Definition of "god"?

[MattusMaximus]

I think skepticism ought to have an equal place in testing both supernatural and natural claims.
The problem is that when naturalist skeptics apply their "skepticism" to supernatural claims it turns out not to be skepticism at all, but simple prejudice.
As a supernaturalist myself, I still test the claims of supernaturalists with my own skepticism. There are some "gurus" who I can see are blatant exploitative frauds.

And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that some of these "gurus" are blatant frauds? What was the method you employed? Please provide a specific example.

 

[Paulhoff]

The reason the universe was brought into being was to effect a journey of consciousness in which the individual soul takes on embodiment in, and the resultant range of experiences of, (in order) minerals, plants, fish, birds, mammals, then human beings (at which point 100% self-consciousness is finally attained).

Really, go for it, a magical universe can be anything you what it to be.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

The problem is that when naturalist skeptics apply their "skepticism" to supernatural claims it often turns out not to be skepticism at all, but simple prejudice.

No, it turns out that after almost 60 years of having seen no real proof by me (and many others), that it is not prejudice, but a great deal of lack of evidence, lots and lots of pretty words and magical thinking, but no evidence. Show me evidence and not what you need to be true.

Paul



Well see where the prejudice comes from now.

 

[plumjam]

Okaaaay... so you are claiming that there are more than 5 senses? You seem to be claiming the existence of at least a 6th sense that would allow one to "communicate with infinity"? Is this an accurate summary of what you've written here and below?

It is not so much 'senses'. It is more that there are various ways to perceive truth about reality.
Most people here concentrate on the 5 senses: "show me.. demonstrate it to me".
Yet I think it's unarguable that we also perceive truth about reality in non-sense (pun intended ) based modes. These are: logic, mathematics, reasoning, morality, aesthetics...
These are ways of perceiving.. and with work all of them can be improved (in a way that the 5 senses can't to any great extent).
To these all I am doing is adding the spiritual sense, if you like. If there are all of these improvable and invisible modes we use to perceive truth, then why not spiritual perception too? Particularly as it has been an unarguably important element of the whole range of human experience for millenia.

I can understand the concept of "truth" in logic and mathematics, but only up until a point. The traditional Greek concept of truth in mathematics harkens back to Euclidean geometry, which could be used through logic to argue basic truths about reality as it was understood. Many natural philosophers and mathematicians believed that by proving something as "true" using logic and mathematics, then it was indeed "true" in the real world. This was a prevailing view until the advent of non-Euclidean geometry in the 19th century, whereupon the entire notion of "truth" in mathematics was turned upon its head. After that, no one could merely point to a proof and state, unequivocally, "This is true" - they had to subject it to some form of experimental verification.

Well, all you're saying amounts to is basically "people can sometimes be wrong". We are living in the dualistic relational mode of existence, in which we're rarely going to encounter perfect truth such as 2+2=4. Presumably the Euclidean geometry was better than what went before, then the non-Euclidean was a bit better than that. Both are just approximations.
This is the same with the senses. I am short-sighted, when I put on my glasses that is a better approximation to the truth, closer to perfection, but never perfection.

As for "truth" in morality and aesthetics, how do you define such things?

Sometimes it's easy. Show 100 mothers a child being raped and murdered. They will give you an extremely accurate but not always perfect approximation to what is the moral truth in that situation.
Similarly in aesthetics, almost all of 100 people will prefer the Beatles over an orang utan playing the bagpipes.
In less extreme cases, sure, there will be more disagreement.. but disagreement does not mean that there is not an underlying truth beneath it all, waiting to be correctly perceived.
Remember that people with varyingly effective senses will disagree about what they're seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting.

Again, I'd be interested in knowing, from your point of view, exactly what these supposed "extra spiritual senses" are. Can you at least provide some kind of meaningful definition from which to proceed? If not, you're going to find yourself open to charges of word-smithing.

Well, I refer you to my answer about de-egoing.
The senses here might be described as a sense of the sacred / a sense of devotion / perceiving spiritual truth in the lives and teachings of others.

