Is Religion a Natural Phenomenon?

No, I do not have Assburgers.

People often think they share subjective experience because we are so adept at picking up on each others body landuage and moods and whatnot. That is the great milestone of which you speak. So much of that is automatic now. But that does not put us literally in each others' minds, nor does it make us capable of literally sensing through each other's senses. Also, though it is true that our sense organs are alike enough to give us a rough and ready standard that we can all agree on with regard to empirical data, no two sets are exactly alike, if for no other reason than their respective positioning in space. And though there are many stories of people believing they have shared "extrasensory" experiences, there is no proof; and there have been plenty of studies, but I'll grant you that the jury is still out on that one. I've had some pretty interesting but unfortunately unverifiable experiences of that nature.

My last point could be reduced to this: if God exists, and if, as many religions presuppose, God cares to take a part in our lives, and God is benevolent, and God is omniscient and omnipresent, then there is no reason why God should not be capable and willing to prove his own existence to every and any person at any given time it is in question.

Since this is not the case, we have a demonstration of falsehood.

Now, any other theory that presupposes God's existence must leave us to beg the question of just what kind of tyrant we are dealing with, and why we should praise him, let alone worship him; likewise, any being who demands to be praised and/or worshipped seems to me by definition to be a tyrant, or at least a megalomaniac.

These points are covered much more eloquently by Percy Shelley in his essay on Milton's Lucifer from Paradise Lost.

 

Also, as an addendum, theories of God like Deism and Pantheism make God, and God's existence, sort of irrelevant, don't they? I think it was Dawkins who said that Deism was watered-down Theism and Pantheism was sexed-up Atheism. I tend to agree.

 

Pol Pot, Mao, and whatever the name of the current "Dear Leader" of North Korea is are atheists, as are the people around them. They don't believe in the supernatural. They preach an ideology of dialectical materialism, which incorporates a form of atheism. Sam Harris considers their system to be a religion (although he defines religion as involving supernatural belief) and apparently you do, too. But yet you say that atheism does not function as a religion. I say some forms do, e,g., dialectical materialism. Not all atheists are Marxists. Many are the opposite, e.g., objectivists. Most don't ascribe to a common ideology at all. I wouldn't consider naturalism or humanism to be religions, although they both involve elements of faith. I don't know what "definitive functions" You're talking about, but naturalism can function to give believers the "assurance of things not seen"--e.g., multiple universes.

Sociologist Robert Bellah and Anthropologist Clifford Geertz use the well known definition of religion as "a system of symbols that, when enacted by human beings, establishes powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivation that make sense in terms of an idea of a general order of existence." Does that fit?

Not necessarily, but it can overlap.

 

Nobody has dipped into the subject of panentheism yet. Any particular reason for this avoidance?

BTW I have had experiences confirmed by others of being in another person's mind or having someone else in my mind. Granted that we're discussing the theoretical natural vs ummm what? Non-natural? Or supernatural? ...nature of religion as a human experience. It's just that: What if bona fide "supernatural" experiences were part of the root of some religious systems of belief?

The discussion has skirted this issue...somewhat as if being able to explain religion by positing evolutionary advantage somehow precludes the possibility of legitimate direct experience.

It's just that some people in this discussion seem to have no knowledge - or are ignoring the phenomenon - of religions such as Buddhism, which are based on direct experience by the practitioners.

Christianity has some mystical pieces, of course, but they seem to be well-concealed.

And in answer to one remark by someone in posts past: Who the hell are you to presume that because you don't believe or agree with any possible reasons for God obfuscating Truth, that such reasons don't in fact exist or are "good" reasons? If there were such a thing as an omniscient and omnipotent God who created the universe - including you, by definition - why the hell would you imagine you have more claim to knowing more about that God's reasons for anything at all than what God has?

Seems silly to me, but wtf - maybe I'm missing something.

 

If God has a good reason for not sharing the certainty of God's existence with all people then I would like to hear it. Especially since God's refusal to do so causes so many disagreements that lead to bloodshed.

