Christian and Skeptic??

UrsulaV said:
Just 'cos I'm dogmatic that way, I will delurk to point out that evolution is a blind mechanism and not in any way purposefully directed, so there's no reason whatsoever that one couldn't have a "religious experience trigger" evolve as long as it wasn't actively detrimental to reproduction. There's a tendency on practically all our parts--I've done it plenty, god knows--to fall into the verbal trap of saying "this evolved because..." but in fact things just plain evolve, due to mutation, and those who evolve the more useful stuff get the lovin'.

That said, I can see any number of possible scenarios whereby religious experiences could evolve by accident. Supposing, for the moment, that we're saying it's caused by chemistry in the brain--if enzyme A and neurotranmitter B are both handy things to have around the brain, but once in a blue moon, one misfires and they combine and make Hallucinogen C and you meet God--well, assuming that you do not damage your reproductive possibilities in the ten minutes that you're meeting God, there's no reason that A & B would be selected against. (If, on the other hand, you were consistently eaten by a saber-toothed tiger in that ten minutes, this would be a distinct pressure against.)

Related, if stress chemical A does helpful things under one scenario (i.e. I'm cold!) and stress chemical B does helpful things under another (I'm bleeding!) and there's a whole stress chemical array that the brain has evolved to release according to various stresses, (I'm fighting! I'm starving! Etc!) and then one DIES and the brain, in a panic, starts throwing any switch it can get its grubby little lobes on in that last couple seconds, and stress chemicals A-Z flood the body, coexisting in ways they don't do under normal function, why couldn't they lead to an NDE? Sensations of flight, bright lights, and euphoria are all pretty common effects, god knows, you can get them all on a tab of acid, and LSD's got nothin' on the stuff already rattling around the brain stem.

All of this is pure speculation, I hasten to add, my knowledge of brain chemistry pretty much stopped with "The Dragons of Eden" but nevertheless, there are tons of scenarios that I can come up with before coffee whereby one might evolve the capacity to have something that seems like a religious experience purely by accident.

One final example--there was a Saint Hildegard, back in the day, who had what some scholars now suspect were classic migraines, of the variety that used to be called "migraine with aura." I get 'em myself--mine have bizarre visual flaws, like your field of view being shot through with jittery neon herringbone cracks, a sense of...mm...disassociation, I guess is the best term, and acute loss of peripheral vision. (On the bright side, they don't hurt anything like a regular migraine, which is a prime example of things having evolved that drop you like a rock, but, hey, as long as you can still reproduce...)

Now, me, I say "Hey, migraine, better take some Percogesic and go to bed." Saint Hildegard interpreted it as ecstatic vision, thought that she was witnessing the battles between angels and demons, and drew some fairly bizarre pictures that neverless have the spiky visual-flaw look that I recognize--if I tried to make a woodcut of what I see with a migraine, it'd look like that. This doesn't require any religious experience center to the brain at all, it's just one of the standard malfunctions, but it's entirely possible to interpret it in a religious framework.

And that's enough outta me.

Welcome to the forum UrsulaV. Was Saint Hildegard the one that inspired Mel Gibson's "Passion"?

I agree about how we interpret things. Like you, I experienced migraine before knowing what it really was. The aura can be pretty frightening. But I thought "brain tumour" or "going blind" rather than "visions from God".

Indeed, if it wasn't for St.Paul's probable temporal lobe epilepsy, Christianity might have developed in a different way.

St. Rose of Lima is a prime example of where "religion" is probably closer to a mental illness. Her self-abuse was horrific, but she believed she was immitating the suffering of Jesus.

Now, do Opus Dei members really wear a celise? ;)
 
jmercer said:
I think that some people (including myself) are saying that if anecdotal evidence and personal experiences are all we've got, then that's all we can use.
Well that is certainly true. But then isn't it really a case of you having come to some predeterminced conclusion and using anecdotes and personal experiences as a post-hoc justification?