What is your definition of "mind"?

Probably the same as most peoples. That in which mental acts such as thoughts, perceptions, memories, desires etc.. take place.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Okay, how about telling me exactly how you came to the conclusion that some spiritualist "gurus" were frauds? What was the method you employed in determining this to be the case? A specific case please.

 

[plumjam]

And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that some of these "gurus" are blatant frauds? What was the method you employed? Please provide a specific example.

Well, in the Indian tradition, (which makes up most of my background in this area) the advice traditionally given out by gurus is that you should never accept a guru until you have tested him/her in your own experience. This is normally done by living with the guru for a while (possibly years), observing their daily behaviour, and interactions with people.

I have not personally met a fraudulent guru (that I know of). However, I was exposed to the written teachings, and some videos, of Sathya Sai Baba. He was never convincing to me. His teachings lacked any sense of freshness. They were just regurgitations of tradition, and had no 'spark' behind them. Basically I didn't believe his claims. Later on I saw interviews with some of his ex-followers. Most of them were the young sons of some of his western followers. Sathya Sai Baba had a habit of psychologically pressuring them to allow him to perform oral sex on them. Anyone who refused this was denounced, and told they'd more or less be going to hell.

There's another one that sticks out (unfortunate turn of prhase intended). Adi Da http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Da

To me he is a transparent fraud.

I don't say that these people have nothing at all to offer. Perhaps they have some wisdom. But their egos have taken over the power their followers afford them, and have used that power abusively.

 

[Tricky]

In what form would you like this to be presented?

In a way that is objectively observable and verifiable. That is what makes it evidence.

By definition, a phenomenon such as an individual consciousness experiencing infinity could not be communicated to your inidividual consciousness via the 5 senses. All you would get would be something being communicated to your consciousness via the 5 senses.

And things which we experience without the evidence of any of any of our five senses are called "imaginary". If you have no way of showing an objective difference between this communication versus something purely imagined, then there is no reason to suspect it is anything other than imaginary.

This remains true even for more mundane individual experiences. For Fred, who has who has never fallen in love, or gotten drunk, or taken an LSD trip.. Fred would never be able to demonstrate the reality of such experiences to Tom, who has never experienced the above themself, individually... unless Tom took some kind of leap of faith, by taking Fred's word for it, and drinking 12 beers, or taking LSD, or putting an ad in the Lonely Hearts column.
Tom has to have faith and make some effort towards the reported experience in order to test the claim.

Though experiences are, of course, personal, there is observable, verifiable physical evidence of drunkenness. Emotions have physical correlates too in things such as body chemistry. Now I am not suggesting that we need to dismantle love to find out what it is made of, but it is quite clear that emotions and drunkenness are the physical effects of a physical brain. This can be easily tested.

You propose an entity for which there can be no tests.

Tricky, are you tipsy again?

Not today, PJ. I have to work tomorrow. If you wanted me to prove my sobriety, I could via a physical test.

You keep making these basic philosophical errors. By "objectively verifiable" what you are meaning is (correct me if I'm wrong) "communicable via the 5 senses". Unless you can enlighten me as to how infinity could be communicated via the eye, nose, ear, tongue, or skin then I just have to conclude that you're hopelessly confused on this one.

It cannot be. That is why it is purely conceptual. It is not a "thing" that exists. If you lower the bar so that purely conceptual things are treated as real things, then anything you can conceive would be real. Would you want to defend that point?

I would agree to a point. Your problem is that you are only willing to accept a particular type of evidence.. i.e. that which is communicable via the 5 senses. For you, it seems, the fact that some forms of truth are not amenable to communication via the senses, means that you feel within your rights to dismiss these truths out of hand.
But this is not a position that can be seriously held for long, if you really think about it. Because then you would be forced to dismiss the truths of logic, mathematics, morality, and aesthetics.

Some yes. Math and logic are a set of rules and definitions. Neither one has a physical existence. Morality and aesthetics, though they too are concepts, have use in defining human behavior. They also are well defined and can be demonstrated objectively and verifiably. (Note that I am only saying morality and aesthetics, as human behaviors, can be demonstrated, not that there is a single correct morality or set of aesthetics.)