Hey, God, you've got to be listening, right? Enlighten us, please?





...





Now, I admit, this is primarily a pointed dig at Theism; and I feel it is a valid refutation of the theory that many Theists attempt to put on you:that their God is benevolent and this is why you should follow/worship/praise that God. And, of course, if you don't, you'll pay. It sounds like the kind of propaganda they taught kids in Soviet Russia about the dictators, doesn't it? Highly conspicuous. Why is this relevant to the original question? Because it shows that indeed at least this type of religion is natural: it is primarily a tool for controlling people.

On the subject of possible extrasensory experiences, as I said, I've experienced some interesting phenomena, too, and with other people. However, we first need to understand that even if we are in someone else's mind, we are still having our own subjective experience of that other person's mind, not sharing a subjective experience. This is an important distinction because the locus of interpretation any two people have is determined by what they've been and done up to that point--- i.e., their personal and inviolable subjective experience. Also, their is the problem of scientific validation, of at least a relatively objective type, which no one has really even come close to achieving.

There is a possible physiological explanation for ESP: our nervous systems probably create all sorts of fields and waves that interact with other people's and there might be certain practices --- meditational, devotional, chemical ingestion, dramatic, and all of the above and more --- that induce these waves and propel them, and the combinations and varieties would be pretty complex. This would certainly be a natural occurence, or the symptom of a natural occurence.

As for panentheism, it's kind of like a primitive multiverse theory, isn't it? Think about it. God is outside and this reality is but one physical manifestation of it, or, in some theories the only physical manifestation. Yet again, what does that make God? A being or a thing? With or without intention? And if with intention, what intention?

Buddhism is an Agnostic philosophy. The ritualistic practices that have been adapted to it in various cultures are purely arbitrary. Most of the core meditational practices are carry-overs from Hinduism. Gotama's primary message was one of moderation, and it could be applied in a straightforward, material way without any need to get involved in mystical wish-wash. Reports of his repeated re-incarnation should be considered highly dubious. Reminiscent perhaps of the manner in which Jimi Hendrix's estate has made so much more money than he ever did in his lifetime. If you don't keep releasing new material, people will not keep funding your temple.

 

I would say that God's refusal to provide proof of existence is less responsible for bloodshed than mere human dweebishness. I feel certain that even if such proof were provided, we would find other reasons to bloody each other.

I'm reminded of a passage in one of Carlos Castaneda's books in which his benefactor don Juan is teaching him about petty tyrants, and he refers to God as being the biggest petty tyrant there is. And I would agree.

The point about the psychic experience thing is that such experience can "naturally" give rise to thoughts about such phenomena. In my case, I find that there are people who have these abilities to a profound degree, and those same people seem to know a helluva lot more about me than anybody oughta, including the course and reasons for my spiritual path in this life. They could be lying, of course - but the fact that they seem to know all about me without my saying a word about myself to them tends to make me believe other stuff they say also. I'm just saying that if people like that were around in the time of our most ancient of ancestors, it would have provided some incentive to start believing things of a supernatural/religious nature.

I suppose we might ask if the profound abilities I speak of are natural, as opposed to supernatural. This takes us back to an earlier discussion - the definition of natural vs supernatural. At the current state of scientific knowledge, there is no way to answer that question. There is also no way to know if there will ever be a scientific explanation for such abilities. In the meantime I guess we would have to say they fall in the supernatural category - cuz they can't be explained! Just because we can think of ways they COULD be explained IF we had the ability to measure the right things doesn't mean that they WILL be eventually explained.

And whether or not we have scientific validation of those psychic experiences is really beside the point also, innit? I don't need a team of note-takers in white lab coats to tell me I'm experiencing images through my eyes. Maybe you need that team to follow you around everywhere, validating your experiences for you, but to me it's a quite unnecessary pain in the butt.

