by Narkissos 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Nark,
What is usually despised as "materialistic" or "shallow" may just be the other side of the "spiritual" and "deep", in its own modest, discreet or humourous way. As one French writer put it, "we are superficial only superficially".
I think I understand you,, and I think I agree. If every thing is "one" this seems to make sense.
It's all in the mind
I'll share one. When I was 20, I had a powerful religious experience. I was not practicing JWism at the time, in fact I was a hypocrite and practicing sin. Then one evening, something happened and my entire life changed. Sinful desires (lust, etc.), vanished into thin air and I felt myself called to a heavenly hope. Of course, associating this with my JW upbringing, I immediately became active with the JWs. Which led to the destruction of my religious experience. The heavenly hope was an integral part of that experience, and when I let it be known that I had the heavenly hope, every Witness I knew told me that no way was that hope coming from God, since I was born WAAAAAAAAY after 1935, the cut-off date according to them. That instantly pulled the rug out from under me, and I had a terrible nervous breakdown and depression for YEARS after. I ended up DF'd just a year and a half after I was baptized. Nonetheless, because of that experience, even while DFd I had a strong interest in spiritual things. I read CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE which shattered my faith in the doctrinal authority of the WTS, and from that point I began to move on. Got involved with Mormonism (because I still didn't believe in "Christendom" or the "Trinity"), but left that after just a few short months. I then began reading the New Testament by itself and found to my surprise scriptural support for "Christendom's" doctrines. I became a Christian in 1990 (Presbyterian), and after a lot of historial research into the early, early Church as well as continued Bible study, I was eventually received into the Catholic church in 1999. I am glad for the religious experience I had when I was 21. It was the catalyst that led me into the contented position I am in today. Just my thoughts. Love, Jaypeeto
I find it interesting to note that without exception, those who say it's "all in the mind" have not had an "experience". So are we talking theory or practice, here, boys?
Are we forgetting that pretty much all of us thought that "spiritual experiences" were "all in the mind", for most of our lives? I can't believe that some remain so closed-minded that they can't tolerate the concept that maybe there's the slimest of minutest possibilities that there might be something in it...
Ah, well, it takes all sorts to make a world...
The only thing I have with people who have supposedly had these experiences is: why the hell can I not have one? I would like to know there is an afterlife or something too! If there is no evidence proving that there is a diety then why do you guys get to have them and we can't?? I have prayed and prayed in the past for something to give me faith and it never came. I feel like I have no choice but to come to conclusions based on evidence and become agnostic. There is nothing else I can do, I have no faith and I can't get any as much as I've tried.
I find it interesting to note that without exception, those who say it's "all in the mind" have not had an "experience". So are we talking theory or practise, here, boys?
We are talking a scientific approach. Just coz people say x happened doesn't mean x happened, or that x means what the person it happened to think it means. Manson had the Tate's killed because he though 'Helter Skelter' was a call by the Beatles to a war between the races. Doesn't mean that song had anything to do with race.
If religious experiences are not the result of internal processes, why do studies of near death experiences typically map the cultural background (and not just the personal beliefs but the stereotypical cultural expectations) of the person having the NDE with the experience they have?
One either has to insist that NDE are not 'normal' religious experiences and come about by some other pathology/psychology of the brain than religious experiences whilst not dying. As normally NDE's are provided as 'proof' of a spiritual hereafter it would be funny to suddenly insist they didn't have anything to do with spiritual things.
Or one has to insist that external forces cause these religious experiences, but the person's beliefs change the exact nature of these perceptions. This is a bit like the idea of DEATH in the Discworld books; what happens when you die is what you expect to happen. A funny idea but not a particularly sensible one to explain how personal beliefs influence NDEs/religious experiences. The good thing about such an idea is it is the death of sectarianism. We all end up in the same place but just see the wallpaper differently.
But given the evidence, one has to ask if NDE's are just manifestations of brains shutting down perceived through the lens of culture, then are other similar spiritual experiences also anomalous brain activity perceived through the lens of culture?
Seems the burden of proof is on those who claim an external source for these things.
I mean, IF they are just internal experiences, it would explain both why no one has ever proved the existence of god or of any paranormal religious experience AND why people would insist on the existence of god despite that.
