Religions have succeeded

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Read his reply #780

Yes read it again. Can you elaborate on your interpretation of his post. He said:

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.

I agree he can't know if other people had the exact same experience as him so perhaps it should be worded slightly differently.

I read that as him saying you can talk about your experience with other people who claim to have similar experiences and you can't rationally explain the experience or define what it was you experienced, but you can discuss ideas about spirituality/ gods/ the supernatural/ feelings/ sensations etc that came to both of you from having had an experience.

The reality/ your reality is your brain sensed and registered an experience. All you can discuss with people is whatever you perceive and interpret as your reality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

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

This is where we always get to when you run out of road - you just bail out.

Look, I've made some perfectly simple arguments that falsify your various statements. If I were you I'd either try to rebut them or, if I couldn't do that, I'd learn something from where I'd gone wrong. Why don't you?     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

Not sure what you mean by the Divine. If you mean God, I connected with the words on the page and it felt like the words captured my inner thoughts - the ones I don't express out loud. And that felt like there was something worth exploring in the book and that led to me thinking there was something worth exploring by trying the religious practices. And both reading the book and following the practices seemed to benefit me, based on the outcomes and experiences I got.

So to sum up, I interpreted that as something knew what was beneficial for me even if I didn't know what was beneficial for me. 

[Nearly Sane]

Yes read it again. Can you elaborate on your interpretation of his post. He said:

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.

I agree he can't know if other people had the exact same experience as him so perhaps it should be worded slightly differently.

I read that as him saying you can talk about your experience with other people who claim to have similar experiences and you can't rationally explain the experience or define what it was you experienced, but you can discuss ideas about spirituality/ gods/ the supernatural/ feelings/ sensations etc that came to both of you from having had an experience.

The reality/ your reality is your brain sensed and registered an experience. All you can discuss with people is whatever you perceive and interpret as your reality.

If they cannot be talked about with people who have not had the same experience, those that have had the same exerience being those that agree with Sriram, then he cannot be challenged in his views by those who do not.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If they cannot be talked about with people who have not had the same experience, those that have had the same exerience being those that agree with Sriram, then he cannot be challenged in his views by those who do not.

The experience can't be challenged - but isn't that true for all internal experiences?

I'm not sure how you would go abut challenging someone's internal experience. Their brains registered an experience that forms part of their reality and they can't really define it to you in order for you to challenge it. But you can challenge their interpretation of the experience.

I would say that the experience can't be talked with someone who hasn't claimed to have had a similar experience, but the interpretation can be talked about.

Talking about it might not change the interpretation the person takes away from it or alter their faith, but you can certainly talk about it. It might be a long discussion as no one is really sure what anyone else means by any of the terms they use for abstract concepts.     

[Nearly Sane]

The experience can't be challenged - but isn't that true for all internal experiences?

I'm not sure how you would go abut challenging someone's internal experience. Their brains registered an experience that forms part of their reality and they can't really define it to you in order for you to challenge it. But you can challenge their interpretation of the experience.

I would say that the experience can't be talked with someone who hasn't claimed to have had a similar experience, but the interpretation can be talked about.

Talking about it might not change the interpretation the person takes away from it or alter their faith, but you can certainly talk about it. It might be a long discussion as no one is really sure what anyone else means by any of the terms they use for abstract concepts.     

I disagree that Sriram is talking about the internal experience alone. And I don't think the challenges made here have been about the internal experience. Rather they have been about the logical contradiction of saying that people cannot challenge his use of explanatory language about the experience to point out issues with how that might relate to reality.

[Sriram]

When two mothers talk about loving their babies....how do we know that they are talking about the same thing? Maybe they are talking about two different 'loves' altogether......  Or maybe one of them is actually hating her baby but thinks it is love... and so on and so forth! 

That is ridiculous! This is what I call over intellectualizing. We think we are talking something very intelligent and intriguing but are really tying ourselves in knots.

Anyway...as I have said earlier.....  Please read my thread on Faith also.

Blind faith based on what someone else says is one thing. Real faith is different. It is based on real experience of an inner presence within ourselves. This faith gives rise to further beliefs and anthropomorphic imagery and so on.  In intellectually inclined people it would give rise to philosophical musings.