Regarding Buddhism, you might want to take a look at a specific school of Buddhism - Zen. There is very little ritual - what they mostly do is meditate. They do this because that's what Gotama did before he attained whatever he attained. And of course I'm sure there were plenty of Hindus before him who meditated - why he was special, I dunno. The fact is that apparently he was. The point is that there is a long line of Zen masters who have apparently experienced the same thing Gotama did. At least, that's what they say. I tend to believe them because the masters seem to understand things among each other that are not understood by others. And a lot of what they seem to experience and understand kinda falls under the realm of "supernatural."

 

Just wanted to point out that I posted the previous comment, then blanked it out, then wrote a new commentary in the same post. Just to explain, in case I confused anybody.

 

Good post. That sums it up pretty well.

 

Despite these official religions, much more attention is paid to the personalities of the deceased "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung and the "Dear Leader", his late son Kim Jong-il. Their portraits are omnipresent in streets, schools, public buildings and all private homes. The ideological statements and scriptures produced by the two leaders are the main basis of education for both children and adults.[citation needed] The story of the Kims' descent is surrounded with mythology. At public events, songs are sung that depict the leaders as saviors of the country as well as of each individual citizen.

damn that whole article is missing citations lol....And for some reason I think its the best we can do.

Anyways, just like in 1984, its assumed that there's no more religion. There's not even a tamed church and no one mentions the idea of faith, except in big brother. Its an entirely secular dictatorship....In north korea you might think thats the case but its not. Its actually the most religious state that's possible to imagine. The 'dear leader' or secretary as we might call him is the head of the communist party, head of the army, hes not the head of state though....the head of state is his father whos been dead for 60 years (well, his fathers father anyways....I think there's a young Kim in office now). They're all said to have miraculous births attended by miraculous phenomena such as birds singing in Korean as they were born. It sounds alot like The only duty of a citizen, starving stunted and enslaved is the worship of the leader and the leaders father.

That's not naturalism or humanism....It doesn't even sound like atheism.

I think dogma is the defining attribute. Its why we can have state religions, atheist religions, and so on.....Supernatural beliefs are usually a subset of dogmas in religious scriptures who choose to use them, even if only indirectly; EG: This book is true, god made it rain, yatta yatta.

I'm still trying to understand why the category you're choosing to make an example of is Atheism, when there are atheist religions.

As far as "naturalism giving people faith in multiple universes", I'm going to assume you're talking about quantum mechanics and the fact that we cannot intuitively grasp what it indicates....It doesn't mean we cant verify it with mathematics, which is the only thing there is to trust in a field as rigorous as physics.

Fits like a plane in a skyscraper. Like a bomb in a hospital

If your going to define god as everything, there is no need for a distinction to be made in the first place. It would be like saying you believe in vehicles and cars. I have a bone to pick with agnostics too lol

 

te=osiri[quos;7517940]No, I do not have Assburgers. [/quote] No offense. Just checking out the possibilities.

I'm not talking about ESP. I'm talking about the possibility of rapport and sharing of common perceptions and experiences. Whether you think we can or can't is a matter of judgment. So far you haven't offered much evidence of your strong assertion. I think most people would agree with mine, but that could be just another illusion. This isn't a particularly important issue for me, but it seems to be important for you. So far, I think your assertion is in the same boat with ESP.

This point reflects a common tendency among atheists to accept an Abrahamic view of God. Many Progressive Christians I know go along with Tillich, often considered one of the greatest Protestant theologians of our time, that God is "the Ground of Being". By that definition, Tillich makes clear that God isn't a being, supernatural or otherwise. God in this sense is the object of a person's ultimate striving, as in the expression "money (power, sex, etc.) is her God." In other words, its essentially a metaphor. But like Viktor Frankl, he thinks money, power, sex, etc. are "false gods" in the sense that they can never bring real satisfaction or a sense of meaning. "Let your ultimates be ultimate!' is his advice, which strikes many people as pure B.S.--a cop out, on a par with "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." I think that's a valid criticism, and many traditional Christians consider Tillich to be an atheist. But those non-traditional Christians who follow him would not be surprised that the abstraction they worship isn't "capable and willing to prove his existence." Related to this is the God of the recovery groups, the Higher Power, which can be anything you want it to be--a bedpan, "Good Orderly Direction", the power of the group, etc. Silly? Critics might think so but many alcoholics and addicts think it gets them through the day.