(I'd guess at least 95% of the population, including me) can look at a mathematical proof, and not make head nor tail of it. The people who claim to be able to make head or tail of it are people who have devoted years of their lives in training in order to develop the mathematical perception of their individual consciousnesses. The claims of these mathematicians gain or lose validity only when compared with the individual mathematical perceptions of others of their ilk.

Actually they've learned the rules and definitions of mathematics. Those rules and definitions can be taught to others and they will work the same way.

You cannot say this about the "infinity" that you claim to have witnessed. Their stories are bound to be different from yours.

But, due to your insistence on demonstrability via the senses, in this lifetime you'll probably never take any steps to train yourself spiritually. Thus you have shut off a whole area of human experience, which is a shame, really.

You may call it a shame. I suppose it is equally a shame that I will not train myself to ride unicorns, since they don't exist in any way accessible via the senses. Personally, I would consider more of a shame to spend what spangle of existence I have pursuing a chimera. Sure I love good fiction as much as anyone, but I don't believe it.

Yes, I'm afraid I'll miss all those wonderful spiritual and imaginary things because of my stodgy determination to stay rooted in reality. What a pity.

My magic world has many constraints. For example, egotism/selfishness will never ever lead to spiritual progress. Other examples: identification with the body/mind has to be left behind for progress... the more you want the less happy you will be.... desire lies at the root of a restless mind.... treating people as means rather than ends will backfire on you, via the moral law of karma, .. etc.. etc..
Spiritual teachers work with similar rules in the great traditions.

Some do, some don't. The pantheon of spirituality is quite wide. A person can even invent their own spiritual beliefs. Having a large number of people who believe in something doesn't make it true. I'm sure you are aware of this.

The difference is that neither you nor I have personal experience of lutefisk as a force. Yet you, I, and the rest of humanity all have personal experience of hate as a force.
That is why 'hate' is a commonly understood concept, whereas 'lutefisk' is not.

It doesn't matter how "commonly understood" it is. If you get to claim "hate" is a force, then my claim that "lutefisk" is a force has equal weight. They are both using the word "force" in a purely metaphorical sense. While this works as a literary device, it should never be used to try to compare it with a physical force, such as gravity. They are completely different meanings.

As I said right at the start for "infinite love" to be meaningful via communication, the phrase would have to be passed between two consciousnesses who had individually experienced it. (Remember, that would also hold true of two mathematicians whose mathematical perceptual abilities have provided them the same individual experience of a particular truth)
I have not, and I'm guessing you haven't either.

How exactly do these consciousnesses pass it between themselves? Unless you've discovered a new way of communication, I'd say that it involves the senses. If not, how could you determine this other consciousness is not purely imaginary?

Mathematicians convey their perceptions and knowledge of the rules and definitions of math by purely physical means. I invite you to provide an example that disproves this.

But I'm not so arrogant to assume that the limits of my individual experiences to date circumscribe the limits of all of human experience. I have studied quite a bit the lives and teachings of many individuals who claim to have experienced this. Their lives are exemplary, and their teachings are insightful, internally rational, enlightening, and inspirational.
You have one kind of faith, I have another. That's all it is.

That is not correct. I have almost no faith. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Believe me, you are not the first to try to convince me or others here that faith and belief are exact synonyms. Almost every "spiritual" person who comes here tries exactly the same tack. It never works.

 

[articulett]

The answer to all these questions is simple: "We don't know (yet)."

Yes, we don't know yet-- but neither does any guru. Moreover, no guru has discovered objectively verifiable facts. Science is replete with such discoveries along with the refining and honing of such information.

Science works as advertised.

Faith promises things in an afterlife that can never be verified to exist.

 

[plumjam]

Okay, how about telling me exactly how you came to the conclusion that some spiritualist "gurus" were frauds? What was the method you employed in determining this to be the case? A specific case please.

