God is product. God is what is packaged and sold by the religion.
I don’t know if a god of any kind exists; no one does. I can state with certainty, however, that God as part of a religion is nothing more than a figment of someone’s imagination.
The concept of something more that we can’t yet understand or comprehend is nessecary to advance knowledge. If scientists didn’t move forward in pursuit of an concept without any real evidence, then a lot of the advances we now have wouldn’t exist. Science seeks to explain and develop physical things that can be tested and falsified but the principle is the same. The idea of moving forward in faith and then evaluating in the consequences of our choices exists in both arenas. You might say the concept pf flight which existed long before we were able to fly was useless and pointless but I would say the concept was a nessecary part of what eventually led to flight.
What conclusion is it that you’re referring to?
*Belief in God is a matter of faith, rather than science, by definition. *
This is not a conclusion, it is a matter of fact based on the definition of what science is. God is a supernatural being and cannot be studied by scientific means.
*People who believe in God (in my experience) do not do a scientific analysis and after years of study reach the conclusion that there must be a God. People believe there is a God because they just feel it, or they were raised to believe. *
Like I said, this conclusion is based on my experience in talking with many people throughout my life, both believers, Buddhists, atheists, you name it. I have not met one person who said their belief was based on an objective study of the evidence. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any, but there aren’t in my experience, and I qualified the statement. People who believe in God often say that they feel God in their hearts or similar sentiments. The search for evidence for the existence of God generally comes after the belief is already embraced.
Do have a thought of your own to add?
No-one is asking you to avoid reading religious texts, or philosophical, or literary, but I would hope you could discriminate between the various methods and purposes of these works, and between them and science. Absorbing all sorts of input without ever making any attempt to distinguish between their relative validity is not the path to knowledge.
I think what most people on the atheist side in this thread are arguing is that the scientific method, in its largest sense, is a more valid method of discovering the truth about reality than whatever it is that leads people to have faith in a creator/god/whatever you want to call it. The former has rigorous standards, the latter has “because that’s the way I feel”. Sure, the scientific method requires one to accept certain fundamental ideas, such as that reality is knowable, and that we possess the intellectual ability to understand it on some level. If one cannot accept those ideas, it’s hard to know what we are talking about.
As we learn more about science, many things become demystified but the mysteries do grow deeper. OK, we know where lightning comes from, but where do electrons come from? OK, electrons come from quarks. Where do quarks come from? OK, superstrings. Where do superstrings come from and why are they vibrating? There will always be one more question.
Now, ultimately you reach this point at the edge of knowledge where you say, well we just don’t know so God must have done it. I’m not saying that proves the existence of God but it is as understandable as when the ancient Egyptians used Ra to explain the sun.
I’m saying that the attitude that “things were just made that way” and that there are no explanations is a sterile viewpoint. Nor does it apply only to religion; it that sort of attitude that helped keep women subject to men for so long, and kings in power so long. “That’s just the way it is” is a dead end statement.
Something we do not understand is not the same as something we cannot understand. If we can’t understand something, no amount of study will let us advance, or let us meaningfully talk of it. If we can’t understand, see, detect ( directly or indirectly ) or even define something, how can we even study it ?
You may say it; I don’t, and neither will any capable scientist. “I don’t know, let’s find out” is in the spirit of science; “God did it” is simply the veneration of ignorance.
The box is not quite so opaque as you suggest: people can tell us about their experiences (Dennett calls this “heterophenomenology”) and relate the similarities and differences. Sure, they could lie or misremember, but misleading results are the bane of any science: statistically, rigorous experiments will show similar independent results. (In an experiment to find whether being punched in the nose hurts, do we really need to feel the pain of the punchee?) What we need to do is get those people who had ‘divine’ experiences, subject them to the precipitated experiences and ask them how ‘divine’ they felt. If they could tell little or no difference, that would be an interesting datum.
My own testimony … err … testifies to the utility of this heterophenomenological method. After a ‘divine’ experience I explored other, precipitated experiences and found them qualitatively equivalent from a first hand perspective. You found my results interesting. Not cast-iron, not in any way conclusive, but still most definitely data to be accomodated.
My data, and the similar accounts from other subjects, strongly suggest to me that the cause of these experiences is neuropsychological and the divinity-or-not is circumstancial. (To analogise; if some method was found to precipitate perfect musical memory recall, we ought not be surprised if a Jimi Hendrix fan starts hearing Jimi Hendrix in his head, while a Handel afficianado experiences the Messiah.) Again, this is only my personal working conclusion. Cognitive experimental science is still in its infancy, and the “physics-style” definitive demonstrations you demand are the challenge of the millennium (if they are possible at all).