There is nothing to discuss here about this  because I cannot convince anyone here about the experience itself. That remains the domain of few people who have access to it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The experience has nothing to do with ones concepts or ideas or even beliefs. It is just an inner energy that neutralizes all of ones anxieties and even thoughts. 

If you really want to know more about it you could go through this link. Try at least the first two chapters...

https://sriramraot.wordpress.com/

Please message me separately if you want to discuss it.

I read Chapters 1-3. Though started skimming through the last part of Chapter 3. I like the way you wrote about your life. Reading about your life and spiritual journey was very interesting. Sparked some thoughts in my head and also got me seeing a few things from a different perspective. Thanks

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by 'the Divine'?

God.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I disagree that Sriram is talking about the internal experience alone. And I don't think the challenges made here have been about the internal experience. Rather they have been about the logical contradiction of saying that people cannot challenge his use of explanatory language about the experience to point out issues with how that might relate to reality.

Not sure what you mean. Which line of his reply #780 or the posts preceding are you referring to?

If we're discussing the supernatural, do you mean your reality, as opposed to his reality? How would we know what is reality in the context of such an experience? There are so many possibilities of what that experience could be.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure what you mean. Which line of his reply #780 or the posts preceding are you referring to?

If we're discussing the supernatural, do you mean your reality, as opposed to his reality? How would we know what is reality in the context of such an experience? There are so many possibilities of what that experience could be.

These lines
'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.'

[Sriram]

I read Chapters 1-3. Though started skimming through the last part of Chapter 3. I like the way you wrote about your life. Reading about your life and spiritual journey was very interesting. Sparked some thoughts in my head and also got me seeing a few things from a different perspective. Thanks

Thanks VG. Take care. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

These lines
'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.'

Ok. I read that as saying you can't explain the experience or your faith with reference to objectively agreed upon realities. If you could explain faith based on objectively agreed upon realities, it would stop being faith. So where is the logical contradiction?

In #749 Sriram wrote "But when we experience him it is more as a subtle inner presence". Do you agree he is talking about an inner experience? As it would be too wordy for theists to keep writing this over and over again, I think his short-hand here means he experienced something and attributed his experience as being God. 

I am not really getting what is illogical about saying you can't have clear definitions of an inner experience so rational explanations are going to be limited/ impossible because of this. Without clear, agreed definitions you're not going to make much progress on having a rational discussion.

ETA - I have no inner experience of gender - or rather whatever inner experiences I have had, I didn't identify them as relating to gender. I therefore would not be able to understand what someone else's inner experience of gender feels like or why they interpret it the way they do. I don't think there is any rational way they can explain it to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

When two mothers talk about loving their babies....how do we know that they are talking about the same thing? Maybe they are talking about two different 'loves' altogether......  Or maybe one of them is actually hating her baby but thinks it is love... and so on and so forth!   

That is ridiculous! This is what I call over intellectualizing. We think we are talking something very intelligent and intriguing but are really tying ourselves in knots.

Anyway...as I have said earlier.....  Please read my thread on Faith also.

You’ve missed the point. When two mothers talk about their love engendered by their babies there are perfectly commonplace ways to determine beyond reasonable doubt that it was in fact babies they were “encountering”. When on the other hand they each express their love for their god(s) there’s no way to determine that they have actually encountered their own god(s), different god(s) or no god(s) at all. Rather “god(s)” is just a place marker for an explanation that’s justifiable.   

Blind faith based on what someone else says is one thing. Real faith is different. It is based on real experience of an inner presence within ourselves. This faith gives rise to further beliefs and anthropomorphic imagery and so on.  In intellectually inclined people it would give rise to philosophical musings.

Still wrong. “Blind” faith and “real” faith are the same thing – claims of explanatory truths with no means of verification. If you think there’s some way to distinguish them though by all means share.

There is nothing to discuss here about this  because I cannot convince anyone here about the experience itself. That remains the domain of few people who have access to it.

