Religions have succeeded

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

What are you on about?!

What I am on about is that when you make statements and claims like “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”, “I have clarified quite clearly that the experience of 'God' is one thing”, “It means that he is much more than what we can imagine or comprehend”, “God as a concept is one thing and God as an experience is another thing”, “God is the creator. He sets the rules. He decides 'why' and 'why not'”, and “We worship God because he is all powerful and all knowing. We worship because we want to appeal to him to protect us” your justifying arguments are either wrong or aren’t bothered with at all. 

And when you attempt an analogy and it falls apart (see above re mothers and babies) you just ignore the rebuttal as if it didn’t exist.

If you want to retrench now from “an experience of god”, encountering a “presence”, “blind faith vs “real” faith” etc to “spirituality” that you don’t try to map to objectively real causes outwith your subjective experience that’s fine, but that’s a different position to take.     

I have said many times that a belief in God is not necessary for spiritual development.

But that’s not all you’ve said – see above.

Many religions and spiritual philosophies are atheistic.

Not sure how a religion can be atheistic (is deism a religion perhaps?) but ok…   

It is all about the Inner Self..

No it isn’t – or at least it isn’t when you try to map your “inner self” experiences to eternal causal stimuli like gods and "presences".

You just don't get it.

Perhaps if you tried to be less incoherent, more specific and above all prepared to address the rebuttals you’re given I might “get it” though (assuming for now that there is something to get).

[Sriram]

You are getting all mixed up with religious (especially Christian) concepts of God and my experiences.

Within the context of an omnipotent God you cannot decide how he should behave. You cannot dictate morality to him. That is a logical position given the context and the assumption of a certain God.

That has nothing to do with my experience of the Inner Self and personal ideas of God. For that you have to read my blogs in detail...which I don't think you are inclined.

Let us leave it at that please.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are getting all mixed up with religious (especially Christian) concepts of God and my experiences.

That’s because you keep trying to map your “experiences” to “gods”, “presences”, “encounters” etc – I quoted where you’ve done this on various occasions. If what you actually meant all along though was something like, “sometimes people with subjective experiences find it helpful to relate them to their beliefs about gods, presences, encounters etc” then fine, but that’s different.       

Within the context of an omnipotent God you cannot decide how he should behave. You cannot dictate morality to him. That is a logical position given the context and the assumption of a certain God.

I assume you meant here “within the context of the concept of an omnipotent god”? Even if so, your poor reasoning is letting you down again here. If you want to posit an all good god about which “you cannot decide how he should behave” then any discussion of morality at all is redundant. "If it happened it must be morally good because a morally perfect god wanted it that way, and he knows best". Can you see the problem with that though?

That has nothing to do with my experience of the Inner Self and personal ideas of God. For that you have to read my blogs in detail...which I don't think you are inclined.

Your blogs tend to be a mess of poor, contradictory or just absent reasoning for your beliefs so no, I’m not inclined to do that. Your “experience of the Inner Self and personal ideas of God” (different things that  you keep conflating by the way) are a matter for you, and provided you don’t overreach into claims and assertions about an actual god should probably stay that way. 

Let us leave it at that please.

Yes, I can see why you’d want to do that. If you change your mind and do want to engage with the rebuttals I’ve given you though I’m here to help 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And when you attempt an analogy and it falls apart (see above re mothers and babies) you just ignore the rebuttal as if it didn’t exist.

If you want to retrench now from “an experience of god”, encountering a “presence”,.........

Hmm.. speaking of people who ignore rebuttals as if they didn't exist, I notice you haven't responded to my post regarding your attempt an analogy which fell apart (see your Hitler Youth Attempt) and when you are caught out shamelessly quote-mining (see your previous Hitler Youth attempt) you just ignore the rebuttal as if it didn’t exist.

And when you attempt to make claims about a Western moral consensus on consent that you can't support with evidence and link to an organisation to try to support your claim of this 'mythical' consensus, and it is pointed out to you that even the people who work for the organisation you linked to indicate there is no moral consensus, you just ignore the rebuttal as if it didn't exist.

Perhaps if you tried to be less incoherent, more specific and above all prepared to address the rebuttals

Personally, I think no point Sriram wasting his time responding to your individual points when he can just follow your example instead and ignore them.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

Was that the one he eventually married?

