Religions have succeeded

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

Just one comment for now: when I said my experiences were 'disturbing', I didn't mean they were frightening particularly - in fact the one which occurred in meditation was blissful. I meant they disturbed the usual course of my life. It was further investigation of them, the attempt to make them relevant to my life, and what I found were contradictory elements in various religions which made me think religions could not be a source of ultimate truth. And questions of theodicy really sealed the matter.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

There is, of course, no evidence that god actually exists - so any discussion of what god may or may not do is completely moot until you demonstrate that god exists in the first place.

But religions, of course, do exist and typically promulgate what they consider god thinks to their congregations. And that can be both helpful and also highly destructive to those suffering from traumatic experience. In many cases the impact of religion can make matters worse - for example making victims of clergy abuse feel that they are the guilty party rather than the victim. Girls who have become pregnant made to feel that they are sinful rather than in need of support and help.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

I”m not denying what you say and a practitioner will be able to discriminate between whether something either needs to be accentuated or ameliorated. Practioners aren’t in denial but patients sometimes are.

[ProfessorDavey]

I”m not denying what you say and a practitioner will be able to discriminate between whether something either needs to be accentuated or ameliorated. Practioners aren’t in denial but patients sometimes are.

Don't disagree with you in general, but there are plenty of cases where the patient isn't in denial, although broader society (and sometimes specific people who should be helping) are in denial refusing to accept the experiences of the individual and the negative impact that may have. The denial of broader society, organisations and those with a duty of care can sometimes make the mental illness being suffered by the individual worse, not better.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

What makes you think there’s a “source” as such rather than that you just feel better about yourself when you employ certain practices?

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.

What “trigonometry” would that be?

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.

If these outcomes happen for you, well and good. Others have different means of achieving some or all of these outcomes, but whatever works for you works for you.   

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

Ah, now you’re overreaching again. If “one” had “greater intuitive abilities. Greater foresight and broader vision” then you should see some real world effects. This “greater insight” for example should lead to smarter inventions, better argued philosophical treatises etc. Is there any evidence for any of this to your knowledge?     

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

Lots of people are admirably “inclusive and integrative..." and "morally careful” while making no claims to “spirituality”. Do you have any evidence to suggest that they would be even more so if they followed your practices? What if someone tried it and became so self-absorbed that they lessened these characteristics?     

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

Presumably you mean here something like “my way of dealing with things in the outside world” rather than the “things” themselves?

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

For you perhaps and again – what “source”? I can see that practices like mindfulness, CBT etc may help some people navigate their lived experience, but claiming a “source” without qualification is overreaching again.   

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

Er, no. If by “miraculous” you mean the colloquial use of the term (“Messi scored a miraculous solo goal” etc) then ok, but if you want to claim miracles in the religious sense then you have an epic job to justify that claim.   

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.

Of perhaps just some practices and exercises that some people find to be psychologically helpful with no “force” involved at all.

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.

I don’t expect you to. It’d be nice if you provided some arguments or evidence to justify your more outlandish claims though. 

[Sriram]

In fact spiritual practices (as different from rigorous religious practices) such as yoga, breathing techniques and meditations can actually alleviate mental illnesses. The mind becomes very stable and calm through such practices. Even many physical illnesses caused by stress and poor lifestyle, can be mitigated  by following spiritual practices.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Nope. If the effect is the same then elevating one cause over another because of the “commitment or conviction” it requires makes no sense. How would you know that, say, a dedicated Arsenal fan doesn’t derive just as much value from his fandom as you do from your religious convictions – more so perhaps (according to your "commitment or conviction" notion) for a third generation Gooner compared with your comparatively Johnny-come-lately conversion to a faith? 

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.

Fallacies of reification and of circular reasoning in one sentence.

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.

Not necessarily endorphins (other hormones are available) but how would you know that the narratives you try for (“God's presence makes people aware of their place in the moral landscape” etc) aren’t just persuasive (but wrong) explanations for electro-chemical brain activities of various types?   

[ProfessorDavey]

In fact spiritual practices (as different from rigorous religious practices) such as yoga, breathing techniques and meditations can actually alleviate mental illnesses.

True - but this has nothing to do with 'spirituality' as similar breathing and mindfulness approaches also work that have no spiritual mumbo jumbo associated. Actually one of the very best activities you can engage in to reduce stress, anxiety etc is singing, and preferably communal singing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope. If the effect is the same then elevating one cause over another because of the “commitment or conviction” it requires makes no sense. How would you know that, say, a dedicated Arsenal fan doesn’t derive just as much value from his fandom as you do from your religious convictions – more so perhaps (according to your "commitment or conviction" notion) for a third generation Gooner compared with your comparatively Johnny-come-lately conversion to a faith? 

Fallacies of reification and of circular reasoning in one sentence.