This is your escape clause – when challenged about whether or not you’ve actually “experienced” the thing you think you’ve experienced, you dive down this rabbit hole. Doesn’t work though – when you want your reasoning for having encountered a “presence” (rather than, say just had an endorphin rush or similar) to be taken seriously, that reasoning can be examined on its own terms regardless of the experiences your interlocutor may or may not have had. The alternative of “I’ve had the experience so you just have to take my word for what I think caused it” opens the doors to all manner of gods, ghosts, spooks, ghouls, hobgoblins and, yes, leprechauns if you like too. 

Can you see why that's a problem?         

[Sriram]

I don't know why you people get so frustrated and embittered....as though the rabbit has once again escaped from the trap....! 

There is nothing to explain. It is just an experience. The experience makes us rethink about God and ourselves.

Spirituality is more about what 'we' are rather than about an external God. As we grow spiritually...we uncover different layers of our own consciousness. The idea of an external God becomes hazy and even unnecessary after a point.   

Anyway these are more involved discussions and unless a person has a background in such matters, there is no point in elaborating.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spirituality is more about what 'we' are rather than about an external God. As we grow spiritually...we uncover different layers of our own consciousness. The idea of an external God becomes hazy and even unnecessary after a point.   

Sounds like a diversion rather than development.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,
 

This is your escape clause – when challenged about whether or not you’ve actually “experienced” the thing you think you’ve experienced, you dive down this rabbit hole. Doesn’t work though – when you want your reasoning for having encountered a “presence” (rather than, say just had an endorphin rush or similar) to be taken seriously, that reasoning can be examined on its own terms regardless of the experiences your interlocutor may or may not have had. The alternative of “I’ve had the experience so you just have to take my word for what I think caused it” opens the doors to all manner of gods, ghosts, spooks, ghouls, hobgoblins and, yes, leprechauns if you like too. 

Can you see why that's a problem?         

Endorphin rushes are a response.  So where are people who get endorphin rushes from religion getting them from? Answer epiphany, religious techniques, the presence of God etc. Seems to me you are putting the horse of religious stimulus on top of the cart of endorphin response.

I'm minded of an actress who commented in a past Radio Times that when she was at the BBC, Dawkins was doing his cameo on the Doctor Who where Davros steals the Earth. She claims to have swooned when in his presence. That's Dawkins not Davros, of course (Although you might be hard pressed to know the difference.). So we know where she got her endorphin rush from.

[Nearly Sane]

Endorphin rushes are a response.  So where are people who get endorphin rushes from religion getting them from? Answer epiphany, religious techniques, the presence of God etc. Seems to me you are putting the horse of religious stimulus on top of the cart of endorphin response.

I'm minded of an actress who commented in a past Radio Times that when she was at the BBC, Dawkins was doing his cameo on the Doctor Who where Davros steals the Earth. She claims to have swooned when in his presence. That's Dawkins not Davros, of course (Although you might be hard pressed to know the difference.). So we know where she got her endorphin rush from.

Sounds like Dawkins is god then. I mean I knew you were obsessed with him but this seems to be going a bit far even for you.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know why you people get so frustrated and embittered....as though the rabbit has once again escaped from the trap....! 

There is nothing to explain. It is just an experience. The experience makes us rethink about God and ourselves.

Spirituality is more about what 'we' are rather than about an external God. As we grow spiritually...we uncover different layers of our own consciousness. The idea of an external God becomes hazy and even unnecessary after a point.   

Anyway these are more involved discussions and unless a person has a background in such matters, there is no point in elaborating.

I agree with your last sentence.

[Outrider]

I'm minded of an actress who commented in a past Radio Times that when she was at the BBC, Dawkins was doing his cameo on the Doctor Who where Davros steals the Earth. She claims to have swooned when in his presence. That's Dawkins not Davros, of course (Although you might be hard pressed to know the difference.). So we know where she got her endorphin rush from.

Unless you're suggesting that either a) Professor Dawkins has some unique emanation which interacts with people's physiology or b) this actress had a physiology which she'd somehow trained to respond to the otherwise normal emanations of Professor Dawkins then the best explanations are either:

1 - she was engaging in hyperbole; or
2 - her own psyche created a feedback loop of excitement that wasn't actually dependent upon Professor Dawkins presence at all, merely her idea of it.