A yes or no will do. I don't want you to get too excited over your love/hate relationship with him.

[Nearly Sane]

Was that the one he eventually married?

A yes or no will do. I don't want you to get too excited over your love/hate relationship with him.

Won't have been. Lalla Ward, who played Romana, was married to Dawkins long before the episode Vlad is referring to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Hmm.. speaking of people who ignore rebuttals as if they didn't exist,

etc

You exited (albeit unwittingly) any further discussion when you decided that it was ok for you to "interpret" words any way that suited you. If when I say "banana" you decide that you want it to mean "ladder" any discussion is impossible.

I believe that, not co-incidentally, NS has made the same point to you more recently too.   

[Dicky Underpants]

Won't have been. Lalla Ward, who played Romana, was married to Dawkins long before the episode Vlad is referring to.

My life has been immeasurably enhanced by that information!

[Dicky Underpants]

That's it really. If Sriram, Walt/Vlad, ... have experience of god, and it is something beyond words and logic - why spend hours, months, or years trying to (incorrectly) justify it as a rational entity based on rational arguments and philosophy.

Would be more credible if the effort was spent on improving the world directly or generating art, music or poetry.
   

It would help if there were some consistency in the theistic explanations offered by VG, Sriram, and Vlad (there's supposed to be a discipline (phenomenology) to help sort out things like this. As it is we have a supremely dogmatic approach exemplified by Vlad, based ultimately on his first 'encounter', of which he has made much, in a typical 'one size fits all approach'. His tersely expressed anecdote is typical:

When you encounter God you are in the presence of the Judge and there is no intellectual weighing up of God's goodness or holiness only surrender to a new relationship...or flight.

Sriram's approach is also rather dogmatic, often summarised in such words as "if you haven't had the experience, you wouldn't understand", and yet he has also related how he felt aware of the presence of God from his earliest years, which seems to suggest he felt as if he were one of the 'chosen', and perhaps other people who don't have this experience are deliberately blocking it out by over-intellectualising (Vlad, of course, would call this 'God-dodging', a concept I've always found laughable, when applied to my own life). But he's made it clear that his concept of the divine is different from the Christian one, and has castigated his critics for trying to apply the concepts of the Christian god to his own beliefs.

VG's approach is refreshingly mild and well-reasoned, and she found no real sympathy with Vlad's seemingly frightening experience of God as the Divine Judge. No doubt such experiences are not unknown in Islam - Mohammed's original experience of the Archangel Gabriel was apparently the most terrifying of his life up to that point, experiencing a being "whose form filled the whole horizon" (VG will have to tell us whether this description is considered the authentic account of Mohammed).
I have stated several times on this forum that I was always a 'seeker' until about my 50th year, when I decided it was all a wild goose chase. And I'd had a few 'experiences' in different contexts which were very disturbing, one at the age of eleven, when under the brainwashing of the Jehovah's Witnesses, I had a 'revelation' about human history and the truth of the Bible in explaining it. The second important one was as a young adult (I've related this to Sriram) when I 'went East' and did a lot of meditating. Yup, I thought I'd met God for a time.
They're just experiences, and in my opinion don't make a very good guide to life (particularly if you have a Jehovah's Witness conversion experience).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,
 etc

You exited (albeit unwittingly) any further discussion when you decided that it was ok for you to "interpret" words any way that suited you. If when I say "banana" you decide that you want it to mean "ladder" any discussion is impossible.

Well that's one way of you ducking out of responding. Guess you're not surprised if people follow your example and don't respond to your points.

My recollection is that rather than discussing bananas and ladders, we were discussing the meaning of the word "will" in a story. I linked to the dictionary to show you the various possible  meanings of the word "will" and you ignored this and decided that the only meaning of the word "will" was that a prediction was inevitable and can't be changed.  When it was pointed out to you that "inevitability" was nothing more than an assumption on your part, you seem to have decided to not respond.

Also doesn't explain why you claimed there was a modern Western consensus on consent but had no supporting evidence to show any such consensus existed.   

I believe that, not co-incidentally, NS has made the same point to you more recently too.