Not necessarily endorphins (other hormones are available) but how would you know that the narratives you try for (“God's presence makes people aware of their place in the moral landscape” etc) aren’t just persuasive (but wrong) explanations for electro-chemical brain activities of various types?   

Extreme Eliminative, physicalist and reductionist twaddle of your usual stamp which reduces God, Morality, consciousness, mind and thought to moles, amperes and volts AKA GCE O level science and that shows you are trying to introduce a bit of humiliation as well. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is, of course, no evidence that god actually exists - so any discussion of what god may or may not do is completely moot until you demonstrate that god exists in the first place.

But religions, of course, do exist and typically promulgate what they consider god thinks to their congregations. And that can be both helpful and also highly destructive to those suffering from traumatic experience. In many cases the impact of religion can make matters worse - for example making victims of clergy abuse feel that they are the guilty party rather than the victim. Girls who have become pregnant made to feel that they are sinful rather than in need of support and help.

Unfortunately todays increasingly secular society is letting down all sorts of people so the great hope of humanism doesn't seem to be materialising vis commercial care homes, local and home office accommodation for immigrant children etc.
Secular organisations providing welfare and support seem to be having troubles of there own.

Secular society with it's advertising and social media seem to be doing a fine job of making people, the vulnerable especially think they are inadequate and not before God either but before their fellow human beings who are more with the programme. Obviously they've managed to smuggle all that past you.......and the rest of us.

[Sebastian Toe]

Secular society with it's advertising and social media

The churches don't use social media?

Obviously they've managed to smuggle all that past you.......and the rest of us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The churches don't use social media?

Not like some of the secular uses of it.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not like some of the secular uses of it.

Do tell.....

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Sorry - missed this Vlad.

As you probably know and I have mentioned a few times, there are many different schools of thought in Islam. I don't know whether God's presence is accepted from a theological sense - you will probably get different answers from different Muslims and I suspect most of them wouldn't have thought about it very deeply. How would you define "presence"?

In the Quran there seems to be verses that could imply presence (e.g. Quran 50:16 - Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein) as well as many verses suggesting Allah is unknowable (Quran 112:1-4: Say Allah is the one, the eternal, begets not nor was begotten, and nothing comparable to Allah). If there is nothing comparable to Allah then from my understanding, it is taken to mean that any physical attributes that are present in this world do not apply to Allah. This could therefore include physical or detectable presence not being applicable to Allah.

However, the Quran also says some verses are to be taken more literally and some to be taken allegorically / metaphorically and only Allah can be the final judge on which is which. (Quran 3:7 - He is the One Who has revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Book, of which some verses are precise—they are the foundation of the Book—while others are elusive.1 Those with deviant hearts follow the elusive verses seeking ˹to spread˺ doubt through their ˹false˺ interpretations—but none grasps their ˹full˺ meaning except Allah.)

That's one of the reasons I find the Quran interesting - because metaphorical is a lot more interesting than literal and can be interpreted in many different ways. So I don't spend too much time worrying about Allah's "presence" as it is irrelevant to my belief or practice...and it's not like I could ever know one way or the other e.g. if I thought Allah was present, it could be my imagination or the presence off an idea rather than actual physical presence.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Extreme Eliminative, physicalist and reductionist twaddle of your usual stamp which reduces God, Morality, consciousness, mind and thought to moles, amperes and volts AKA GCE O level science and that shows you are trying to introduce a bit of humiliation as well.

Utter gibberish. Was there a coherent thought in there somewhere struggling to get out? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry - missed this Vlad.

Many thanks for getting back

As you probably know and I have mentioned a few times, there are many different schools of thought in Islam. I don't know whether God's presence is accepted from a theological sense - you will probably get different answers from different Muslims and I suspect most of them wouldn't have thought about it very deeply.

That would suggest to me that either it's taken as read or it has been doctrinally excluded

How would you define "presence"?

Something rather different from mere intellectual assent or God being another fact for me at my conversion God was the only thing in the room as it were in fact the room wasn't there in my everyday experience sense. Just me and God in my consciousness. Of course He was not there physically but he was asking me to follow him and the period of detachment ended after I had consented.
.

In the Quran there seems to be verses that could imply presence (e.g. Quran 50:16 - Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein)

I would indeed be surprised if something like that was not there, otherwise the position would be more like deism where God's position as many atheists have told me is ''He has left the building and is not coming back.'' I am puzzled though how you can have ''proximity'' even metaphorical proximity that contains no sense of ''presence'' and I am moved to ask you how then anyone knows of God if some kind of contact hasn't been made

as well as many verses suggesting Allah is unknowable

I think this though has found it's way into other monotheisms and at an earlier stage and is therefore common stock as it were. I wonder if here then we have the Doctrine that forbids sensing the presence of God

(Quran 112:1-4: Say Allah is the one, the eternal, begets not nor was begotten, and nothing comparable to Allah).