To add to what I already said, there is no magic way to judge. You judge a person's sincerity on their acts, how they treat you, what they say... whether what they say harmonises with how they act etc...
It's just the same as in normal life, when you're deciding whether you'd like to be friends with someone, or maybe marry them.

You use your intuition, and some people's intuition is better than others.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well, in the Indian tradition, (which makes up most of my background in this area) the advice traditionally given out by gurus is that you should never accept a guru until you have tested him/her in your own experience. This is normally done by living with the guru for a while (possibly years), observing their daily behaviour, and interactions with people.

This is pretty vague. Please provide more specifics on this kind of testing.

I have not personally met a fraudulent guru (that I know of). However, I was exposed to the written teachings, and some videos, of Sathya Sai Baba. He was never convincing to me. His teachings lacked any sense of freshness. They were just regurgitations of tradition, and had no 'spark' behind them. Basically I didn't believe his claims. Later on I saw interviews with some of his ex-followers. Most of them were the young sons of some of his western followers. Sathya Sai Baba had a habit of psychologically pressuring them to allow him to perform oral sex on them. Anyone who refused this was denounced, and told they'd more or less be going to hell.

Ah, so you don't think he's "authentic" because you "didn't believe his claims." Why didn't you believe his claims? What were the criteria that you used to evaluate the validity of his claims? Again, specifics please.

I should also note that it is entirely likely that a follower of Sathya Sai Baba could easily claim that based upon your statements above that you didn't believe him simply due to your pre-conceived bias, or perhaps you haven't let go of enough of your ego? Perhaps you cannot see the "truth" of Sia Baba because you haven't properly honed your "extra spiritual sense"?

I'm not meaning to be a putz here, but do you see what I'm getting at?

There's another one that sticks out (unfortunate turn of prhase intended). Adi Da http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Da

To me he is a transparent fraud.

Again, why do you find this man to be a transparent fraud? How did you come to this conclusion? Did you just "not believe him" either, or is there something more to your determination that both he and Sai Baba are frauds?

I don't say that these people have nothing at all to offer. Perhaps they have some wisdom. But their egos have taken over the power their followers afford them, and have used that power abusively.

Agreed. But I also think there is much more to it than that. Please address my questions listed above.

 

[MattusMaximus]

To add to what I already said, there is no magic way to judge. You judge a person's sincerity on their acts, how they treat you, what they say... whether what they say harmonises with how they act etc...
It's just the same as in normal life, when you're deciding whether you'd like to be friends with someone, or maybe marry them.

You use your intuition, and some people's intuition is better than others.

Plumjam, I have a suggestion for you. How about trusting some of those five senses that we all share?

Let me make it easy for you: Sia Baba is a Fraud

In light of this information, I would suggest that you trust your senses and your reason over your intuition - otherwise, you could very likely fall victim to another fraud whom your intuition tells you is the genuine article.

 

[plumjam]

This is pretty vague. Please provide more specifics on this kind of testing.





Ah, so you don't think he's "authentic" because you "didn't believe his claims." Why didn't you believe his claims? What were the criteria that you used to evaluate the validity of his claims? Again, specifics please.

I should also note that it is entirely likely that a follower of Sathya Sai Baba could easily claim that based upon your statements above that you didn't believe him simply due to your pre-conceived bias, or perhaps you haven't let go of enough of your ego? Perhaps you cannot see the "truth" of Sia Baba because you haven't properly honed your "extra spiritual sense"?

I'm not meaning to be a putz here, but do you see what I'm getting at?





Again, why do you find this man to be a transparent fraud? How did you come to this conclusion? Did you just "not believe him" either, or is there something more to your determination that both he and Sai Baba are frauds?





Agreed. But I also think there is much more to it than that. Please address my questions listed above.