Another possibility is that the real God isn't like Yahweh or Allah at all. Many of our Founding Fathers were deists, believing in a rational God who made the universe, wound it up, and let it operate according to the laws of physics. This was easier for them to conceptualize than to think the impersonal laws of physics were just there, always were, and always would be. Many contemporary scientists of Christian persuasion opt for a similar approach. Physicist Paul Davies is a good example, described sarcastically by atheist physicist Victor Stenger as a "deiologian". Davies is awed by the integrated complexity of the universe, and after reviewing the alternatives, like M-theory, opts for intelligent agency, although he admits its mainly a matter of taste. Physicist Freeman Dyson and astrophysicist Bernard Haisch are of similar persuasion, for similar reasons. Dyson suggests a "principle of maximum diversity" bent on making the universe "as interesting as possible', while Haisch envisions a deity working out all the combinations and permutations of its possibilities in the multiverse. Inspired by Norman Mailer's concept of "God, the cinematograher, I've floated the possibility of a God who is less like Charlton Heston in a beard with lightning bolts and more like Woody Allen in a beret and a director's chair, making an avant garde masterpiece full of laughs and pathos, horror, comedy, romance, sex, and violence and in the end leaving the audience to scratch their heads. We can rail against this deity, shake our fists at Him, like Beethoven. We can resign oursleves to our fate. Or we can find meaning in it, and worship it. I think worship is something we do for ourselves, not God. This attitude (and attitude is everything) has, I think, its advantages over nihilism in giving us a positive focus. Taoists used to criticize Confucianists for performing such elaborate ceremonies to honor ancestral spirits whom Confucius believed did not exist. "Preparing a meal for a guest who isn't coming', they said. But the preparation is the important part in shaping appropriate attitudes for civilized encounter with reality. I belong to a Christian fellowship group which begins each session with a ceremony in which we drop stones into a bowl to thank God and petition Him to look after various loved ones, bring rain, or whatever. I've sometimes wondered how many of them actually believe that this is actually going to help bring about the results they're petitioning for. I, myself, think petitionary prayer is something we do for our better outlook, not to expect God to suspend the laws of physics for our benefit. But the ritual is a powerful bonding experience.

A third possibility is that God is evolving. Paleontologist and mystic Fr. Tielhard de Chardin, and physicist Frank Tippler, had a concept of God as a work in progress which began in the course of natural evolution, accelerated with emergence of consciousness an intelligence, and reached ever higher realization with mass communication (e.g., the internet") and will culminate with the Omega Consciousness--complete merger with God, who set the whole thing in motion with the Alpha Stage in a Star Trek-style time loop. As we share our posts on Hip Forums, we're participating in this process of divine emergence. Tippler envisions a future in which the good will experience union with the Omega in virtual Heaven, and bad people will be punished in a virtual hell as a simulation program run by demonic robots. And the geeks will inherit the earth. (I'm not endorsing this stuff, just presenting a possibility some people who have chairs at universities instead of padded cells believe in).

As for myself, I use my personal experience, perceptions,education, reasoning, intuition and assessment of the available evidence to make a bet on reality based on reasonable suspicion and try to be constantly open to reassessment based on new input. My outlook was shaped by a moment of clarity (religious experience, psychotic break, whatever), based on a non-literal reading of Genesis. As a result, whenever I encounter a human being, I see God. Delusional? Possibly. But so far, it seems to be harmless, and has greatly improved my relations with other people. Was it the product of some external revelation, internal psychological processes, a combination of both? I don't know, but it profoundly changed my life. The cool thing is that somebody using a different set of assumptions could come to the opposite conclusion and still have a position that's equally valid, by my way of thinking--a win-win situation for both of us.