Again, I would take incomparability as read. I don't suppose you've troubled yourself with much of what I write here but I am known(If only to a few) for promoting the non physicality of God. I think you'll find Jesus is eternally begotten, that is IMV a metaphor to say that Jesus was God and man and not merely a man who has been glorified( Something i'm not particularly drawn to of a man)

  If there is nothing comparable to Allah then from my understanding, it is taken to mean that any physical attributes that are present in this world do not apply to Allah. This could therefore include physical or detectable presence not being applicable to Allah.

My dilemma here is that that, for me, is similar to the limitations of the deists of what God can and cannot do.

That's one of the reasons I find the Quran interesting - because metaphorical is a lot more interesting than literal and can be interpreted in many different ways. So I don't spend too much time worrying about Allah's "presence" as it is irrelevant to my belief or practice...and it's not like I could ever know one way or the other e.g. if I thought Allah was present, it could be my imagination or the presence off an idea rather than actual physical presence.   

I confess I did wonder if the doctrinal aspect of your faith prevented you from accepting the ''presence.''

I've always come back on atheists for considering Christians as mad and have chided them for taking the ''Oi, Nutter!'' approach to religious- non religious dialogue.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

…at my conversion God was the only thing in the room…

Yes, as understand it people who have think they’ve felt the “presence” their various gods often find that they have that sensation too.

This might interest you though:

“The neuroscience of religion, also known as neurotheology and as spiritual neuroscience,[1] attempts to explain religious experience and behaviour in neuroscientific terms.[2] It is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. This contrasts with the psychology of religion which studies mental, rather than neural, states.

Proponents of the neuroscience of religion say there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.[3] The field has formed the basis of several popular science books.[4][5][6]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Many thanks for getting backThat would suggest to me that either it's taken as read or it has been doctrinally excluded Something rather different from mere intellectual assent or God being another fact for me at my conversion God was the only thing in the room as it were in fact the room wasn't there in my everyday experience sense. Just me and God in my consciousness. Of course He was not there physically but he was asking me to follow him and the period of detachment ended after I had consented.

I would indeed be surprised if something like that was not there, otherwise the position would be more like deism where God's position as many atheists have told me is ''He has left the building and is not coming back.'' I am puzzled though how you can have ''proximity'' even metaphorical proximity that contains no sense of ''presence'' and I am moved to ask you how then anyone knows of God if some kind of contact hasn't been made

 I don't suppose you've troubled yourself with much of what I write here but I am known(If only to a few) for promoting the non physicality of God.

Yes thoughts aren't physical so I can get what you mean about the non-physicality of God and that God's presence could mean God being in your consciousness.

I think you'll find Jesus is eternally begotten, that is IMV a metaphor to say that Jesus was God and man and not merely a man who has been glorified( Something i'm not particularly drawn to of a man) My dilemma here is that that, for me, is similar to the limitations of the deists of what God can and cannot do.
I confess I did wonder if the doctrinal aspect of your faith prevented you from accepting the ''presence.''

I've always come back on atheists for considering Christians as mad and have chided them for taking the ''Oi, Nutter!'' approach to religious- non religious dialogue.

I always got the impression, given Muslims don't do deities, statues, idols or any physical representation of Allah, that Allah's physical presence was a definite no. This would then be one of the main reasons for the difference between Islam and Christianity - for Muslims, God being present in the form of a man would mean the man can't be God.

My impression, including from discussions with other Muslims, is that God might provide inspiration or revelations to prophets via dreams  or as a voice in the case of Moses, but does not communicate with ordinary people except through the words / message of the Quran. The traditional belief is that all the revelations to Prophet Muhammad were via angel Gabriel. So am guessing there is no requirement for Muslims to think they are in God's presence, but they do believe God sees and knows all our actions and thoughts.

Having been an atheist, I'm not surprised by the "Oi Nutter" approach. From memory, it's a pretty standard response to the theist 'you're going to hell/ you're in denial/ you're running away from God/ you're lacking in some spiritual way' approach. It's actually a good thing because it means no atheist or theist is actually going to change their beliefs based on our delivery of our opinions on here. We can just relax and have a bit of fun with it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Having been an atheist, I'm not surprised by the "Oi Nutter" approach. From memory, it's a pretty standard response to the theist 'you're going to hell/ you're in denial/ you're running away from God/ you're lacking in some spiritual way' approach. It's actually a good thing because it means no atheist or theist is actually going to change their beliefs based on our delivery of our opinions on here. We can just relax and have a bit of fun with it.

Having been an atheist I always thought christians were oddball. That was culturally ingrained. Imagine my surprise when attending church for the first time a week after converting at seeing several people I knew in the community who were, how can you put it? Normal.

God dodging I know about having been a God dodger myself.

