Religions have succeeded

[Sriram]

Sriram,
 

The “experience” might have “nothing to do with ones concepts or ideas or even beliefs” but the moment the person who had the experience reaches for an explanation for it that involves a god then that has everything to do with “ones concepts or ideas or even beliefs”.

Yes. That's exactly what I said earlier in reply to Dicky Underpants.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I remember having conversations with Wigginhall, erstwhile of this parish and much missed, about the drive people have to justify their belief in a god with rational reasons. On this I am reminded of Alan/Alien and his 5 reasons for believing in god, all of which seemed like rationalisations and nothing to do with his belief.

There's something similar going on when people use terms that when challenged on, they deny really apply. The problem is that if you don't try and f the ineffable, there really is nothing to say about it.

I think the rational part is if a person can see a net benefit, they might think the idea and practices are worth exploring further.

Also, if someone asks you the question about why you hold a particular belief, you feel obliged to communicate some kind of response. If as you practice your beliefs and incorporate them into your daily life, your family including children want some explanations or reasons for why you prioritise this over spending time with them doing something else, you have to articulate a response and yes it may well be an imperfect or not well-thought our response, but refusing to respond may be more damaging to relationships than a partial, somewhat incoherent response.

Plus, if you need the consent or support of the state to practice your beliefs due to bureaucracy, you have to come up with some kind of response as to why it's important. A lot of the reasons you might come up with seem to relate to abstract concepts such as dignity, respect, identity etc , which would be difficult to define or even incoherent, but the terms still have meaning for you even if they are not easy to define.

If I said why should we care or even talk about someone else's dignity or identity if really it's all in their head, the response would probably be we should care because it means something to them and that it has an impact on their emotional, mental and physical health and therefore has an impact on wider society and interactions between people in society. I'd say the same principle applies to religious ideas. We have to talk about it because religious identity has an impact on society.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Yes. That's exactly what I said earlier in reply to Dicky Underpants.

Where did you say that and, if you did, why have you now said something different?

Oh, and why have you just ignored every rebuttal I've given you?

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Where did you say that and, if you did, why have you now said something different?

Oh, and why have you just ignored every rebuttal I've given you?

I have clarified quite clealy that the experience of 'God' is one thing and our concepts and philosophies are another.   I'll search for my post to Dicky and let you know. I have said the same above in post 749 to VG.

[Nearly Sane]

I have clarified quite clealy that the experience of 'God' is one thing and our concepts and philosophies are another.   I'll search for my post to Dicky and let you know. I have said the same above in post 749 to VG.

You are essentially saying your experience cannot be talked about coherently.

[Sriram]

You are essentially saying your experience cannot be talked about coherently.

They can be talked about with people who have the same experience. But to explain it rationally to others in terms of known physical realities, is not possible.

We have to speculate, draw analogies and so on...to build some sort of a coherent philosophical idea.

[Nearly Sane]

They can be talked about with people who have the same experience. But to explain it rationally to others in terms of known physical realities, is not possible.

We have to speculate, draw analogies and so on...to build some sort of a coherent philosophical idea.

You have no idea that anyone has had the same experience since you rule out using  concepts to discuss it, and that applies to speculation and analogies. You are contradicting yourself continually on this.

[Sriram]

You have no idea that anyone has had the same experience since you rule out using  concepts to discuss it, and that applies to speculation and analogies. You are contradicting yourself continually on this.

I have discussed this for many years with lots of people.  I know what I am talking about. Don't get into a tizzy about it....please.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I have clarified quite clealy that the experience of 'God' is one thing and our concepts and philosophies are another.   I'll search for my post to Dicky and let you know. I have said the same above in post 749 to VG.

But you’re still implying an “experience of 'God'” as being, well, an “experience of 'God'” rather than as just an episode of some sort for which “god” is a convenient but entirely unjustified explanation. If someone wants to tell us they had an emotional experience of some sort then fine, but the moment you stumble into “But when we experience him it is more as a subtle inner presence. This is the personal God that some people experience. Describing this presence becomes difficult and therefore most people take recourse to religious imagery and traditional deities” etc as you did you hit the quicksand. What “god”? What “presence”?