 

The ambiguity of the term God is my problem. We need to take it to indicate a supernatural being, and do away with it. Breaking away from that term as referring to any other context would free up lots of misunderstandings.

Your still missing my point about subjectivity. We can share many common experiences and perceptions, because our sense-organs are so similar, but we cannot share one another's subjective experience. This is the most important thing to recognize, that we exist respective of each other. It's not a bad thing, though it is at first very painful to assimilate. Any solidarity we achieve as a species henceforth is dependent on it, because we've achieved all we can through the antiquated notions of connectedness. Think of your wondering how the other members of your group felt about the stones. You could have asked them, and trusted their answers, even theoretically have read their minds, but you still would have a fundamental piece of the puzzle about their conclusions missing: all the subjective experience that lead them up to it. It's a beautiful thing, in my opinion.

All of these are indeed strong assertions, and I most certainly do not expect you to accept them just because I say them. I respect your willingness to explore so many different avenues and your ability to keep yourself in a state of readiness to reevaluate things. I am just suggesting that there is another leap to take, the understanding of which will further validate, though to some extent demand you to redefine the leaps you've already taken.

I too had an experience such as the one you describe, though it was probably sort of equal and opposite. It too changed my life; any distinctions between our experiences are probably indicative of the very distinctions between people's respective subjective experiences I earlier mentioned, and this is where I tie this whole rambling mess back into the original question.

"Religion", or, to paraphrase William James, religious experience, is a natural phenomenon. It is something everyone experiences at some point in their lives, and some all through their lives: it's true for sober-minded athiests, raving lunatics, sensitive dweebs, power-mongering bastards, etc., etc., etc., the list is as long as the variety of people there are in the world. Something is hard-wired in us to experience wonder. Some people kill it out, or so it seems to me, but it's always bubbling beneath the surface, and it has as great a propensity for good as evil.

It's particular manifestions are basically the result of the manner in which it is distorted through the particular subjective filters of any given individual. That some people have experiences so similar that they feel it is identical shouldn't be surprising. Lots of people are similarly enough constructed that they can be expected to have eerily similar experiences. But, like the old saw about snowflakes and fingerprints, they are still not identical.

I apologize if I assert my conjectures so strongly. Naturally, I am not omniscient. However, I do feel I have something unique to share and I offer it as a gift. Freedom to speak is wonderful. I cherish it and thank you for participating.

 

Actually, acquiring such scientific validation is the point. Science is but a method, and a long and arduous one, but, it at least builds progressively. Allowing only "direct experience" leaves no data to verify whether or not you have experienced anything but your own delusions, and leaves us no ground to stand on in attempting to answer our question --- or any other question for that matter. Trial and error is better than just error.

And beware those you think know so much. Some have powers of suggestion and fascination that are quite effective in making others believe that actual telepathy or precognition has been achieved. Precognition is something about which I am highly dubious anyway, due to my suspicion that our reality is a lot less predetermined than some might think.

As for Zen Buddhism, it is not so great a thing. Sit still and Be quiet long enough and amazing psychological fluctuations result. Nice stuff, really, but any hippy on a good acid trip can tell you there's nothing masterful about it in itself unless you use it as a base from which to do something meaningful. Mastery involves accomplishing something, not nothing.

Before Gotama went out in search of enlightenment, he was a prince with wives and children and he lived in a palace his whole young life, where his every need was attended to. He left all of that to learn about himself, or, as they say, to find enlightenment. He studied many of the practices of his Hindu forbearers, and found them all to be just as meaningless as my above decription.

It has been a point of contention between my self and other seekers, especially Buddhists, for years, but here's my theory about Gotama's enlightment: he found out life has no real meaning, other than that which we make of it, and therefore it is good. Why not make it as peaceful as possible?

I disagree about not feeding the passions though. Sounds like torture to me.

 

Very well put. I can't think of anything to take issue with.