Please provide some evidence of this claim as I am not sure which post you are referring to. My last discussion with NS, we weren't discussing dictionary definitions. We were discussing how to rationally discuss a person's inner experiences with someone who hadn't had a similar experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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

You seemed to have pitched a pair of trivial treats which require no commitment or conviction for a short term rush against the multigenerational tested practices of religion. Bad analogy and a sad indictment of what is important to and the ambitions of our increasingly secular society

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

I don't know. The persuasive belief would be mine, but the presence is His and I am merely aware of it. That is where the belief originates...because there is a persuasive God.

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

Endorphin rushes are not guaranteed in spiritual experience.  I know people whose experience brought no particular emotional response. I know of others for whom the Good news initial comes as Bad news since God's presence makes people aware of their place in the moral landscape what is known as conviction of sin. No initial endorphin there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

One wonders whether she would have had the same response had it been Alan Titchmarsh.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's it really. If Sriram, Walt/Vlad, ... have experience of god, and it is something beyond words and logic - why spend hours, months, or years trying to (incorrectly) justify it as a rational entity based on rational arguments and philosophy.

Basically because there are people who say that God and belief in him is irrational and that is not true.

Would be more credible if the effort was spent on improving the world directly or generating art, music or poetry.

There is no reason why philosophy cannot be poetic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Well that's one way of you ducking out of responding. Guess you're not surprised if people follow your example and don't respond to your points.

No it isn’t. If I decided that when, say, Vlad said “God” he really meant “elephant” I wouldn’t be surprised if he ducked out too.

My recollection is that rather than discussing bananas and ladders, we were discussing the meaning of the word "will" in a story.

Yes – banana/ladder was an analogy.

I linked to the dictionary to show you the various possible  meanings of the word "will" and you ignored this and decided that the only meaning of the word "will" was that a prediction was inevitable and can't be changed.  When it was pointed out to you that "inevitability" was nothing more than an assumption on your part, you seem to have decided to not respond.

And I explained to you that that works for the mortal use of “will” as in “I will be there at 2pm”, but not for an “unfailing” god of the omnis for whom “will” would mean without fail, not "I will be there but only provided the bus is on time" or some such.

Context is all here. 

Also doesn't explain why you claimed there was a modern Western consensus on consent but had no supporting evidence to show any such consensus existed.

Yes I did, but as you decided that your interpretation of “consensus” was different you used that to deflect from the actual point that, consensus or not, there are clearly current, mostly Western moral positions that conflict with the behaviour of the god character in the story. You were invited to tell us which you preferred, but instead indulged in such endless hair-splitting and prevarication that the point was lost - which was presumably your intention.         

Please provide some evidence of this claim as I am not sure which post you are referring to. My last discussion with NS, we weren't discussing dictionary definitions. We were discussing how to rationally discuss a person's inner experiences with someone who hadn't had a similar experience.

NS: “Words can be used differently but if the person who uses the words  then takes a position that they cannot explain what they mean by those words then those words become meaningless in any dialogue.” (Reply 771)

Look, some advice that I’m sure you’ll ignore or just mirror back but nonetheless: I’ve been fortunate to know very few nasty people over the years, but something that struck me about each of them is that they actually didn’t like themselves very much.

My advice therefore: try to like yourself a little more.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG's approach is refreshingly mild and well-reasoned, and she found no real sympathy with Vlad's seemingly frightening experience of God as the Divine Judge. No doubt such experiences are not unknown in Islam - Mohammed's original experience of the Archangel Gabriel was apparently the most terrifying of his life up to that point, experiencing a being "whose form filled the whole horizon" (VG will have to tell us whether this description is considered the authentic account of Mohammed).

I rather think that VG's reason for not accepting a 'presence' of God is not the same as your reason for not accepting the presence of God.

 In Islam there are I believe theological reasons put forward as to why God's presence is not accepted. I suppose though VG will put us straight on that too.

[Nearly Sane]

NS: “Words can be used differently but if the person who uses the words  then takes a position that they cannot explain what they mean by those words then those words become meaningless in any dialogue.” (Reply 771)

I felt my typing finger burning. Just to note that I did write this to VG but on the context of that post we were discussing others,' writing, Vlad and Sriram, rather than VG's.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I felt my typing finger burning. Just to note that I did write this to VG but on the context of that post we were discussing others,' writing, Vlad and Sriram, rather than VG's.