Mattus, there's no great mystery to it.
In your own life you more or less know who's good and who's bad. Whose word you trust, and whose word you don't.
You do this due to a combination of your moral intuition, your experiences of them, whether what they tell you rings true or not. If it's the case of a teacher you can read or listen to their teachings, and you can make a judgement over whether it makes sense to you and you'd like to hear more.. or you'd not want to go on listening to them.
For instance, in the teachings of Adi Da I detect a great deal of egotism. They are tediously repetitive, and are filled with big "impressive-sounding" Sanskrit words and phrases. I really learned nothing from what I read.
In his videos he's quite obviously a poser. He surrounds himself with attractive fauning young female followers.

I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say. There is no guru-ometer for sale at Maplin.
The traditional method of living with a potential guru for some months seems perfectly adequate to me.
Of course, some people will be duped. What you gonna do? That happens in all areas of life.

 

[plumjam]

Plumjam, I have a suggestion for you. How about trusting some of those five senses that we all share?

Let me make it easy for you: Sia Baba is a Fraud

In light of this information, I would suggest that you trust your senses and your reason over your intuition - otherwise, you could very likely fall victim to another fraud whom your intuition tells you is the genuine article.

I already said he's a fraud.
And my intuition told me that prior to other evidence, just from reading his writings.
So my intuition worked, ok?
Using intuition does not exclude reason and the senses, either.

It's important to develop the intuition, because very few gurus perform tricks as does Sathya Sai Baba.

 

[MattusMaximus]

And the fact that there is video footage clearly showing Sai Baba to be engaging in cheesy (and poorly done) sleight of hand tricks as supposed "miracles" has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that he's a fraud?

Nothing?

Nothing whatsoever?

For you it's all about your "intuition"?

Please tell me that's not true. Because if it is, I fear you will be taken advantage of by some other "guru" in due time. Of course, it is your life...

 

[plumjam]

And the fact that there is video footage clearly showing Sai Baba to be engaging in cheesy (and poorly done) sleight of hand tricks as supposed "miracles" has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that he's a fraud?

Nothing?

Nothing whatsoever?

For you it's all about your "intuition"?

Please tell me that's not true. Because if it is, I fear you will be taken advantage of by some other "guru" in due time. Of course, it is your life...

Well now you're trying to put words in my mouth; which is pretty low, considering the time and effort I've put into answering your questions.

What's the matter with you?

 

[articulett]

I think it's super nifty that Plumjam can tell profferers of "real" divine truths from the frauds. How DOES he do it?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well now you're trying to put words in my mouth; which is pretty low, considering the time and effort I've put into answering your questions.

What's the matter with you?

Apparently, "what's the matter with me" is that I have some concern that you could very easily be duped by some charlatan because they fool your "intuition" when their bad parlor tricks (as supposed "miracles") are so patently obvious. It seems to me that the people who follow Sia Baba are trusting their "intuition" about the man rather strongly, aren't they?

I'm glad your "intuition" clued you into Sia Baba being a fraud, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it. If you wish to trust said "intuition" above and beyond your senses and reason, go for it. But don't be surprised if and when you get suckered - that's all I'm saying.

ETA: As I said, it is your life. Go live it.

 

[plumjam]

In a way that is objectively observable and verifiable. That is what makes it evidence.


And things which we experience without the evidence of any of any of our five senses are called "imaginary". If you have no way of showing an objective difference between this communication versus something purely imagined, then there is no reason to suspect it is anything other than imaginary.


Though experiences are, of course, personal, there is observable, verifiable physical evidence of drunkenness. Emotions have physical correlates too in things such as body chemistry. Now I am not suggesting that we need to dismantle love to find out what it is made of, but it is quite clear that emotions and drunkenness are the physical effects of a physical brain. This can be easily tested.

You propose an entity for which there can be no tests.


Not today, PJ. I have to work tomorrow. If you wanted me to prove my sobriety, I could via a physical test.


It cannot be. That is why it is purely conceptual. It is not a "thing" that exists. If you lower the bar so that purely conceptual things are treated as real things, then anything you can conceive would be real. Would you want to defend that point?


Some yes. Math and logic are a set of rules and definitions. Neither one has a physical existence. Morality and aesthetics, though they too are concepts, have use in defining human behavior. They also are well defined and can be demonstrated objectively and verifiably. (Note that I am only saying morality and aesthetics, as human behaviors, can be demonstrated, not that there is a single correct morality or set of aesthetics.)


