Originally posted by twhiteheadYou want to believe it because you see it as possible and it supports your faith. My claim is that even if it is possible and even highly likely, the information is still not enough to take it as true WHITEY
No. I was suggesting that you have no way of knowing whether:
1. She made it up.
2. She did not report it exactly as it happened.
3. She believed it happened the ways she reported it but it did not in fact happen that way.
4. The person who told you the story did not tell it accurately ie made mistakes or elaborated beyond the truth.
etc.
As an exa ...[text shortened]... o evidence that can stand up to scrutiny and has no other more parsimonious explanation
I see it as possible because I have seen God do things before in my own life. When I was in the process of conversion I was having a series of "co-incidences", none quite as dramatic as this but an accumulation of some fairly good ones. The information does not exist in a vaccuum for any of us but always has context and we all look at things according to our world view. On it's own it is not that significant for me but then I'm not seeing it in isolation and neither are you. In any case , no miraculous "coincidence" can be as personally convincing as God's presence with you.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course I wonder, but never in a million years does it cross my mind that it might be true. WHITEY
I think my observations are valid and I think that if you thought about it for a moment you would agree. Since we are playing at mind reading here I will ask why it is that so many theists are convinced that atheists are secret theists. It makes no sense at all. If I thought God existed what would I have to gain by pretending he doesn't? I can assure you ...[text shortened]... that is all you have in common with all the other Christians experiencing the same things.
Do you know why this is? I'm curious (genuinely) .
Originally posted by knightmeister
I see it as possible because I have seen God do things before in my own life. When I was in the process of conversion I was having a series of "co-incidences", none quite as dramatic as this but an accumulation of some fairly good ones. The information does not exist in a vaccuum for any of us but always has context and we all look at things according to our world view. On it's own it is not that significant for me but then I'm not seeing it in isolation and neither are you. In any case , no miraculous "coincidence" can be as personally convincing as God's presence with you.
Just curious: are you familiar with the subject-expectancy effect? It's a well-understood cognitive bias wherein the subject, because he believes a certain premise to be true, unconsciously distorts his own perception so that he sees evidence for that premise where there really isn't any. One example in medicine is the placebo effect, wherein patients in controlled studies are given a tablet with no medicinal effect but experience therapeutic improvements anyway because they believe they're getting a real drug. Suggestion has a powerful effect on our cognitive process.
That's the problem many of us have with opening yourself to God in order to experience him. Once you're convinced that God is there, you're really, really likely to have an experience of him, whether he's there or not, simply because you believe such an experience is possible. That's just the way the mind works.
EDIT: the subject-expectancy effect is closely related to the confirmation bias or the bias of selective perception.
Originally posted by darthmix"Just curious: are you familiar with the subject-expectancy effect? It's a well-understood cognitive bias wherein the subject, because he believes a certain premise to be true, unconsciously distorts his own perception so that he sees evidence for that premise where there really isn't any.
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I see it as possible because I have seen God do things before in my own life. When I was in the process of conversion I was having a series of "co-incidences", none quite as dramatic as this but an accumulation of some fairly good ones. The information does not exist in a vaccuum for any of us but always has co ...[text shortened]... i]believe[/i] such an experience is possible. That's just the way the mind works.
Once you're convinced that God is there, you're really, really likely to have an experience of him, whether he's there or not, simply because you believe such an experience is possible. That's just the way the mind works. " DARTH
RESPONSE-
I am highly acquainted with these ideas and theories. I have qualifications in Psychology. This is the old self fulfilling prophecy chestnut . God is the divine placebo effect. This is something I have thought about a lot.It is neccessary to be skeptical about one's experiences, however , one comes to the point where that same skepticism leads one to question why you question the experience. By this I mean that although it may be true that my experience of the Holy Spirit being present with me in prayer (for example) may be purely psychological , it also may not.
How are we to distinguish between what is placebo and what is real? This is where it gets really interesting because you find yourself not only doubting but also doubting your doubts. You also find yourself asking questions about whether the experience or seemingly answered prayer is really what it is. However , Atheists have no idea how convincing the "God placebo" (lol) is because they won't let themselves have it. A lot depends on whether you are talking about cognitive interpretations of events or "hallucinatory" sensations of God's presence (which do happen at highly charged church meetings).
The more interesting question is this. Because an experience / sensation can be brought about simply by the belief does this mean that that experience is neccessarily false? Also , are there levels of experience that may appear similar but are infact different?
We are able to unconsciously distort information "to provide evidence for that premise where there isn't any" BUT we can also unconsciously distort information to try and explain away an experience or some evidence and pretend to ourselves that something isn't there when it is. I remember very vividly going to my first active housegroup meeting and experiencing the presence of Christ in the room and thinking to myself "no way - this can't be happening" . It was too scary and real for me to take in.