Your point (about the use of language) applies regardless of the author concerned I think, but fair enough - I stand corrected. 

[Udayana]

It would help if there were some consistency in the theistic explanations offered by VG, Sriram, and Vlad (there's supposed to be a discipline (phenomenology) to help sort out things like this. As it is we have a supremely dogmatic approach exemplified by Vlad, based ultimately on his first 'encounter', of which he has made much, in a typical 'one size fits all approach'. His tersely expressed anecdote is typical:
...

I have stated several times on this forum that I was always a 'seeker' until about my 50th year, when I decided it was all a wild goose chase. And I'd had a few 'experiences' in different contexts which were very disturbing, one at the age of eleven, when under the brainwashing of the Jehovah's Witnesses, I had a 'revelation' about human history and the truth of the Bible in explaining it. The second important one was as a young adult (I've related this to Sriram) when I 'went East' and did a lot of meditating. Yup, I thought I'd met God for a time.
They're just experiences, and in my opinion don't make a very good guide to life (particularly if you have a Jehovah's Witness conversion experience).

Indeed, agree entirely. I too saw myself as a "seeker" for many years, diving into esoterica, one rabbit hole after another. Then there was nothing to seek. The only experience is life ... just live it how you think is right.
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It would help if there were some consistency in the theistic explanations offered by VG, Sriram, and Vlad (there's supposed to be a discipline (phenomenology) to help sort out things like this.

I'm curious as to why one would expect much consistency on abstract ideas, whether it is about the supernatural or about the moral / ethical. Even if we're discussing something we can see and touch e.g. trying to critique visual art - we can try to explain art's appeal but the way we experience art and the feelings it evokes are so open to interpretation and are influenced by personal preferences mostly from our sub-conscious, that any discussions can only touch the surface. So it makes sense to me that perspectives about abstract concepts are even more diverse, subjective and open to personal interpretation. I think discussing ideas about a god of the omnis has been pretty fun. I enjoy figuring out what I think on here about abstract / philosophical concepts such as gods, beliefs, faith, morals etc and listening to another person's POV.

Sriram's approach is also rather dogmatic, often summarised in such words as "if you haven't had the experience, you wouldn't understand",

My experience both as an atheist and a theist leaves me with the impression that it's not possible to rationally justify to someone else an internal experience that leads to belief. When I was an atheist, I don't think there could have been any argument that would have made gods seem possible to me.

VG's approach is refreshingly mild and well-reasoned, and she found no real sympathy with Vlad's seemingly frightening experience of God as the Divine Judge. No doubt such experiences are not unknown in Islam - Mohammed's original experience of the Archangel Gabriel was apparently the most terrifying of his life up to that point, experiencing a being "whose form filled the whole horizon" (VG will have to tell us whether this description is considered the authentic account of Mohammed).

Thanks and I personally haven't come across that particular description of the encounter, but I recall the story that he was very shaken by the encounter.

I myself don't know what I experienced but I wasn't afraid. My memory is that I felt a shock of recognition - probably my best attempt at the moment to put it into words - after reading  a few words in a translation of an ancient Arabic poetic book that is regarded as a message. It caused maybe some clarity or recognition of human complexity.

I have stated several times on this forum that I was always a 'seeker' until about my 50th year, when I decided it was all a wild goose chase. And I'd had a few 'experiences' in different contexts which were very disturbing, one at the age of eleven, when under the brainwashing of the Jehovah's Witnesses, I had a 'revelation' about human history and the truth of the Bible in explaining it. The second important one was as a young adult (I've related this to Sriram) when I 'went East' and did a lot of meditating. Yup, I thought I'd met God for a time.
They're just experiences, and in my opinion don't make a very good guide to life (particularly if you have a Jehovah's Witness conversion experience).

If you have had disturbing experiences I can understand why you think it's a wild goose chase. I haven't had any disturbing experiences - if I did maybe I'd lose my belief. Personally, I wasn't chasing anything supernatural when I was an atheist - I wanted meaning in my life and connections to other people but I wasn't looking to some unevidenced supernatural concept to give it to me. I didn't think of myself as a seeker. I wasn't looking for something to help me make sense of my life spiritually or tell me how to live. I wasn't scared of dying and of that being the end - that seemed a whole better option than something beyond death. I was young and think I was scared of what I was going to do with my life - career, future etc - and scared of letting my parents down and I didn't have a clue what I wanted but at the time I thought I knew what I didn't want - and one of things I thought I definitely didn't want was a religion or a belief in anything supernatural, both of which I regarded as silly. No one was more surprised than me when completely unexpectedly I felt something change inside of me regarding belief. 