 

It's just that: There is no scientific proof. So what are we gonna do - sit on our hands until there is, one way or the other? No, we form opinions based on what we do know, and act accordingly. Based on your previous comments, you operate on the belief that physical evidence will eventually be found to explain how psychic experiences occur. I operate on the belief that physical evidence will never be found. Both of us are operating on some degree of faith, cuz we simply don't know.

However even without scientific proof, I can do my own reality testing. I can run my experiences through various theoretical worldview frameworks, see if they're consistent, and try to revise my frameworks accordingly if they're not. The key is knowing what you actually know or don't know versus what you conjecture. And the point is: Without scientific evidence that's all any of us CAN do. So again: Bottom line, practically speaking, scientific evidence IS beside the point, cuz we don't have it, and we're likely not going to get it within either of our lifetimes.

I'm not talking about anything vague here. When I ask a question silently and the person responds aloud, using the exact wording I used in my unspoken question, I take it as evidence of telepathy. When somebody makes very specific comments out loud regarding a conversation that occurred only mentally while we were separated by a couple of miles, I take that as a confirmation of a telepathic conversation. When someone gives me a telepathic answer to a telepathic question and I then ask them the same question aloud and get the same answer along with a statement that they answered the question earlier, I take that as evidence of telepathic communication. When somebody tells me something very specific about what I was doing when nobody had any possible way of knowing, I take that as confirmation of that person being inside my mind. When I see example after example after example of this kind of evidence from the same person over several months, it gives added weight to my conclusions. I didn't come by my conclusions lightly. I wanted to be very sure I wasn't somehow manufacturing a delusion, and I analyzed the hell out of my experiences.

Precognition is a whole other matter, which I'm not going to get into for this discussion, except to say that the insights I've gained from associations with these people have been extremely useful, which to me gives greater credence to their validity. However I'm glad you brought this up, cuz I am writing a book about all this, and you've made me realize I need to give more thought to the matter.

Of course. Did anything I say contradict this? You seem to be assuming opinions I don't have and never stated.

I'm already well aware of all this.

So you're saying Gotama was nothing more than an early existentialist. I recommend more reading to inform your theorizing - and again, I'm talking specifically of the Zen branch of Buddhism. Philip Kapleau's The Three Pillars of Zen and Meeting of East and West are both excellent, and Zen Flesh, Zen Bones is indispensable.

I'm with you on that. I wouldn't do it voluntarily. However life has a way of putting us into prisons with invisible bars sometimes, and then we learn some things that were not obvious when we had more freedom.

 

I agree. Science is the gold standard of human knowledge, but there are some kinds of questions it's unlikely to answer in our lifetimes. I've said it before and I'll say it again: science tends to pick its problems on the basis of whether or not they lend themselves readily to the rigorous methods that are the hallmark of science. For example, did Jesus exist? No self-respecting scientist would touch that question with a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it's really important to a lot of people, not all of whom are Christian. Why? Because the evidence is too sketchy. There have been young historians who have entertained the idea that history can be scientific and can answer exactly that question. I'm thinking of Richard Carrier, who thinks Bayesian analysis can provide exactly the scientific tool that's needed to investigate the existence of Jesus. I think the more likely result is that he'll ruin whatever reputation he had outside atheist circles. Bayes theorem has previously been used by more than one scholar (Stephen Unwin being the first) to demonstrate the existence of God, which might tip off atheists that something might be wrong with it--or more accurately with people who abuse it. As Dawkins points out, "the final estimate can be only as good as the numbers fed in" which tend to be subjectively determined.

Another limitation of science is that it's designed to avoid Type 1 errors, false positives (believing something that's false) at the risk of Type 2 errors (rejecting something that's true). Our prehistoric ancestors evolved to be pattern and agency perceivers to avoid false negatives. That thing in the water might be a log instead of an alligator, but if we try further testing we might not be around for the outcome.

