Exactly. I can remember having hallucinations when I was a child, and some of them were pretty spooky. Once, I woke up, and definitely had that “I’m awake” feeling, and saw a woman, who I had never seen before, walk toward me, take a piece of candy out of her purse, and offer it to me. Scared the crap out of me. Well, being a small child, I didn’t much know what to think of it, but I kind of figured out it wasn’t real, and in later years realized that it was just my still waking mind playing tricks on me. When I grew up, I stopped having these hallucinations, but it’s not that much of a stretch to think it could happen to an adult, and absolutely doesn’t qualify them as being bonkers.
I disagree. It does qualify them as bonkers. If you could figure it out as a small child, there’s honestly no reason, other than lunacy, they can’t figure it out as adults.
Diamond-hard atheist that I am, I understand very well the almost irresistably powerful and convincing effect a spiritual experience can have on one’s theological worldview, given that I have had one myself. (I am, if you like, an atheist who has seen God).
Atheists who have not experienced such an epiphany are in a difficult position from which to assess the mental health of theists who have. It appears that (and it was certainly my experience) in order to have one, one must “let go” of one’s logical and reasonable state of mind. It is an interesting Moebius loop: to understand why you ought not impugn theists logic and reason, one must temporarily let go of one’s logic and reason!
…or maybe that their experience is different from yours. Do you admit the possibility that you could be wrong?
I’m an atheist, but I’m certainly not omniscient; it’s quite possible that the Buddhists or the Jainists or the Voudounistas or the Shintoists or the Wiccas are right. Hell, maybe even Jerry Falwell’s right.
Different people have different experiences, and analyze their experiences differently. How may I judge someone bonkers, based purely on the conclusions they draw?
Daniel
But the reason one is able to interpret illusury experiences as such is highly dependant on their level of skepticism about their own perceptions. Ones level of skepticism is likely a function of their inherited world-view, which could be different depending on culture, and even different depending on one’s level of maturity. We all know kids have vivid imaginations. If adults were inclined to interpret the witnessing of children as experience of the numinous, rather than misinterpretation of mundane phenomena, that would have a powerful effect on a child’s world-view, and their ability to interpret such experiences into adulthood.
Different mind-set. I wasn’t raised religiously. Had I been, I might likely have seen a vision of Jesus instead of the woman, and interpreted it in accordance with what I had been taught. IMO, people who do so are mistaken, but certainly not lunatics. Visions have been part and parcel of daily life for many cultures. I think it’s stretching the definition of ‘lunatic’ to apply it to, in some cases, entire civilizations.
Okay, my use of the word lunatic was hyperbole, due in part to my frustration over this topic.
I was not a scared child. I never believed in ghosts, the boogeyman, I never believed in monsters under my bed…why? Because, quite frankly, I read a lot and knew about dreams and knew that monsters aren’t real.
I just cannot understand the mindset of those people who, upon seeing a blurry photo, jump to the incredible conclusion that it must be a supernatural entity!
Yes, I realize if you were brought up in a “non-skeptical” environment its nigh impossible to deny your childhood brainwashing (give me a child to 6, I’ll have them for life…), so in that sense, it’s not fair to call someone a loony. But nonetheless, its quite clear they are sadly mistaken.
This doesn’t have to be an atheist vs. theist thing. All we need to do is to ask the proponents of religion X what they think of spirtual experiences undergone by proponents of religion Y. Besides the few who will say the debil is responsible, the answer is the same. We atheists just take the union of the skepticism of all religions.
Well, I will happily claim religion X, and if you ask me what I think of spiritual experiences undergone by proponents of religion Y, I will say that so long as they love, I think they and I are one. Love is itself a (the) spiritual experience, and I include atheists as well. All who value the aesthetic of goodness above all else are God.
I see no evidence that love is anything other than an emotion brought about by electrical and chemical activity in the brain. I find it unneccessary to mystify it; it is already sublime.
I don’t know what you mean by “evidence” of what something IS — it’s an ontological issue, not an empirical one after all — but my dictionary gives 22 definitions of love, and among them is “charity”.
I think part of the problem here is that mental illness is on a sliding scale - it can’t be divided up with “sane” people on one side and “crazy” people on the other. Say an otherwise healthy adult develops occasional visual and aural hallucinations. Apart from the hallucinations, they seem fine. No problems continuing their normal social interactions, no decreased functioning in any way, no “word salad” or other changes in their speech, no comments that people are following them or out to get them, no bizarre delusions of any kind. It’s possible that the hallucinations could get worse, that things could progress to the point where the person could not function anymore, and they would then require psychiatric care. Or the hallucinations could taper off until they no longer appear. Or the hallucinations could continue as they are. But if it’s not affecting your Mom’s life, if she’s the same person she ever was with the addition of the hallucinations, don’t worry about it so much. If things change and she starts to get a little wacky; well, then you worry. But as it stands, just let it be.