I don't think it matters to me whether I can make sense of it or put it in a box, therefore an unknowable entity seems like a good fit as a concept, but of course I still try to relate to the concept in some way in order to find ways I could benefit or make sense of it using my human brain and the language available to me. The possibility of a god is enough for me to enjoy the experience of belief and the benefits it brings to my life, without it mattering if anyone else believes what I believe or if I can rationally justify my belief to someone else.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

No it isn’t. If I decided that when, say, Vlad said “God” he really meant “elephant” I wouldn’t be surprised if he ducked out too.

How does that relate to a link to a dictionary with multiple meanings for what the "will" could mean in relation to a future event? I haven't come across a dictionary that lists "elephant" as a possible or substitute meaning of "God"

Yes – banana/ladder was an analogy.

A poor one - see above.

And I explained to you that that works for the mortal use of “will” as in “I will be there at 2pm”, but not for an “unfailing” god of the omnis for whom “will” would mean without fail, not "I will be there but only provided the bus is on time" or some such.

Context is all here. 

Only if you make the assumption that a god of the onmis can't decide to change course. No reason for anyone to join you in making that assumption. I linked to the Quran to show examples of where the god of the onmis in the Quran does change course.

Yes I did, but as you decided that your interpretation of “consensus” was different you used that to deflect from the actual point that, consensus or not, there are clearly current, mostly Western moral positions that conflict with the behaviour of the god character in the story. You were invited to tell us which you preferred, but instead indulged in such endless hair-splitting and prevarication that the point was lost - which was presumably your intention.

Yes there clearly are current moral positions that conflict with the behaviour. Moral values are diverse so nothing surprising about this.  My only intention was to dispute PD's and then your assertions that issues of consent are clear-cut in that story. It seems you consider someone challenging an unevidenced claim made by you as "hair splitting and prevarication" but when you challenge someone unsurprisingly you consider it perfectly legitimate. My research indicates there seems to be a Western moral position that consent seems to be something that people looking at the same set of circumstances might not always agree on. Hence, the issue of consent in many crimes is for a jury to decide in criminal trials.

The organisation you linked to, to support your claim about a consensus on consent between employer and employee (which is the comparison you were making to the story as Mary referred to herself as a servant of God) , advised me that employer - employee fraternisation is a moral issue rather than a criminal issue and that such moral issues can be hard to reach a conclusion on and that the people involved should define if their relationship is consensual. 

NS: “Words can be used differently but if the person who uses the words  then takes a position that they cannot explain what they mean by those words then those words become meaningless in any dialogue.” (Reply 771)

I agreed with NS. But since I did not say that I could not explain what I mean by the use of a word, not sure why this quote is relevant to our discussion. In our discussion,  you insisted that only one of a number of possible meanings or interpretations of the word "will" in the story was possible. And I provided reasons why "will" in the context of the story does not automatically mean the outcome is inevitable and unchangeable, and why "inevitability" is an assumption on your part.

Look, some advice that I’m sure you’ll ignore or just mirror back but nonetheless: I’ve been fortunate to know very few nasty people over the years, but something that struck me about each of them is that they actually didn’t like themselves very much.

My advice therefore: try to like yourself a little more.   

I find it strange that you think that someone on an internet discussion forum is nasty just because they disagree with you about the issue of consent... or was it the issue of a moral consensus.... or was it not agreeing with your view on the meaning of the word "will" or because I wouldn't answer your question about choosing my preference from the two moral behaviours regarding consent that you described? It's hard to keep up with all the issues we disagree on.

I also find it strange that you felt the need to post your opinion of me as a person. After all, your opinion of me is as irrelevant as my opinion of you. As you brought it up, maybe you're just projecting.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Our experiences come from within. If the experiences are peaceful and fulfilling their source needs to be identified.

What we imagine it to be is irrelevant. It works regardless of that.