While waiting for a definitive scientific outcome, which may never come, we might take a chance on more rough and ready methods: (1) lower the standard of proof from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion", probable cause, or substantial evidence; and (2) broaden the acceptable methodologies from empirical testing to include personal experience, judgment, and intuition--all flawed, but maybe better than nothing. In a dialogue between Dawkins and the host of a Christian TV show which was recently posted on this forum, Dawkins obviously seems to get the better of the argument, especially in showing how Darwin might deal with the host's concerns about how creatures relieved themselves before bowels and bladders evolved. But there was an interesting part where the host gives a vivid account of what he says was an amazing personal experience and Dawkins simply dismisses it because scientists aren't interested in anecdotes. That's true, but if people are actually having such experiences and reporting them as individual anecdotes, can science assume that they're not happening because science has decided to ignore them?

 

Yes. I have had similar experiences, though they have been more random and unintentional than rigorously guided as yours seem to be.

Right here we have all that we need for scientific inquiry. You just need an objective third party to witness these things, and perhaps write your thoughts so the objective viewer can verify them. There should be lots of ways to verify these things, witness them and record them. The field of study, as I'm sure you know, is parapsychology. These studies have actually been done, repeatedly and repeatedly, and have repeatedly been inconclusive-- not because of the failure of the scientific method but because of the failure of people who make claims such as yours to reproduce these results in front of unbiased observers. The experiments of Rhine are the ones that come to my mind first, and I think the oldest, but since then there have been many, many others. I won;t pretend here to have comprehensive knowledge of the field. It is fascinating, but of only passing interest to me.

Now, here's a huge possibility: maybe the people doing the ESP work have to be biased. Maybe there is a "power of belief" thing there. Maybe some of the-- forgive me for making up a word here-- supraneural connections that are made have to be made between people who earnestly want the work to succeed.

But here's a horrible sidebar: if that is true, what might that indicate with regard to widespread religious doomsday prophecies, and other widely believed malicious and bigoted ideologies?

As for the Buddhist stuff, like I said, and as you've just re-confirmed, it has been a point of contention.

Good, stimulating talk. Thank you. And best of luck with your work.

 

I have a little twist to my story: Every.Damned.Time. That one of these people gave me their bit of evidence, they seemed to be very careful to make sure that there were no other witnesses. They would wait until others were out of earshot, and they would lower their voices so that no others could hear.

Now osiris, think about this with me, would you? Why would they do this?

I'll give you my theory, cuz as a person who has had similar experiences, I want you to be a witness to my thinking about this, at the very least. In my experience, particularly with a particular woman who has been my telepathic companion for the past ten years, my impression is that she is doing this sort of thing with a lot of different people. The reason I think this is that she allowed me to be a witness to a couple of other relationships she had, and she showed me how she intentionally maneuvered others and then said things to me in confidence like, "It's time to let him go now." My conclusion from this and other things she and others like her in my life did is that they present a different experience to each person, tailored to that person's particular spiritual needs. And they are very, very careful to never let their revelations to one person overlap with those to another - except when called for - as in my case, allowing me to see the pattern of her interactions. Cuz osiris, she said she was going to write a book WITH me. "With" me? Using me? Maneuvering me? I dunno, my friend. I'm moving into an area of known conjecture now. And I believe this is just as she intends.

When I was in a college speech class, I once gave a speech on the research of JB Rhine. That was elementary stuff compared to what I've experienced...BUT Rhine was doing it scientifically. I'm more of an adventurer with a scientific bent. I do have a degree in biochemistry, and worked for a while in clinical research documentation, so I know the ropes in that arena. But I believe I know a helluva lot more than Rhine ever even suspected - though it is not scientifically documented. It's my belief that psychic experience is not wholly subject to scientific inquiry - because it is maneuvered by some form of intelligence/awareness that intends for it not to follow any discernible pattern. Such as - maybe - God? Or something? Possibly.

I'm telling you these things because I think you know a lot of what I do, and I want to plant some seeds in some people who at least know some of what I know, so that they might possibly consider applying my working hypotheses to their own experiences...and maybe eventually there might be a body of knowledge that, though not strictly scientific, would nevertheless light a path with much brighter understanding.

Take care, my friend, and I hope your path brings you many revelations and much fulfillment - as has mine.