Actually they've learned the rules and definitions of mathematics. Those rules and definitions can be taught to others and they will work the same way.

You cannot say this about the "infinity" that you claim to have witnessed. Their stories are bound to be different from yours.


You may call it a shame. I suppose it is equally a shame that I will not train myself to ride unicorns, since they don't exist in any way accessible via the senses. Personally, I would consider more of a shame to spend what spangle of existence I have pursuing a chimera. Sure I love good fiction as much as anyone, but I don't believe it.

Yes, I'm afraid I'll miss all those wonderful spiritual and imaginary things because of my stodgy determination to stay rooted in reality. What a pity.


Some do, some don't. The pantheon of spirituality is quite wide. A person can even invent their own spiritual beliefs. Having a large number of people who believe in something doesn't make it true. I'm sure you are aware of this.


It doesn't matter how "commonly understood" it is. If you get to claim "hate" is a force, then my claim that "lutefisk" is a force has equal weight. They are both using the word "force" in a purely metaphorical sense. While this works as a literary device, it should never be used to try to compare it with a physical force, such as gravity. They are completely different meanings.


How exactly do these consciousnesses pass it between themselves? Unless you've discovered a new way of communication, I'd say that it involves the senses. If not, how could you determine this other consciousness is not purely imaginary?

Mathematicians convey their perceptions and knowledge of the rules and definitions of math by purely physical means. I invite you to provide an example that disproves this.

That is not correct. I have almost no faith. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Believe me, you are not the first to try to convince me or others here that faith and belief are exact synonyms. Almost every "spiritual" person who comes here tries exactly the same tack. It never works.

Tricky, thanks for the long reply.
No disrespect, but you're basically saying the same as before.. and my previous reply pretty much covers what you've brought up here.
We'd be dancing over old ground, my friend.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think it's super nifty that Jerome can tell profferers of "real" divine truths from the frauds. How DOES he do it?

Okay arti, I'll bite (but only because you asked ) - what the hell does this have to do with Jerome?

 

[plumjam]

Apparently, "what's the matter with me" is that I have some concern that you could very easily be duped by some charlatan because they fool your "intuition" when their bad parlor tricks (as supposed "miracles") are so patently obvious. It seems to me that the people who follow Sia Baba are trusting their "intuition" about the man rather strongly, aren't they?

I'm glad your "intuition" clued you into Sia Baba being a fraud, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it. If you wish to trust said "intuition" above and beyond your senses and reason, go for it. But don't be surprised if and when you get suckered - that's all I'm saying.

ETA: As I said, it is your life. Go live it.

Did you miss this, that I wrote?

Using intuition does not exclude reason and the senses, either.

It's important to develop the intuition, because very few gurus perform tricks as does Sathya Sai Baba.

Mattus, don't you use your moral intuition about people in life?
I bet you do, many times a day.

As for me, you needn't worry. I'm a follower of Meher Baba.. and aside from a small-scale trust in his memory, and some informal groups of people who occasionally meet to socialise there is no big organisation behind it. He explicitly stated he didn't come to start a new religion, and was actually pretty critical of many aspects of religious organisations.
He left his body in 1969, so the situation is unlikely to change.
So it looks like maybe I'm home free

Something else I might add on the topic of gurus.
As well as a tradition in the east of potential disciples testing their gurus, there is a parallel tradition of gurus not accepting followers until they are convinced of the sincerity of said potential follower. This takes various forms.. such as making the potential disciple wait outside for three days and nights before seeing them for an interview.

So not only does the guru have to be genuine, but also the disciple has to be genuine. It's a two way street, which is often portrayed as a one-way street.
Now, how many people here at JREF would qualify as genuine, sincere potential disciples? Possibly none, in my opinion.
And this kind of "prove everything to me through my senses before I'll be willing to get off my ass and make any effort" is a typical mindset here. It's a mindset in which no progress is possible, and which keeps people stuck where they are ad infinitum.