[Sriram]

Vlad,

Yes, as understand it people who have think they’ve felt the “presence” their various gods often find that they have that sensation too.

This might interest you though:

“The neuroscience of religion, also known as neurotheology and as spiritual neuroscience,[1] attempts to explain religious experience and behaviour in neuroscientific terms.[2] It is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. This contrasts with the psychology of religion which studies mental, rather than neural, states.

Proponents of the neuroscience of religion say there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious.[3] The field has formed the basis of several popular science books.[4][5][6]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion

You people keep on and on about neurological correlations with spiritual experiences. That only proves that the brain is involved in some way in these experiences..which is not disputed at all. Just as the axle and pistons of a car are involved in its movement. Point is that, that's not all....there is lots more. 

[Maeght]

You people keep on and on about neurological correlations with spiritual experiences. That only proves that the brain is involved in some way in these experiences..which is not disputed at all. Just as the axle and pistons of a car are involved in its movement. Point is that, that's not all....there is lots more.

You can't know that. All we know is that the brain is involved.

[ProfessorDavey]

Having been an atheist I always thought christians were oddball.

Except as we well know Vlad, you were brought up christian - off to Sunday school for you, a bit of church attendance thrown in and some time at a faith school. During your upbringing as a christian did you consider yourself to be an 'oddball'.

For those of us of my age - mid 50s - I think the reality was very different. The default, the norm if you like, was that people believed in god and were, at the very least nominally, christian. The basic distinction was theist christians who went to church and theist christians who did not go to church. The 'oddballs' if you like were those that did not fit into those categories. That, of course, included the small minority of adherents to non christian religions. But also those who professed not the believe in god at all - indeed in UK society back then atheists were largely airbrushed from society entirely. As far as the UK society were concerned they basically didn't exist.

How would I know, well because I don't think I even realised that there was such a thing as atheism or atheists until I was probably 10, maybe even a teenager. These people (the atheists) were a subversive, dangerous group who impressionable children needed to be protected from by never telling them that they even existed. I imagine that atheists and atheism in the 1970s UK were akin to gay people and homosexuality in the 1950s - society ran itself as if they didn't exist.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Having been an atheist I always thought christians were oddball. That was culturally ingrained. Imagine my surprise when attending church for the first time a week after converting at seeing several people I knew in the community who were, how can you put it? Normal.

God dodging I know about having been a God dodger myself.

I didn't think Christians were any more odd than other theists. I thought the Hindus at the temple my parents insisted we go to every Friday evening were a bit odd once I stopped believing in a god. It must feel odd for anyone to be advised to follow a cause or movement or religion that involves belief in and worship of an unseen, unevidenced entity. It makes sense to people who believe and benefit from the practice but without belief, it just feels like an unwelcome intrusion on atheist freedom - I remember resenting having to show up for a hymn-singing assembly at school or going to the Hindu temple on Fridays.

Despite this, as an atheist I probably had a fair bit of respect for Christians, as missionaries had started excellent schools in Sri Lanka, without which Sri Lankans probably wouldn't have been able to get rid of the British and get independence in 1948.

I seem to remember around the time I left school (when I had been an atheist for about 5 or 6 years) the hymns at assembly and Bible-bashers were annoying but I respected that Christianity seemed to be cited as the inspiration for some of the people who gave up considerable time and money to help charitable causes e.g. adopting disabled Romanian orphans after Ceaușescu’s rule or the optometrist who gave them free eye care https://eu.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/camarillo/2017/02/17/romanian-orphans-see-better-thanks-camarillo-doctor/97155556/   

[ProfessorDavey]

Having been an atheist I always thought christians were oddball. That was culturally ingrained.

What, it was culturally ingrained in the Sunday School you attended and the Faith School you attended that christians were oddballs. I mean, really?!?

Imagine my surprise when attending church for the first time a week after converting ...

But you've told us previously that you used to attend church as a child - how can this be the first time you attended church then Vlad?

[ProfessorDavey]

I seem to remember around the time I left school (when I had been an atheist for about 5 or 6 years) the hymns at assembly and Bible-bashers were annoying but I respected that Christianity seemed to be cited as the inspiration for some of the people who gave up considerable time and money to help charitable causes e.g. adopting disabled Romanian orphans after Ceaușescu’s rule or the optometrist who gave them free eye care https://eu.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/camarillo/2017/02/17/romanian-orphans-see-better-thanks-camarillo-doctor/97155556/   

Sure christians are very good at telling us all about the great voluntary work they do, implying that they do more voluntary work than others, 'cos of their religion'. But, of course, it isn't true. Proper research on volunteering has found no difference in the rate of volunteering (both formal and informal) between religious and non religious people in the UK. And that is despite the fact that churches often run on volunteers doing stuff - so arranging flowers or handing out service sheets etc. But while these activities will be counted under 'volunteering' they are hardly equivalent to helping Romanian orphans.