You’re also still stuck with your contradiction of using terms to “understand” a god that at the same time is you tell us “beyond understanding”. You need to make up your mind here: are you claiming a god about whom something can reasonably be said, or a god about whom nothing can reasonably be said? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I appreciate that you are simply expressing your thoughts, as I am. I know that the debate seems to have moved on to a discussion of natural evils(e.g. tsunamis, cancers) and I leave others to deal with this. My position, which I quite accept is different to yours, is that part of my moral framework is that, ideally, everyone should be responsible for their actions, and if there were a god who has moral standing, then that should also apply to him/her. As I see it, God is supposed to have created us. He was the one who decided to give us free will. He was the one who created the potential within us to do bad things as well as good things. Therefore He has ultimate responsibility for setting things up in this way. Unfortunately, in Christianity, it always seems that humanity gets the ultimate blame and God gets a free ride. The point about omnibenovolence is that Eden is supposed to have originally existed as a perfectly good place and that heaven, for those who make it there, is also a place of perfection. So, for me, the question remains, why did a so called omnibenovolent God see fit to make an imperfect earth and an imperfect set of humans in the first place, and why does He/She not take responsibility for His/Her actions?

Yes I would agree that such a God would have ultimate responsibility, even if that doesn't change my approach or religious beliefs.

If the scenario is that God gave humans the capacity to have a choice of responses rather than do as God wills - then God is ultimately responsible for giving humans the capacity for choice; and if we say that human choice is influenced by human desires and if God gave humans the capacity to have bad desires, God is responsible for giving them the capacity to have bad desires. In theory the moment they form the intent to choose something bad based on their desire, God could intervene to negate that desire but chooses not to, therefore God is ultimately responsible for the outcome of that bad desire.

The difference in our position is I think that unlike you, I am comfortable with the idea that the capacity for choice is necessary for spiritual development and therefore I don't turn away from religion despite the evidence that the capacity for choice leads to sometimes horrific individual negative outcomes from those choices.  And I am comfortable with the idea that omnibenevolence relates to spiritually beneficial journeys rather than physically beneficial experiences. And I am comfortable or at least not repulsed by the idea that spiritual development could be a higher priority than physical well-being. Though as with most ideas, if the person who holds it has benign intent, then the outcome could potentially be tolerable or beneficial but if the person who holds it has bad intent then the idea could be used to inflict a lot of misery.

Presumably the idea of a Heaven is where people would not have those bad desires. Eden, on the other hand, if I understand the story correctly had a tree representing - not sure - bad desires? In Christianity I think they say it is a Tree of Knowledge - again presumably God created the tree so it all seems a metaphor that again makes God ultimately responsible. In the Quran it only says a tree of immortality. But the gist of the story is the same - I think the metaphor represents the idea that God gave an instruction, humans had the desire to not follow the instruction because God created both the capacity to have that desire to be disobedient and the capacity for choice, and so having followed their own desire they get kicked out of Eden to a place where they exercise choice and experience the positive and negative outcomes. And the story seems to be saying that the spiritual development humans have during their experiences while alive is judged by the entity with ultimate responsibility. You can certainly try to argue that you shouldn't be held accountable as you didn't choose to have any bad desires.

I don't take that as a literal interpretation where Eden and Heaven are actual places but other people may do. I am more interested in the ideas represented by the story - ideas about choice and consequences and justice. I like the idea of accountability, so I am not interested in arguing that I shouldn't be held accountable.

[Nearly Sane]

I have discussed this for many years with lots of people.  I know what I am talking about. Don't get into a tizzy about it....please.

I'm not at all in a tizzy. I find your appeal to your own authority very funny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

They can be talked about with people who have the same experience. But to explain it rationally to others in terms of known physical realities, is not possible.

We have to speculate, draw analogies and so on...to build some sort of a coherent philosophical idea.

How do you know that anyone else has “had the same experience” as you and, worse yet, how do you know that any one of the countless explanations for these experiences people reach for (animal spirits for example) is any more or less likely than any other? 

I have discussed this for many years with lots of people.  I know what I am talking about. Don't get into a tizzy about it....please.

No-one is in a “tizzy”, and your claim to know what you’re talking about is undermined by the inherent contradictions and failures in reasoning for the claims you make.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

But you’re still implying an “experience of 'God'” as being, well, an “experience of 'God'” rather than as just an episode of some sort for which “god” is a convenient but entirely unjustified explanation. If someone wants to tell us they had an emotional experience of some sort then fine, but the moment you stumble into “But when we experience him it is more as a subtle inner presence. This is the personal God that some people experience. Describing this presence becomes difficult and therefore most people take recourse to religious imagery and traditional deities” etc as you did you hit the quicksand. What “god”? What “presence”?