If elephants didn't exist and you'd seen one ANYWAY, you'd consider anyone who insisted they didn't exist because no one had ever proved they exist as silly, as you knew they existed, as you'd seen one.
Of course, faith shouldn't have anything to do with proof. Faith is almost by definiton NOT being able to prove something definitively, but beliving it anyway. Not that doesn't stop people of faith trying to prove their beliefs are not wrong
Gyles:
How many times have we been round on this one?
Seems the burden of proof is on those who claim an external source for these things.
On the contrary, we're quite happy to believe what we believe without folks jumping up and down calling us liars. What's the big deal with that? There is no burden of proof.
I mean, IF they are just internal experiences, it would explain both why no one has ever proved the existence of god or of any paranormal religious experience AND why people would insist on the existence of god despite that.
That might be one potential explanation (and I'm open to that), but why does it have to be the only one (are you open to THAT)?
If elephants didn't exist and you'd seen one ANYWAY, you'd consider anyone who insisted they didn't exist because no one had ever proved they exist as silly, as you knew they existed, as you'd seen one.
You're not supposed to be making our arguments for us.
Of course, faith shouldn't have anything to do with proof. Faith is almost by definiton NOT being able to prove something definitively, but beliving it anyway.
On the contrary, depending on your definition of "faith", for some it IS the evidence.
Not that doesn't stop people of faith trying to prove their beliefs are not wrong
I agree, and it's when you enter the field of apologetics that it all goes horribly wrong. How do you scientifically and objectively prove that which is subjective and "state-bound"? It's difficult to achieve consistent results, and so the "rational" decry the resulting data, even though some pretty spaced out things are often the result.
GBL:
The only thing I have with people who have supposedly had these experiences is: why the hell can I not have one?Why do you hold that against folks? That's not very fair, and to be honest sounds a little covetous. Did you know that most of us never asked for one?
I would like to know there is an afterlife or something too! If there is no evidence proving that there is a diety then why do you guys get to have them and we can't??I don't know. Anything I might offer you would be a weak excuse based on little and inconsistent data. I'll not offend anyone's sensibilities with such a presumption to "know".
I have prayed and prayed in the past for something to give me faith and it never came.I feel like I have no choice but to come to conclusions based on evidence and become agnostic.Noone's berating you for that. That is entirely your right. Forgive me for suggesting this, but is it possible that you're carrying some residual guilt over this, due to associations with a well known cult? You wouldn't be the only one in that boat, as people from a variety of religious backgrounds feel this way, too. Stop holding things against folks and get on with your life.
There is nothing else I can do, I have no faith and I can't get any as much as I've tried.Ironically, that's when some folks seem to have a "breakthrough". I don't know why that is. Go figure...
I find it interesting to note that without exception, those who say it's "all in the mind" have not had an "experience". So are we talking theory or practice, here, boys?Are we forgetting that pretty much all of us thought that "spiritual experiences" were "all in the mind", for most of our lives? I can't believe that some remain so closed-minded that they can't tolerate the concept that maybe there's the slimest of minutest possibilities that there might be something in it...
The only thing I have with people who have supposedly had these experiences is: why the hell can I not have one? I would like to know there is an afterlife or something too! If there is no evidence proving that there is a diety then why do you guys get to have them and we can't?? I have prayed and prayed in the past for something to give me faith and it never came. I feel like I have no choice but to come to conclusions based on evidence and become agnostic. There is nothing else I can do, I have no faith and I can't get any as much as I've tried.
Here we go again: "There is 'something'" vs. "there is 'nothing'" (leaving aside the debate on "in" or "out of" the "mind"). What if the One and the Zero are just two sides of the same coin? (Cf. my previous post.) Then "experience" of either side, either by different people or at different stages of one's life, would have equal validity.
As I tried to point out earlier, at its deepest / farthest (?) stage "mystical experience" meets "non-experience" (silence, absence, night, non-being, etc.). And a materialistic approach of the world often results in mystical wonder at "it". Yes / No. Same / Other. Identity / Difference. Oh well...
Didier:As you well know, I continue to evolve in my understanding/perception/interpretation of these kind of things.
I used to think that folks somehow made a mystical connection with the "Divine". At my current stage (which will no doubt continue to evolve) I'm wondering if we haven't all got such a "connection" that becomes more or less plain during life.
