upon a beautiful landscape, all that beauty, all that sense of vision, is not out there, it is in your brain, in the occipital lobe to be more precise.  Having said that, I take your point about thinking inhibiting experience. I enjoy the Faure Requiem, but if I sat there thinking about parliamentary democracy all through the performance, I wouldn't enjoy it so much, clearly. We have busy minds, and sometimes it is good to still them.

[Hope]

How can we experience anything without the brain's involvement?

Not sure that anyone has said anything about anything 'without the brain's involvement', Maeght.  SweetPea highlihted the fact that these experiences have nothing to do with the 'thinking' part of the brain.  For instance, do we feel the pain of a bee-sting by thinking about it, or does it bypass that section?

What about the many involuntary actions one's body performs - the brain is still involved without any thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

OK, I have experienced a number of things during my life, from a stroke to trekking in the Himalayas.  I would say that the experiences I have had of God at work, both in my life and the lives of others are comparabe in nature and quality to the first two experiences I mentioned.

As I assume that when you saw these things a little man wearing a hat saying "God" didn't appear presumably what you meant to say here was something like, "the experiences I have had that, for want of a better explanation, I have attributed to something I call "God"" etc.

Which is fair enough - countless people at countless times in countless places have attributed supernatural explanations to phenomena for which they had no better explanations: Thor and thunder, fighting dragons and the aurora borealis etc.

Whether they or you are correct in your various attributions of cause is a different matter entirely of course, but the practice is just a manifestation of our explanation-seeking nature. 

Not quite sure why you feel that it is a "mountain to climb of explaining".

Because if you expect anyone else to think you're right abut your attribution of cause, then so far only a strongly held personal opinion on the matter takes you not one inch down that path.

Or, to put it another way, you offer nothing for the rest of us qualitatively to distinguish your narrative from those of the Thor-ist or the dragon-ist.