Similarly, religious 'experiences' aren't necessarily an indication that the object of faith is actually present, but rather that the idea of [insert deeply venerated concept] can have an effect on people.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't know why you people get so frustrated and embittered....as though the rabbit has once again escaped from the trap....! 

There is nothing to explain. It is just an experience. The experience makes us rethink about God and ourselves.

Spirituality is more about what 'we' are rather than about an external God. As we grow spiritually...we uncover different layers of our own consciousness. The idea of an external God becomes hazy and even unnecessary after a point.   

Anyway these are more involved discussions and unless a person has a background in such matters, there is no point in elaborating.

I agree that experiences can make you think about God. There are so many different concepts of God even with the same religion - because humans are doing the thinking and humans are very diverse. I think religion is a journey. Our interpretations of our experiences, of the religious and philosophical texts we read, of the discussions we have with others, of the rituals and religious practices we engage in etc are all the products of our individual brains and personal to us, so it makes sense that we will form different views over time.

None of this was of interest to me when I was an atheist. And if a theist tried to explain it to me, at best I would politely listen while trying not to look at them like I thought they were mad - none of it meant anything to me.


 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I don't know why you people get so frustrated and embittered....as though the rabbit has once again escaped from the trap....!

Any frustration you detect is likely frustration at your refusal to address the arguments that falsify you, and no-one is embittered.

There is nothing to explain. It is just an experience. The experience makes us rethink about God and ourselves.

You’ve now retrenched from “god” via “presence” to “rethink about “God””. You’re almost there – it’s just one final step now to “rethink about the idea of “god(s)” and you’ll have got there.   

Spirituality is more about what 'we' are rather than about an external God. As we grow spiritually...we uncover different layers of our own consciousness. The idea of an external God becomes hazy and even unnecessary after a point.

And no “presence” now either presumably?   

Anyway these are more involved discussions and unless a person has a background in such matters, there is no point in elaborating.

Perhaps, but as I’ve explained to you already you don’t need “a background in such matters” to examine the reasoning you attempt to justify your claims and beliefs and to find it wanting. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Endorphin rushes are a response.  So where are people who get endorphin rushes from religion getting them from?

Religion. Or chocolate. Or holding a new born. Or Arsenal winning the Premier League. Or whatever.   

Answer epiphany, religious techniques, the presence of God etc. Seems to me you are putting the horse of religious stimulus on top of the cart of endorphin response.

How on earth did you get to “the presence of God” there rather than just “the persuasive belief that (a) god is present”?

I'm minded of an actress who commented in a past Radio Times that when she was at the BBC, Dawkins was doing his cameo on the Doctor Who where Davros steals the Earth. She claims to have swooned when in his presence. That's Dawkins not Davros, of course (Although you might be hard pressed to know the difference.). So we know where she got her endorphin rush from.

You seem to think that someone (or something) being real is necessary for an endorphin rush. Why?

[Sriram]

I agree that experiences can make you think about God. There are so many different concepts of God even with the same religion - because humans are doing the thinking and humans are very diverse. I think religion is a journey. Our interpretations of our experiences, of the religious and philosophical texts we read, of the discussions we have with others, of the rituals and religious practices we engage in etc are all the products of our individual brains and personal to us, so it makes sense that we will form different views over time.

None of this was of interest to me when I was an atheist. And if a theist tried to explain it to me, at best I would politely listen while trying not to look at them like I thought they were mad - none of it meant anything to me.

We all change and learn as we grow...   As our mind matures it opens up to lot of possibilities.   

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Any frustration you detect is likely frustration at your refusal to address the arguments that falsify you, and no-one is embittered.

You’ve now retrenched from “god” via “presence” to “rethink about “God””. You’re almost there – it’s just one final step now to “rethink about the idea of “god(s)” and you’ll have got there.   

And no “presence” now either presumably?   

Perhaps, but as I’ve explained to you already you don’t need “a background in such matters” to examine the reasoning you attempt to justify your claims and beliefs and to find it wanting.

What are you on about?!  I have said many times that a belief in God is not necessary for spiritual development. Many religions and spiritual philosophies are atheistic.  It is all about the Inner Self..   You just don't get it.