I think you are quite right in highlighting that "divisions" only obsfucate the process of understanding.
Maybe it IS two sides of the same coin. Or maybe there is no coin/spoon/etc.
Hi Ross
Gyles:
How many times have we been round on this one?
*sings* Dizzy, my head is spinning, like whirlpool it never ends, and it's you Ross making it sin you're making me dizzy ;-)
Seems the burden of proof is on those who claim an external source for these things.On the contrary, we're quite happy to believe what we believe without folks jumping up and down calling us liars. What's the big deal with that? There is no burden of proof.
No one called anyone a liar. If you are wrong about something but sincere you might be passing misinformation on but you are not intentionally decieving. And extraordinary claims (you know the rest)...
But we seem to agree on the 'faith doesn't need proof' (and on the curious fact that this doesn't stop people of faith trying to prove their faith a lot of the time, even though it is not possible)
I mean, IF they are just internal experiences, it would explain both why no one has ever proved the existence of god or of any paranormal religious experience AND why people would insist on the existence of god despite that.That might be one potential explanation (and I'm open to that), but why does it have to be the only one (are you open to THAT)?
Because I feel that it is unlikely that there is a god AND that there isn't a god at the same time. It's an either or option. It's like insisting gravity does AND doesn't exist (except you can prove gravity DOES exist). But you know I'm open to the possibility of 'god'; I just find most conceptualisations seem to stem from very human imaginations. If there is a god he's bigger and grander than all these petty human constructs. Unless god is a git, which is a silly idea.
If elephants didn't exist and you'd seen one ANYWAY, you'd consider anyone who insisted they didn't exist because no one had ever proved they exist as silly, as you knew they existed, as you'd seen one.You're not supposed to be making our arguments for us.
Analogies are not making arguments for you. They might illustrate something about the arguement deists make. If you can fault the analogy, do so, don't fault the making if it.
Of course, faith shouldn't have anything to do with proof. Faith is almost by definiton NOT being able to prove something definitively, but beliving it anyway.On the contrary, depending on your definition of "faith", for some it IS the evidence.
Faith is the assured expectation of things not yet perceived. I don't have faith in gravity even though I believe it exists, as I believe in it as a result of evidence that is evident where ever it is looked for and whoever it is looked for by.
God or the paranormal are items you HAVE to have faith as they are not evident where ever they are looked for or to anyone who looks for them.
Not that doesn't stop people of faith trying to prove their beliefs are not wrongI agree, and it's when you enter the field of apologetics that it all goes horribly wrong.
Absolutely. Why people of faith feel they need to apologise I don't know. I don't feel the need to apologise for being a humanist. I know religions have killed millions and caused misery and ignorance, but that I think it to do with the humans, not with the god/s they claim to represent.
How do you scientifically and objectively prove that which is subjective and "state-bound"?
By showing the same experiment has different results depending on where it is perfromed and who by and on whom. Very simple.
It's difficult to achieve consistent results,
IF it is difficult to achieve consistent results you are either playing on the nursery slopes of the bell curve or are proving something IS subjective, or you don't have the right tools to measure with. Or god is hiding behind a Higgs Boson when looked for by someone who doesn't believe but pops out when looked for by someone who does believe. But that is just silly.
Maybe 'the divine' is personified for some (look! the stars! isn't god fab!) and depersonified for others (look! the stars! wow!) , but the personification doesn't make it real (unless one (again) subscribes to Pratchettian theories that belief makes gods exist (and if people stop believing the gods fade away and stop exisiting). Personification might just be a view of the same thing that appears different when viewed from another angle.
It all boils down to this. I am not getting into a horse-drawn cart unless there is a horse in the shafts.
You can tell me how you believe the horse will takes us somewhere nice all you like. You can tell me stories about the horse and your experiences of it. You can tell me how loads of people believe the horse will pull the cart somewhere nice and how you've got a book of stories about the horse and how it takes people somewhere nice.
But there still is no horse in the shafts. Not even an invisable pink one, with or without a horn. And no matter how much you talk about the horse, and how it is there, honest, (or will be soon, or will be visable to me if I click my heels together three times) the cart will not move (unless there is trickery involved; we all know Jesus warned us against people disguising themselves as pantomime horses of light...).
So, obviously, I say 'neigh'.