Originally posted by darthmixEDIT: the subject-expectancy effect is closely related to the confirmation bias or the bias of selective perception. DARTH
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I see it as possible because I have seen God do things before in my own life. When I was in the process of conversion I was having a series of "co-incidences", none quite as dramatic as this but an accumulation of some fairly good ones. The information does not exist in a vaccuum for any of us but always has co ...[text shortened]... is closely related to the confirmation bias or the bias of selective perception.
Did you see the Richard Dawkins doc recently when he ripped into astrologists? There are good studies that show that even when you swap over the astrologers readings people still say how it "speaks to them" and their accuracy rating is just as high using random selection as it is when selected for the appropriate person. I personally find astrology ridiculous and can't understand why anyone could not see how they are making the reading fit whatever they want it to fit. That's why astrology is always so vague , it has to be , because that's how it works.
Originally posted by knightmeister
I am highly acquainted with these ideas and theories. I have qualifications in Psychology. This is the old self fulfilling prophecy chestnut . God is the divine placebo effect. This is something I have thought about a lot.It is neccessary to be skeptical about one's experiences, however , one comes to the point where that same skepticism leads one to question why you question the experience. By this I mean that although it may be true that my experience of the Holy Spirit being present with me in prayer (for example) may be purely psychological , it also may not.
True enough. So how to distinguish between the two possibilities? One source of guidance is Occam's Razor, which tells us that we should not invent explanations which are more complicated than are necessary to explain the evidence before us. So given these two possible explanations of your subjective experience of the holy spirit -
1) A well-recognized, confirmed cognitive bias whose existence is not in reasonable doubt
2) An all-powerful, willful being whose existence cannot be demonstrated by any other means
I submit that, given those two possibilities, option #1 is the most reasonable because it relies only on premises which we already know are true.
However , Atheists have no idea how convincing the "God placebo" (lol) is because they won't let themselves have it.
That's not really fair. Many of us atheists have had religious experiences just as powerful as the ones you've had; many of us were once religious people ourselves. Our atheism is the result our critical examination of our lives and the world around us - specifically one which respects the existence of confirmation bias. So, now, we tend to be suspicious of personal spiritual revalations like the ones you're describing.
A lot depends on whether you are talking about cognitive interpretations of events or "hallucinatory" sensations of God's presence (which do happen at highly charged church meetings).
An intensely charged, collective experience is exactly the kind of situation in which we'd expect these kinds of perceptual errors to be most pronounced. Not only are you having an experience you fundamentally want to have, and that you believe you will have, but those cognitive biases are reinforced by a kind of collective, peer experience that puts us under an unconscious social pressure to have them. These meetings can produce all kinds of sensations which can feel incredibly real.
The more interesting question is this. Because an experience / sensation can be brought about simply by the belief does this mean that that experience is neccessarily false?
The experience occurred, as all experiences do, inside our minds. The experience is not false in that sense. The meaning we assign to the experience may very well be false.
We are able to unconsciously distort information "to provide evidence for that premise where there isn't any" BUT we can also unconsciously distort information to try and explain away an experience or some evidence and pretend to ourselves that something isn't there when it is.
We can, but psychologically the danger of doing so is far less pronounced for a negative claim. Atheists don't really rule out the existence of the unknown; they simply take a more critical approach to evaluating claims of the unkown, especially when they're subject - as they so often are - to the tendency of the claimant to want to believe them, to want to find evidence of them for all sorts of reasons.
Originally posted by knightmeister
Did you see the Richard Dawkins doc recently when he ripped into astrologists? There are good studies that show that even when you swap over the astrologers readings people still say how it "speaks to them" and their accuracy rating is just as high using random selection as it is when selected for the appropriate person. I personally find astrology ridiculous and can't understand why anyone could not see how they are making the reading fit whatever they want it to fit. That's why astrology is always so vague , it has to be , because that's how it works.
I did not see that, but I know that James Randi has been illustrating that point with pretty much the same experiment for years.
Originally posted by darthmix[/b]All of which is why the Zen masters counsel one to disregard such stuff as visions, auditions, etc. as makkyo: bedeviling illusions.
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I am highly acquainted with these ideas and theories. I have qualifications in Psychology. This is the old self fulfilling prophecy chestnut . God is the divine placebo effect. This is something I have thought about a lot.It is neccessary to be skeptical about one's experiences, however , one comes to the point elieve them, to want to find evidence of them for all sorts of reasons.
My personal hypothesis, based on my own experience, is that the image/concept making mind attempts to translate (often immediately) the conscious but non-conceptual (pre-conceptual) experience of being—clumsy phrase, that, I know!—into some sort of recognizable representational or conceptual content. I think that is quite natural. Often such content seems to have an “as-if” quality, such as: “I didn’t really hear anything; but it was as if I heard a voice, saying to me ___________.” Or, less dramatically: “The thought just ‘came to me’; I didn’t make it up in my own mind.”
The fact that such representations may sometimes seem to be external (rather than “inside” the mind) is no more surprising than the fact that the picture formed in my visual cortex of that tree over there seems to be just—that tree over there. To those who say that their own mystical/spiritual experience was just too powerful to be a creation of the mind, I say: Don’t form too paltry an opinion of the power of the mind. [Of course, I recognize that one can argue that God can work from within the mind, as well as from without.]