(And we should use it, not just ignore it.) Whether or not the conclusions drawn from that evidence by me are correct is certainly debatable.
I don't think they should be ignored either, but its much too far of an intuitive leap of logic for me to thus base a belief in a concept such as God upon them. I think this really is where we fundamentally part ways. You very much expect to find God to be there in the end, if we ever reach it. I have no expectation at all. Would you agree with that?
 
As noted above, most religious people are quite happy to "live and let live." But fanatics and zealots can do a lot of harm. If a religion claims universal exclusivity, and is evangelical in nature, then the logical consequences of belief in [your version] of an omniscient, omnipotent god is that "the other", the unbeliever, is sinful, corrupt, and immoral because they are willfully ignoring the dictates of the Almighty.

I agree that this kind of fanaticism causes a great deal of harm. That's not an argument against religion per se. In fact, it's at the core of why many religious congregations, including mine, feel morally obligated to speak out against such attitudes and fundamentalism. My country is becoming theocratic and we have only been half-joking about our discussions of emigration over the last couple of years.

Remember, I am talking about fanatics here. You don't have to search far to find them gaining power both today and throughout history. So, believers and unbelievers should be cautious and ask "what could this lead to?"

Huh? So I should be unwilling to call myself a Christian because there are people who've used that word to justify crimes? The fact that the name is abused doesn't mean that my own muddled spiritual search "could lead to" fanatical zealotry. Would you say that to a Moslem, that he shouldn't study his religion because he should as "what could this lead to?" If a Norwegian decides that Norway is the One True Country and begins killing people on that basis, would you tell other Norwegians that they should give pause to identifying themselves as Norwegian, to speaking the Norwegian language or promoting Norwegian culture, because of what it might lead to?

It is worrying, for example, to see a promotion in the USA of what amounts to a "Divine Right of Presidents".

It is more than worrying. It is destroying everything that makes this country what it is. It *must* be stopped.

Did you know that most people in the US who identify themselves as Christian are not conservative, either doctrinally or politically? The conservative fraction is about 35% on both issues.
 
voidx said:
I think this really is where we fundamentally part ways. You very much expect to find God to be there in the end, if we ever reach it. I have no expectation at all. Would you agree with that?

I can't speak for jmercer, but I can tell you that most attempts to tell me, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, what it is I believe are doomed to failure. They also irritate me.

On this statement:
You very much expect to find God to be there in the end, if we ever reach it.

I have no such expectations. I have no data. I never will have any such data until I get there.
 
rppa said:
I can't speak for jmercer, but I can tell you that most attempts to tell me, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, what it is I believe are doomed to failure. They also irritate me.

Then how about you just tell us?
 
rppa said:
I agree that this kind of fanaticism causes a great deal of harm. That's not an argument against religion per se. In fact, it's at the core of why many religious congregations, including mine, feel morally obligated to speak out against such attitudes and fundamentalism. My country is becoming theocratic and we have only been half-joking about our discussions of emigration over the last couple of years.



Huh? So I should be unwilling to call myself a Christian because there are people who've used that word to justify crimes? The fact that the name is abused doesn't mean that my own muddled spiritual search "could lead to" fanatical zealotry. Would you say that to a Moslem, that he shouldn't study his religion because he should as "what could this lead to?" If a Norwegian decides that Norway is the One True Country and begins killing people on that basis, would you tell other Norwegians that they should give pause to identifying themselves as Norwegian, to speaking the Norwegian language or promoting Norwegian culture, because of what it might lead to?



It is more than worrying. It is destroying everything that makes this country what it is. It *must* be stopped.

Did you know that most people in the US who identify themselves as Christian are not conservative, either doctrinally or politically? The conservative fraction is about 35% on both issues.

Sorry, rppa. Maybe I phrased it badly. What I hoped to convey is that believers and unbelievers should ask "what could such fanaticism lead to?" Not, that religion necessarily must lead to zealotry.
 
voidx said:
Well that is certainly true. But then isn't it really a case of you having come to some predeterminced conclusion and using anecdotes and personal experiences as a post-hoc justification?