You’re also still stuck with your contradiction of using terms to “understand” a god that at the same time is you tell us “beyond understanding”. You need to make up your mind here: are you claiming a god about whom something can reasonably be said, or a god about whom nothing can reasonably be said?

The point is that...once we have the experience of the inner presence ....we don't bother about concepts anymore. You are just happy letting that presence dominate your life. The feeling of fulfillment is immense and most problems get sorted too.

Philosophies and ideas are just by the way. Something to satisfy the intellectual urge...nothing more. The experience is everything. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You have no idea that anyone has had the same experience since you rule out using  concepts to discuss it, and that applies to speculation and analogies. You are contradicting yourself continually on this.

I think I understand what Sriram is saying, though obviously I can't know for sure if I understand his point.

I think he is saying you can discuss and connect with people by discussing experiences and ideas even if the ideas can only be partial explorations or even if you have no way of knowing if the other person really gets what you are trying to convey - all you have is partial explorations and imperfect language to represent feelings and ideas that might resonate with others.

I have had many enjoyable discussions about God too on that basis. I don't decide not to engage in enjoyable discussion just because there are limitations to the ideas.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

How do you know that anyone else has “had the same experience” as you and, worse yet, how do you know that any one of the countless explanations for these experiences people reach for (animal spirits for example) is any more or less likely than any other? 

No-one is in a “tizzy”, and your claim to know what you’re talking about is undermined by the inherent contradictions and failures in reasoning for the claims you make.

I am trying to explain to you that your attempt to understand it rationally is a waste of time.  There is no contradiction.

From the experience it passes on to faith and.... in some people who are intellectually inclined....to philosophical speculation.  The experience is the real thing.

[Nearly Sane]

I think I understand what Sriram is saying, though obviously I can't know for sure if I understand his point.

I think he is saying you can discuss and connect with people by discussing experiences and ideas even if the ideas can only be partial explorations or even if you have no way of knowing if the other person really gets what you are trying to convey - all you have is partial explorations and imperfect language to represent feelings and ideas that might resonate with others.

I have had many enjoyable discussions about God too on that basis. I don't decide not to engage in enjoyable discussion just because there are limitations to the ideas.

Except he's saying that you cannot use concepts to do so. It reminds me of what Frank Zappa said about writing about music is like dancing about architecture. He doesn't want people who disagree with him to use what he says to show why it is logically incoherent.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I am trying to explain to you that your attempt to understand it rationally is a waste of time.  There is no contradiction.

From the experience it passes on to faith and.... in some people who are intellectually inclined....to philosophical speculation.  The experience is the real thing.

Yes I would agree with that. I don't know what I actually experienced, but it doesn't matter because whatever it was it led to faith. Trying to articulate it or understand your faith rationally can be seen as a waste of time but it can also be seen as an interesting journey where you can change your views and interpretations many times, and where the journey can strengthen or weaken your faith at different times and depending on the circumstances of your life. And of course you can lose your faith as well.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Except he's saying that you cannot use concepts to do so. It reminds me of what Frank Zappa said about writing about music is like dancing about architecture. He doesn't want people who disagree with him to use what he says to show why it is logically incoherent.

I think he is saying you can't use concepts to rationally explain your experience or why it led to your faith, but you can use concepts to try to explain the religious and philosophical exploration of your faith once you realise you have faith.

The concept of the omnis is for your articulation of your faith to others but it doesn't justify your faith. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The point is that...once we have the experience of the inner presence ....

FFS! What “inner presence” would that be? People have subjective “experiences” sometimes when something feels as though it’s objectively real. Calling that a “presence” means there must be something to be present rather than just something that’s strongly imagined to be present.   

…we don't bother about concepts anymore. You are just happy letting that presence dominate your life. The feeling of fulfillment is immense and most problems get sorted too.

Of course people “bother about concepts”. Gods are concepts, and people who think they’ve encountered them bother about them very much.   

Philosophies and ideas are just by the way. Something to satisfy the intellectual urge...nothing more. The experience is everything.

Why are you not comprehending what’s being said to you here? The “experience” may be “everything” but the moment you overreach from the subjective to the objective (“presence”, “encounter” etc) you’re in all sorts of trouble.