I am less rigorous about makkyo than the aforementioned Zen masters. I think that they can not only have aesthetic richness, but also can be interpreted in terms that offer valuable personal insights—much like dreams, perhaps. But such insights themselves cannot be separated from our own interpretive activity. “Meaning” is fundamentally a hermeneutical project.
Of course, one may choose to interpret such happenings as having some actual supernatural source—or not. I at one time chose the former; now I choose the latter. I’m pretty basically “zen” in that regard.
The experience occurred, as all experiences do, inside our minds. The experience is not false in that sense. The meaning we assign to the experience may very well be false.
And that sums it up neatly, I think.
Originally posted by darthmixMany of us atheists have had religious experiences just as powerful as the ones you've had; many of us were once religious people ourselves DARTH
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I am highly acquainted with these ideas and theories. I have qualifications in Psychology. This is the old self fulfilling prophecy chestnut . God is the divine placebo effect. This is something I have thought about a lot.It is neccessary to be skeptical about one's experiences, however , one comes to the point elieve them, to want to find evidence of them for all sorts of reasons.
Ok , tell me about how you sensed God's presence with you. Are you a lapsed Christian? I also completely fail to see how you can acurately compare anything of my experience with yours since I have said very little about it. How are you gauging the "power " of my experience?
Originally posted by darthmixThe experience occurred, as all experiences do, inside our minds. The experience is not false in that sense. The meaning we assign to the experience may very well be false. DARTH
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I am highly acquainted with these ideas and theories. I have qualifications in Psychology. This is the old self fulfilling prophecy chestnut . God is the divine placebo effect. This is something I have thought about a lot.It is neccessary to be skeptical about one's experiences, however , one comes to the point ...[text shortened]... elieve them, to want to find evidence of them for all sorts of reasons.
This is just a truism . We can assign the meaning that the experience is of God or not of God and either could be false but since you are assigning a meaning to my experience (of which you know very little) then that is even more interesting. Interpreting the experience wrongly can work both ways in the negative or positive sense. If God exists then no doubt I will experience him with my subjective mind just as I expereince other things that exist with my subjective mind (like this keyboard)
Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , tell me about how you sensed God's presence with you. Are you a lapsed Christian? I also completely fail to see how you can acurately compare anything of my experience with yours since I have said very little about it. How are you gauging the "power " of my experience?
I was speaking of "you" and "us" in the collective sense. You made a general statement about atheists - that we don't "allow ourselves" to experience the God placebo. Many of us have experienced exactly that, very intensely, as intensely as many of you. But we also understand the lengths the human mind can go to to experience something it really really wants to believe is there, especially if it finds a social group that encourages that experience. Which is why you need to think critically about them.
Originally posted by darthmixAtheists don't really rule out the existence of the unknown; they simply take a more critical approach to evaluating claims of the unkown, especially when they're subject - as they so often are - to the tendency of the claimant to want to believe them, to want to find evidence of them for all sorts of reasons. DARTH
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I am highly acquainted with these ideas and theories. I have qualifications in Psychology. This is the old self fulfilling prophecy chestnut . God is the divine placebo effect. This is something I have thought about a lot.It is neccessary to be skeptical about one's experiences, however , one comes to the point ...[text shortened]... elieve them, to want to find evidence of them for all sorts of reasons.
And if you had had the same sorts of experiences as me you would know that there are many times when you don't want to believe and don't want to find evidence for God. CS Lewis described his coming to God as being cornered like a rat. There are lots of reasons for wanting to stay away from God that Atheists often forget because they are hung up on a cosy , comforting God , not the real living one.
Originally posted by darthmixMany of us have experienced exactly that, very intensely, as intensely as many of you. DARTH
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Ok , tell me about how you sensed God's presence with you. Are you a lapsed Christian? I also completely fail to see how you can acurately compare anything of my experience with yours since I have said very little about it. How are you gauging the "power " of my experience?
I was speaking of "you" and "us ...[text shortened]... that encourages that experience. Which is why you need to think critically about them.[/b]
I would be interested to explore your experience of God's presence with you. If I am having hallucinations then it would be useful to know. I would also like to know where you get this information about Atheists' experiences.To which survey do you refer?
Originally posted by darthmixWhich is why you need to think critically about them DARTH
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Ok , tell me about how you sensed God's presence with you. Are you a lapsed Christian? I also completely fail to see how you can acurately compare anything of my experience with yours since I have said very little about it. How are you gauging the "power " of my experience?
I was speaking of "you" and "us ...[text shortened]... that encourages that experience. Which is why you need to think critically about them.[/b]
I have but God is such a pain! He keeps on being real. Drat.
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat!? Since when did thinking critically confirm God's existence? It can't. If critical thought could confirm God then you theists would not need the all important faith you're always on about.
Which is why you need to think critically about them DARTH
I have but God is such a pain! He keeps on being real. Drat.