Definitely not a predetermined conclusion. I was exploring the concept and during the exploration process came to a conclusion based on my experiences. Regarding post hoc justification, it's one of those areas that are difficult to quantify due to the nature of the experiences. I can say, however, that I didn't have an "aha!" after these subjective experiences.

I don't deliberately mean to be mysterious about it, but the details are very personal.

voidx said:

I don't think they should be ignored either, but its much too far of an intuitive leap of logic for me to thus base a belief in a concept such as God upon them. I think this really is where we fundamentally part ways. You very much expect to find God to be there in the end, if we ever reach it. I have no expectation at all. Would you agree with that?

Sure, as long as you strike 'very much'. I simply expect it... but I'm by no means certain or sure I'm correct. :)
 
jmercer said:
I was exploring the concept and during the exploration process came to a conclusion based on my experiences.

Personal experience is not adequate evidence.
 
rppa said:
I can't speak for jmercer, but I can tell you that most attempts to tell me, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, what it is I believe are doomed to failure. They also irritate me.
It was the impression I was getting of jmercer's position, which is why I quantified it with the "Do you agree with this" summation at the end. It was in no manner directed at you personally.

I have no such expectations. I have no data. I never will have any such data until I get there.
Then what is your belief based upon?
 
I have no such expectations. I have no data. I never will have any such data until I get there.
Then what is your belief based upon?

What belief are you asking about?
 
TLN said:
Personal experience is not adequate evidence.

That depends on the purpose it's intended for, doesn't it? Scientifically, yep. For purposes of personal choices, though - especially in the absence of any other evidence - then perhaps it is.

Just my opinion on it, of course.
 
jmercer said:
That depends on the purpose it's intended for, doesn't it? Scientifically, yep. For purposes of personal choices, though - especially in the absence of any other evidence - then perhaps it is.

Just my opinion on it, of course.

And my opinion is it's a terrible foundation for a belief, scientific or otherwise.

Your personal experiences might be mistaken. It's just that simple. Saying you had a personal experience which convinced you of the veracity of a belief is profoundly unskeptical.
 
TLN said:
Then how about you just tell us?

Why? How could you possibly care about the internals of my subjective worldview?

OK, here's an only-slightly facetious summary:

I believe in God (now define "God", which you'll note I haven't).

I believe prayer works (now define "prayer" and "works", which you'll note I haven't).

I believe that the approach to human societal interaction laid out by Christ is a good one to follow. I do my best to follow those guidelines. I neither know nor care about questions of afterlife, heaven or hell. The entire point for me is how we conduct ourselves in this brief life. I think that similar guidelines can be found in many places, including in the absence of religion entirely. In other words, I think that most people are pretty damned good if you give them a chance.

I don't think Christ was divine. I do think he existed, but actually that existence isn't crucial to my decision to use the Gospels as a moral guideline. It wouldn't change anything for me personally if he turned out to be a composite character, a fictional conglomeration of an itinerant Zuni fish salesman and two of the lesser-known apostles. In fact I think it would be absolutely fascinating to get that kind of detailed data about such a murky and crucial point in history.

I think that the message got garbled significantly over the years, starting with Paul.

That's a fair summary off the top of my head. Now, like I say, how could you possibly care about any of that? What possible reason could you have to want to know?
 
TLN said:
And my opinion is it's a terrible foundation for a belief, scientific or otherwise.

Your personal experiences might be mistaken. It's just that simple. Saying you had a personal experience which convinced you of the veracity of a belief is profoundly unskeptical.

Well, it was more than one experience, and it was over a number of years. Having said that, yes, you're correct - I may be mistaken in my interpretation of these experiences, and I fully understand that alternative explanations for them exist. (And I've researched those explanations as well.)

So it seems - paraphrasing to verify - that you're stating that personal experiences should never be used as evidence - even in the absence of any other data. Is that a correct interpretation?
 
jmercer said:
Well, it was more than one experience, and it was over a number of years. Having said that, yes, you're correct - I may be mistaken in my interpretation of these experiences, and I fully understand that alternative explanations for them exist. (And I've researched those explanations as well.)