Try to understand the difference here between an “experience” and a narrative attempted to explain it.     

I am trying to explain to you that your attempt to understand it rationally is a waste of time.  There is no contradiction.

If you want to assert both a god “beyond all understanding” and in the same breath a god you understand to be possessed of the “omnis” (for example) then you  have a major contradiction.

From the experience it passes on to faith and.... in some people who are intellectually inclined....to philosophical speculation.  The experience is the real thing.

What does “the real thing” even mean here? A chemical rush that just feels as though there was an actual “presence”? An actual presence? What? 

[Nearly Sane]

I think he is saying you can't use concepts to rationally explain your experience or why it led to your faith, but you can use concepts to try to explain the religious and philosophical exploration of your faith once you realise you have faith.

The concept of the omnis is for your articulation of your faith to others but it doesn't justify your faith.

  Which is simply begging the question. If you state that you cannot he challenged on the logical coherence of your position by those who disagree with it, you make discussion pointless.
 

[Sriram]

Sriram,

FFS! What “inner presence” would that be? People have subjective “experiences” sometimes when something feels as though it’s objectively real. Calling that a “presence” means there must be something to be present rather than just something that’s strongly imagined to be present.   

Of course people “bother about concepts”. Gods are concepts, and people who think they’ve encountered them bother about them very much.   

Why are you not comprehending what’s being said to you here? The “experience” may be “everything” but the moment you overreach from the subjective to the objective (“presence”, “encounter” etc) you’re in all sorts of trouble.

Try to understand the difference here between an “experience” and a narrative attempted to explain it.     



If you want to assert both a god “beyond all understanding” and in the same breath a god you understand to be possessed of the “omnis” (for example) then you  have a major contradiction.

What does “the real thing” even mean here? A chemical rush that just feels as though there was an actual “presence”? An actual presence? What?

Forget it Blue....   We both will only be repeating ourselves endlessly...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

  Which is simply begging the question. If you state that you cannot he challenged on the logical coherence of your position by those who disagree with it, you make discussion pointless.

Sriram will have to answer on whether he is saying you can't be challenged. I assume he would not be on this forum if he had a problem with being challenged.

I read it as you can be challenged but challenges don't affect his faith position because you didn't arrive at faith through an articulation of concepts. I thought he was saying that's just the reality of holding a belief... until the day you stop holding that belief I suppose.   

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram will have to answer on whether he is saying you can't be challenged. I assume he would not be on this forum if he had a problem with being challenged.

I read it as you can be challenged but challenges don't affect his faith position because you didn't arrive at faith through an articulation of concepts. I thought he was saying that's just the reality of holding a belief... until the day you stop holding that belief I suppose.

Read his reply #780

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I understand the caution about relying on emotion, whether it is about gods or moral values. As I got older I guess I just trusted myself more to utilise them in a way that was beneficial as I came to appreciate the benefits of emotional connections, and alternative value systems from the ones I previously employed.

I just don't think I can choose to feel an emotion about God. My experience was that I didn't believe and I opened the Quran because i was bored and wanted to get some enjoyment out of pointing out to my Muslim boyfriend (now husband) how silly it all was as he had introduced the topic. And I read a couple of lines and felt an emotional connection that I hadn't felt before based on the words in the book. I felt the emotion and that later prompted my inclination to explore the ideas further, both intellectually and emotionally. By intellectually, I don't mean by conducting repeatable, testable experiments, though I have no objection to people employing that approach in their lives and only selecting moral values based on their conclusions about objective, repeatable, testable data. By 'intellectual' I just mean by thinking about how applying the idea of God could have a qualitative effect on my behaviour and the outcomes of that behaviour.

I can't say my belief was strengthened based on Sufi practice but I like some of the Sufi ideas and philosophy. 

I find a lot of the ideas and ideals of other people have strengthened my belief e.g. the ideas and explanations by scholars of Quranic Arabic and people who have studied the language, religion, the traditional stories about the life and character of Prophet Muhammad and his followers and the Caliphs who came after Prophet Muhammad, and the ideas of family and friends based on what they have read, understood, experienced, and practised.

And where would you say the Divine was in your experience in terms of your emotions and ideas and enthusiasm for ideals?

[Nearly Sane]

And where would you say the Divine was in your experience in terms of your emotions and ideas and enthusiasm for ideals?

What do you mean by 'the Divine'?