Once we identify the source of the experience and know that it has a real impact in the external world (such as my trigonometry experience for example - VG and DU might know)....we should try to normalize it.   This is important.

The point is that the experience does certain things repeatedly....

1. It removes all anxiety, anger, fear, jealousy, competition etc. instantaneously.

2. It leaves one feeling blissful, loving and fulfilled. One feels completely satiated.

3. It makes your body feel light (bouncy) and healthy.

4. One develops greater intuitive abilities. Greater foresight and broader vision....rather than a microscopic mindset. Our ability to understand deepens.

5. One becomes more inclusive and integrative....more morally careful. 

6. Most important....things in the external world work out smoothly. Life takes on a natural flow without hindrances.

7. Even if there are hindrances , once we appeal to the inner source, they disappear.

8. Lots of miraculous events happen unexpectedly at different points of time.   

This much I have experienced over the last 50 years....

What exactly this inner force is and how exactly it works...I have no idea. You can call it God, atman, Higher Self or whatever else you want. 

Now, don't expect me to explain or elaborate on all this because it involves too much personal detail. If anyone is interested you could go through my blog in detail and it is possible that you may understand.

Thanks.

Sriram

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

Our experiences come from within. If the experiences are peaceful and fulfilling their source needs to be identified.

But you have just claimed that experiences come from within, so surely you've identified the source - they come from our physiology, and importantly our neurophysiology.

The point is that the experience does certain things repeatedly....

1. It removes all anxiety, anger, fear, jealousy, competition etc. instantaneously.

2. It leaves one feeling blissful, loving and fulfilled. One feels completely satiated.

3. It makes your body feel light (bouncy) and healthy.

4. One develops greater intuitive abilities. Greater foresight and broader vision....rather than a microscopic mindset. Our ability to understand deepens.

5. One becomes more inclusive and integrative....more morally careful. 

6. Most important....things in the external world work out smoothly. Life takes on a natural flow without hindrances.

7. Even if there are hindrances , once we appeal to the inner source, they disappear.

8. Lots of miraculous events happen unexpectedly at different points of time.

Blimey - you are Pollyanna Sriram.

Sure experiences may lead to all the things you mention. But, of course they can also lead to the opposite - fear, anxiety, anger, depression etc, etc. Our experiences are often inextricably linked to the development of the most harmful mental illnesses.

Seeing only the positives, rather than both the positives and negatives linked to our experiences reminds me of those here who see all the good stuff as being due to god but none of the bad stuff.

[Nearly Sane]

But you have just claimed that experiences come from within, so surely you've identified the source - they come from our physiology, and importantly our neurophysiology.
Blimey - you are Pollyanna Sriram.

Sure experiences may lead to all the things you mention. But, of course they can also lead to the opposite - fear, anxiety, anger, depression etc, etc. Our experiences are often inextricably linked to the development of the most harmful mental illnesses.

Seeing only the positives, rather than both the positives and negatives linked to our experiences reminds me of those here who see all the good stuff as being due to god but none of the bad stuff.

Those people are just do experiencing badly. It's their own fault for their microscopic focus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you have just claimed that experiences come from within, so surely you've identified the source - they come from our physiology, and importantly our neurophysiology.
Blimey - you are Pollyanna Sriram.

Sure experiences may lead to all the things you mention. But, of course they can also lead to the opposite - fear, anxiety, anger, depression etc, etc. Our experiences are often inextricably linked to the development of the most harmful mental illnesses.

Seeing only the positives, rather than both the positives and negatives linked to our experiences reminds me of those here who see all the good stuff as being due to god but none of the bad stuff.

But mental illness can also result from the unresolved, the unfulfilled, denial of experiences.
God can disturb but is that necessarily a bad thing if it is the gateway to something better?
God may be getting us to face ourselves and important choices may be difficult.
I cannot and would not predict any bodies response to God and it would be improper of me to do so.

[ProfessorDavey]

But mental illness can also result from the unresolved, the unfulfilled, denial of experiences.

I think mental illness can being very clearly associated with the recognition of experience, not just their denial. Someone who was abused as a child and experiences long term mental illness as a result isn't denying that experience at all. Sure treatment may attempt to provide mechanisms to reduce the impact of that experience but there isn't necessarily denial going on at all.