I fit the description in the OP. I firmly believe that all religious people are delusional, bordering dangerous. The danger is not so much that they will attack, but that they are holding back the development of human intelligence. I certainly include my own mother in the group of nutjobs. When I must be around her, I do my best to not bring it up. If she should bring it up, I don’t think I would resist offering my opinion to her (in not very polite terms, most likely).
Matter of fact, I feel very much the same about her political views (voting repub) as I do about her religion. The people supporting either are either malicious, or not paying attention.
Hmmm…seems pretty clear-cut to me. If the emotion of love has to do with spirits, I would expect some sort of evidence that (a) spirits exist, and (b) that the emotion of love is related to them. YMMV.
I disagree. One can discuss love without discussing the nature of existence.
“Charity” wasn’t the meaning I was using. However, I don’t see any reason to believe that charity cannot exist without the necessity of the existence of spirits.
Lordy
The reason I informed you that love has more than one definition was so you would know that there are more kinds of love than “the emotion of love”. A richer vocabulary might help you better organize your thoughts and formulate reasonable assertions.
But… but… you’re the one who brought up the nature of love’s existence. You’re the one who said that you “see no evidence that love is anything other than an emotion”. You’re the one who is asking for " evidence that … spirits exist". It is you who is framing the discussion in ontological terms, when really it is a matter of how love is defined. You are like a freshman physics student responding to a comment about the force of law and demanding “evidence” that force is anything other than mass times acceleration.
Yes, obviously. But you were responding to MY post, and therefore ought to use the meaning I was using. Otherwise, there is a problem with what we call equivocation. That means using the same word to signify different things. If I’m talking about God’s love — charity or [symbol]agape[/symbol] — it is an equivocation to for you to respond as though I were talking about an emotion. You might as well have butted in and said, “I see no evidence that love is anything other than a tennis score.”
Again with the ontological assertion. And now you’ve made it a modal one. And — unwittingly perhaps — you’ve put yourself into the position of agreeing with me since I specifically included the love experiences of atheists. Shall I step aside now so you can argue with yourself?
Beware, blowero. Philosophers tend to think the only criterion for validity is logic. Prepare for massive circularization.
Sorry, promised not to go for your jackassed bait any more. So you can be rude all you like - I’m not biting.
I don’t think so. I believe YOU brought it up when you said:
That doesn’t constitute bringing up the nature of love’s existence? 
Yes, because you said that love is “a (the) spiritual experience”. And I gave MY opinion, which is that I have no reason to believe that love is “a (the) spiritual experience”, sans any valid reason to believe so. As you did before, you seem to be confusing my RESPONSE to a point with my BRINGING UP the point.
Sorry, totally lost you. Again, you said love is “a (the) spiritual experience”. That’s not the standard definition. In fact, that definition doesn’t appear in ANY dictionary I’ve seen. And spiritual, I presume, means “of or relating to spirits”. And I don’t see any evidence that spirits exist.
This is my opinion: I do not believe that love is a spiritual experience. I believe it is an emotional experience. If you are using non-standard definitions of words, it is up to YOU to provide those definitions, rather than rudely imply that others lack knowledge because they can’t read your mind. Sheesh. And if you are just using “spiritual” in a completely amorphous way, where it really means nothing, then what’s the point of using the word at all?
Yes, well I’ll brush up on my mind-reading, then.
Huh? You just got through saying you were talking about “charity”. Apparently, words RETROACTIVELY mean whatever it is convenient for you at the time.
Oh God, PLEASE don’t start with the modal logic again. Can we just stick to ENGLISH here?
Sorry, part of that wasn’t clear. I shouldn’t have said you were inconsistent in your definition of love. You were consistent in saying love means “charity”, but you were inconsistent in explaining what “charity” means. You’re obviously using some sort of theological self-referencing jargon, which IMO is rather inappropriate in a debate forum where you are having discussions with atheists. Sort of like people who quote Bible verses.
Lib, I love it when you practice cryptic crossword puzzle theology. You’re so darned funny!
If God is love, and Canada Dry tastes like love (old slogan) does Canada Dry taste like god?
Or, for your force example, if the teacher is saying the Force from Star Wars is a fact, and a student protests, does the teacher saying force = mass times acceleration prove his point?
You say “All who value the aesthetic of goodness above all else are God.” but those who practice Islam say there is no God but God, and some Christians say Jesus is God, so your statement is denying their truth, and they are denying yours. Being ecumenical, though praiseworthy, doesn’t cut it when evaluating the truth claims of religion. Hopping between the multiple meanings of a word like a barefoot boy on a hot pavement doesn’t either.
One can use your method to refute atheism, by the way. I know a guy in a newsgroup who said that because the Romans worshipped the Emperor as a god, and the Emperor existed, therefore at least one god exists. (He was a self-professed agnostic, by the way, just to be fair.) See, all resolved.
Different bait, same fisherman. Don’t go for it!
Agent Cooper, do you admit the possibility that you could be wrong?
Daniel