Of course they’re not of a standard you or I would wish to see (some fault is his, but I also think he has been the victim of shoddy science journalism which jumps on the God aspect where angels would feat to tread) – that’s why I think the Lausanne team are more interesting, actually. But even Persinger’s tentative results are mind-blowing: strange sensations can be caused by simple magnetic tickling! Again, if something so apparently ‘spiritual’ (or at least ‘mental’) as a profound experience can be so clearly laid at the door of a physical stimulus, then any dualism (from whatever ‘other’ source) is clearly bound for a right old slashing from the razor of parsimony.
I would still argue that the box (Wittgenstein’s?) is inaccessible. Language inherently limits our data to that which we can encode into language, which is further limited by our ability to do so, and the abilities of whoever is trying to decode the message we’re sending.
The decoding of information is almost always in the service of function, i.e., “Is my translation close enough for the purposes at hand?”, and I completely grant you that for many, many purposes even a very rough approximation is good enough.
Still, there are many experiences that are far more subtle and nuanced than a punch in the snoot: the feeling of love, the taste of chocolate, etc. Hell, even the great William James noted that ineffability was one of the hallmarks of a putative “experience of God”.
Now this I can get behind. I accept unreservedly that your ‘divine’ experiences and your precipitated experiences were equivalent. You’re the proper judge of that, not me or anybody else (which is, of course, the point I’ve been belaboring). I have no doubt that others would tell a similar tale. And still others would not.
I can respect that this is your conclusion, it’s just not mine. In part this is because: 1) There are very good reasons that “NCC” still refers to neural correlates of consciousness instead of neural causes, and 2) We still run into the Ramachandran Conundrum: There’s no way to tell whether specific neural activity results in an “experience of God”, or is caused by an “experience of God”.
Agreed; nothing triggers journalistic hyperbole faster than experiments involving religion or consciousness.
From reading his papers, it still seems that for the majority of Persinger’s subjects, the experience was none too profound.
I know you’ve already granted that cognitive science is still in its infancy; I agree and I feel that Persinger is a good case in point: When someone can reliably induce the classic defining marks of a mystical/religious experience (Ineffability, noetic quality, transiency and passivity, to which philosophers like Stace would add unity or loss of self) in the majority of a control group of individuals who claim to have never had such experiences, well, then we can talk. Until then, TMS-induction of an “experience of God” is no more than journalistic hyperbole.
A valid point. The thing is, all people theits and atheists alike make choices every day that affect us their fellow beings based on what they know, what they simply suspect, and what they feel. In some facet of that decision making process, science just doesn’t apply. I know there are those who hold religious beliefs in spite of ample hard evidence that that particular belief is just not true. I have a hard time with that myself. “Excuse me, I thought you worshipped the truth?”
Keeping a sense of something greater than ourselves and wondering how that all works together is not the same thing. If you limited the question to “Do you believe in God?” you’d get a lot of yes answers. If you asked people to explain their concept of God you’d get a wide variety of answers. I certainly understand people rejecting certain concepts of God. {Like the one who punishes NO for gay parades} I do that myself.
Then psychiatry (or even medical diagnosis in general) is a futile field of endeavour.
“Now then, what seems to be the trouble?”
“I’m afraid I’m too limited in what language can encode, doctor.”
But if I disagreed with you there, and held that there was no such distinction in ‘subtlety’, I’m sure you realise that you would have every bit as much difficulty demonstrating your distinction as I my similarity. Again, the “No true Scotsman …” monster surfaces on the loch.
And, in listening to those ‘still others’ who believe that some ghosts are hoaxes but some are real, it would be up to you to decide which explanatory entity is necessary if my entities could explain their tales.
…while remembering that correlation can be causation, such as in computer science: the phenomena on the monitor only correlate with the activity in the hardware, but I have never met anyone who didn’t just go ahead and attribute the cause to that activity also. Are they justified in that, would you say?
Or, indeed, if the appearance of Christmas presents is only correlated with parental delivery, when actually Santa Claus delivers them magically and inserts false memories into everyone’s heads. We cannot dismiss the latter possibility, and I do not dismiss the possibility of a genuine divine source for these experiences. My belief-o-meter needle merely tilts strongly against both it and Santa Claus.
Well, some of those look like porridge sugar to me, but why a majority? I would think even a handful of such people would be absolutely remarkable in itself.
Incomprehensible can me “for now” Even in science doesn’t it start with a theory of what may exist or what may be true? Sometimes it is just a question that exists for decades until enough progress is made to address it in a falsifiable manner. It’s only in fairly recent history that science even existed in that manner. The understanding of how things physically function is only one small aspect of what makes up our world. What Jesus dealt with along with other philosophers and teachers was how we live together and deal with each other. For myself and I’d say more than a few others the term God is about that. As long as we seek to grow and understand as people we continue to refine and change our understanding and concept of God and how that relates to us and the world around us.