 

It's interesting that both of you have had these experiences of the uncanny, as have lots of us, although your interpretation of them is radically different. Jung, a trained psychiatrist, broke with his mentor Freud over just how seriously to take these phenomena, such as "sychronicity", which scientists of materialistic persuasion tend to dismiss as "coincidences." To a determinist like Freud there were no coincidences, but the explanation lay in human perceptions governed by unconscious needs. It's frustrating that we can't get to the bottom of it and find the "truth", but there's so much we don't know about the universe, that I've given up on ever finding the truth and am willing to settle for an interpretative theory that's consistent with the known facts and fits the rest of what we think we know about the universe.

And that's why I started this thread--to see how much of the phenomenon of religion, the realm of the sacred and ineffable, can be explained by what seem to be plausible, empirically grounded theories which fit the known facts. To a reductionist like Dawkins, if the concept can be explained by a naturalistic theory, we don't need to look further. To Dennett, it's important to "break the spell'" of religion by exposing the evolutionary psychological and sociological mechanisms that make it tick. He tries to show that religion can be accounted for by a variety of determinants. Then he seems surprised that, thus exposed, it still seems to have a powerful grip on people's minds. Why? I think precisely because it is as multi-functional and deeply rooted in our psyches as he says.

 

Absolutely. Excellent insights.

I'm frequently the target of people who really don't know much about science, but want to tell me that my beliefs are not scientifically based. My response is to fall back on the notion of evidence from a lawyer's viewpoint. When a matter does not lend itself to scientific study, the logic of eyewitness accounts and such "objective" evidence as might exist must guide our conclusions.

The problem is that for lots of people educated in today's public schools who are not bright enough to really get the deeper concepts of what science really is, the notion of science has become like a religion itself. Lots of those folks have the mistaken notion that if science has not declared something valid, then it doesn't really exist. In actuality of course, the body of scientific knowledge is a constantly moving target.

There is so much in our universe that science has not even touched on yet. We need to remember that before Einstein came along, scientific knowledge in the area of physics was limited to the calculus of Newton and Leibnitz. As it turned out, their equations were an approximation that was only true within the very limited physical environment of our everyday world experience, and it took Einstein's insights over 200 years later based on astronomical observations enabled by newer technological developments to mathematically describe the physical universe in a way that applied to the vast majority of actual possibilities.

What knowledge still lies waiting for discovery beyond our current capabilities? The way some folks talk, you would think that everything that can be discovered already has been - and by implication, if it has not yet been scientifically discovered, it must simply not exist!



I personally hold the scientific method as almost sacred in its ability to discern physical reality. But as you point out, there are major limits to the areas that are truly subject to scientific inquiry.

So we are STILL left with huge mysteries that the scientific method, marvelous though it is, may never be capable of explaining.

Such a pity, such a pity...

 

Okiefreak, for what it's worth, I will tell you something about my thinking on all these matters after a lifetime of seeking, now at the age of 59, so as to pass on such tidbits as may possibly prove useful to younger seekers of such obvious intelligence as yours.

I am convinced that the focus of each individual must be his/her own experience - because experience is everything. It's what is given to us as individuals for the purpose of learning whatever lessons we each need to learn in the life we are currently living.

Do you think there is some spiritual value in living the life of a schizophrenic? I do. What about the life of someone with autism, or a low-level idiot...or even someone who is a total vegetable? I knew a girl, the daughter of some friends some years ago, who did not have the intellectual capacity of even human speech...yet she was a beautiful person. She responded to love. She smiled a LOT. And she was loved by her family, and her family's friends - like me, for instance.

What is the meaning of a life like that one?

I have two daughters who are clinically psychotic - and I see both of their life experiences as beautiful and valuable - though often frightening, often scary and tortured.

Experience, experience. If you've never read psychiatrist R D Laing's book, The Politics of Experience, I highly recommend it. His ideas are not much in vogue anymore, but his thoughts are well worth considering even now.

Thank you for this thread. This has been good for me to experience.