So it seems - paraphrasing to verify - that you're stating that personal experiences should never be used as evidence - even in the absence of any other data. Is that a correct interpretation?

Correct. You can't eliminate the possibility that you're mistaken if you only have your personal, subjective experience to rely on.
 
See above: tell us which ones you hold first, then maybe we can discuss them.

What would be the purpose in this "discussion"? I already know your opinion, that I'm a Bad Person for holding different views on this from you.

I have no interest in either theological argument (as the questions I am concerned with have no evidence either pro or con, it wouldn't be a very long "argument" would it?) or in proselytizing, god forbid.

Besides, my comment was to voidx, who asked "What is your belief based on?" I'm asking for the antecedent to "your belief". I can't answer voidx's question until I know what belief the question refers to.

Get back to me with a completely serious summary.

A little autocratic, aren't we? No, that's as serious as I get when discussing myself. Deal with it or not. Your choice. I bared my soul and gave plenty of thought to my answer. I'm a little peeved, but not at all surprised, at seeing the entire thing snipped and ignored after I decided to actually take the time to give an honest answer about very personal things.

Can you tell me why you think I would feel any interest to obey your little foot-stomping demand just because my first (probably unread) response failed your unstated criteria? Why would any rational human being feel compelled to respond to this distasteful display?
 
Ok, thanks... I now see where we differ, and why - good information to keep in mind, it should cut down on miscommunications between us in the future.
 
TLN said:
And my opinion is it's a terrible foundation for a belief, scientific or otherwise.

Your personal experiences might be mistaken. It's just that simple. Saying you had a personal experience which convinced you of the veracity of a belief is profoundly unskeptical.


Hey there TLN, here's an earlier post of mine I copied and pasted in response to ilk. This doesn't mean you're right or wrong, just something for you to think about. Hope this helps! :)

Earlier today, I had posted:

GOOD FOR YOU! If you are indeed perfectly happy living your life in a completely non spiritual way instead of focusing on what you feel is positive for society, then this is all that anyone can ask of you, really...that you lead a happy and fulfilling life. No one can dictate specifically HOW you should live your life based on religious "rules" and tenents. YOU make your own rules based on your personal preferences and overall life experiences, centered around a foundation of timeless and changeless principles. Granted, you'll probably never win a Nobel Peace Prize or even be elected office for your community, but who cares? YOU live your life HAPPILY in YOUR own way. Period.

Again, when you get a chance, you might want to check out Steven Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" at www.stevencovey.com I promise you, you will NOT find any religiously spiritual based nonsense in this book. Just a suggestion, not an order....

And as far as this whole "god" and religion thing is concerned, it all boils down to this: What's your favorite ice cream flavor? Chocolate or Vanilla?

Think of all religious tenents, rules and dogma being the specific flavors and colors; and the timeless ageless principles of love, respect, tolerance, honesty, integrity, etc, being the fat, calories, carbohydrates, sugar, cream, etc.

Flavors and colors CAN indeed be artificial...much like our many notions of god are --especially if no such information about the ice cream's ingredients are known, just like evidence or proof of God is not known. So let's think of vanilla (especially an all natural, organically produced variety) as being the "purest" flavor of them all, because it's all white it has nothing artificial about it, and the darkened brown chocolate being the "B.S. crap" kind of ice cream, and who know's what's in there!

Even with all the research in the world, is it really worth our while to attempt to convert all the chocolate lovers to vanilla? However superior our arguments may be, people are going to like whatever they like, whether it be chocolate or vanilla; Jesus or Budda; God or no god at all. Period. End of story.

Besides, assuming that each 1 cup serving of chocolate or vanilla ice cream has the SAME amount of calories, along with the SAME amount of fat, wouldn't both the chocolate and vanilla lovers gain the SAME amount of weight, if that's what they eat all day with no exercise???
 

Back
Top Bottom