I’d say, “I don’t know lets find out” is how many would answer. “Is there a reason for my being here?”
Very interesting as usual. Babba Ram Das from my era used to hang out with Timothy Leary and decribes several eye opening spiritual experiences while on LSD. His take on it was that eventually he wanted to find a way to dwell in those states of high awareness rather than just visit occasionally.
Almost impossible for those of us who have to function in the day to day world with all it’s distractions and temptations.
I find my own beliefs evolving and changing. I really resist and take exception to the notion of God or the divine as something seperate from us and out there some where. It seems more that we need to awaken to the awe that we are already a part of.
I’ve been interested in the eastern religions that strive to make our subconscious choices conscious ones. Rather than accept “That’s just the way I am, or that’s just one of my personality traits.” I strive to question and understand why I react the way I do to certain things and to let go. The desire to grow and mature as a person in spirit and practice, becomes the effort, which becomes the ability, which then becomes just the way I am. Interesting cycle. Regardless of what stimulus can do , I think that process is the essence of what teachers like Buddha and Jesus were talking about.
It doesn’t take faith or any aspect of mystical belief to have a sense of something greater than ourselves. One of the posts in this thread expounds about this issue:
This sentiment really resonates with me. I prefer reality to myth or magic.
Not futile, but frequently inaccurate and prone to errors of interpretation and bias, as a brief survey of its history will attest (Repressed Memories, anyone?)
Again, you argue my point for me: you cannot demonstrate your experience of similarity to me, and I cannot demonstrate my experience of distinction to you because our consciousnesses are closed to one another.
Of course; just as it’s up to me to decide if either entity constitutes an explanation.
Correlation is not causation. Correlation can be used as a synonym for causation, and it functions well enough in, say, an off-hand discussion of computer monitors. Like many English words, in everyday conversation “causation” is often used unrigorously, as when we say that eating rich food “causes” weight gain.
Ramachandran’s point is that observing neural activity cannot tell you whether an “experience of God” (or any other experience for that matter) is a cause of said neural activity or a result. If you want to take a crack at refuting Ramachandran, I’d honestly be interested your attempt.
No more remarkable than the handful of reports by otherwise intelligent, sober individuals that Borley Rectory caused them to experience a ghost. Is the ability of Borley Rectory to induce those experiences remarkable? Well, I guess so, but it’s hardly scientific.
Maybe it’s time for me to write a materialist self help book and make my fortune. 
It doesn’t take mystical belief but it does take faith. Perhaps not faith in any concept of God that you’ve heard but faith in something. A sense of something greater than ourselves is still a feeling, or a belief that there is something more to life than a struggle for survival and our daily bread. We discussed this in a thread a few months ago and several atheists expressed the same sense you are expressing now. A sense of wonder and awe about our existance and our unique place in the universe. That’s faith.
The thing about reality over myth is that we are discussing things about which we don’t know exactly what the reality is. So you choose what path seems to resonate with you the best and others may choose something else that works for them. It’s all good,…until we get to the place where one side wants to critisize and be judgemental simply because we don’t agree with the path they’ve chosen. It’s inevitable I suppose. That’s how people are.
:smack: Erratum: “Correlation is not causation. Causation is sometimes used as a synonym for correlation…”
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on the definition of what faith is.
Faith defined by a dictionary. There’s nothing there about wonder and awe about our existence.
Appreciation of the majesty and scope and wonder of the vastness of the universe compared to my own personal scope of experience (not necessarily a unique place in that universe) has nothing to do with faith. It’s simply a recognition of one aspect of reality. I thought this was what I was saying before, but apparently I wasn’t clear.
I’m with Roderick. This is not faith. Something bigger than ourselves? I’ve got family, country, company, and my field, to mention a few. Humanity also. They all exist.
Our unique place in the universe? We know it is a big universe, and whether or not we are the only intelligent beings in it, intelligence is rare compared to the size of space (which is really, really big.) It’s all science to me.
Now if you mean that we must have some degree of faith that what we see as reality really is, again I disagree. It is a working hypothesis. Maybe we are, like Ed Fredkin suggested, inside a big simulation, with Planck time being the simulation step time. That would indeed be interesting. I don’t have faith that this is not true, I just don’t see any evidence for it, and anyway it is untestable, given good enough programmers.
Could you be more specific on why you think some of these things represent faith?
No, I don’t believe that is generally the case at all. When you hit the edge of knowledge, the religious believers say; “Well, it looks like God must have done it and maybe it’s something we weren’t meant to know.”
People with critical thinking skills and a lot of curiousity say; “Hmmm. What kind of experiment can I design that will tell me where superstrings come from?”
With one group, knowledge and investigation of the fascinating universe we live in comes to a grinding halt. The other methods informs us of the wonders of the universe as well as lengthening our lives to enjoy it.
Regards
Testy