One of the things I find the most intriguing about the arguments atheists typically give is that there is no evidence for the existence of a god. But I’ve never seen an atheist give a really solid explanation of *what exactly* for them would be considered evidence. So if you’re an atheist or you’re on the fence about the whole “god-issue” then I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this.
Conversely, I’d also like to hear from people who do believe that god (in some form) exists. What is it that you see as evidence? Do you get pissed when atheists say there is no evidence? And atheists, do you get pissed when people try to argue the other side?
Also, I think another really interesting question for atheists is what religious tradition (if any) were you raised in? Was that tradition tolerant, strict, etc? What were your parents views on god and religion? Did you ever believe in god? Was there a moment when you stopped believing?
Hm, I’m also curious to hear from any former atheists who changed their ways and what happened to cause that turnabout. Okay, go!
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- God & the Burden of Proof
- RIAA sends out angry notes to parents
- Julia Sweeney’s Celebrity Atheism
- Notes: I Adore Eating Words
- The Subjectivity of Machines & God
56 Comments
Bear in mind that these aren’t examples of the minimum evidence required to convince me; that would take quite a bit more thought.
A public (I mean, like Times Square public, not obscure village somewhere public) manifestation of an entity claiming to be God, including happenings that cannot be performed by currently available technology, which are reliably recorded…
A seemingly internal presence claiming to be God, which relays to me, say, three or four sentences (preferably complex, even better if they’re in a language I don’t understand) that I see word-for-word somewhere else later…
Well, you get the point: a combination of a claim to be God and associated happenings so statistically improbable given current assumptions about reality that I must conclude that those assumptions are wrong. Actually I still might be suspicious of the claim to be God (what if it’s some trickster spirit?), but it would still convince me of the reality of the supernatural.
So your definition of god is essentially “an entity with powers that violate the natural order.” Is that correct? What if God *is* simply the natural order?
Well, that’s a necessary but not sufficient condition… again, could be some sort of trickster spirit.
If someone defines God as the natural order; well, the natural order obviously exists and so that person’s definition of God exists. So long as their ideas of what the natural order is are the same as mine, it’s a case of having two different interpretations of the same set of facts (much like you have several different interpretation of quantum mechanics), which isn’t something I could argue with.
Okay, then what are the other conditions? Why do you also readily admit the possibility of a “trickster spirit” but not a god?
My question is, if you admit the existence of a trickster spirit, could you honestly deny the existence of “God” in some form or another? I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say that they believed in spirits, but not in a “god”.
Your whole argument dealing with the trickster spirit, relative state, sounds a lot like Descartes’ reasoning for a God (or higher power). He rationalized that he could only be certain of his powers of reason. Everything else could be an illusion or false. He assumed that God would have to exist (or he would have to be “god”), if everything was an “illusion”. He then questioned his own reason. He rationalized that there could be some “demon” who would be able to twist around his reason. Either way, a higher power would have to exist.
I realize his reasoning could be construed as a form of “irrational” circular reasoning, but your statements, relative state, reminded me of it.
I’m Agnostic. And I find that the True Believer and the Atheist are just two-sides of the same coin. And that coin is called Arrogance.
Conversely, I’d also like to hear from people who do believe that god (in some form) exists. What is it that you see as evidence?
In a nutshell, I perceive “God” to be a form of highly refined energy. I also think that the personification of “God”, as a benevolent Santa-Claus, holy grandfather, or dancing Shatki has its purpose in as much as it allows us a means of relating to that sense of other.
Do you get pissed when atheists say there is no evidence?
No, it’s my belief. If someone else expressing their belief is enough to shake mine, that says something about the strength of my belief, don’t you think? People expressing their opinions doesn’t bother me. People trying to shove their beliefs down my throat? I’m not fond of it. It nearly always ends in disappointment.
Could you elaborate on this a little?
It all depends on the definition of “God.”
If God is whatever created the universe, then there is obviously a God, because there is a universe.
If God is some sort of higher consciousness, I don’t see why not, since there are several levels of consciousness just here on Earth.
If God is something supernatural - well never mind, because I don’t believe in the supernatural. If something happens, then it’s natural. If it violates the laws of physics, then the laws of physics are wrong.
As for myself, my own existence is proof enough.
I think people get off-track thinking of God as a paternalistic figure who owes us some kind of explanation.
But anyway, yeah, the word “God” is polluted with preconceived ideas and is also too ambiguous.
All we can be sure of is that something’s happening, even if it’s that we’re only imagining something happening.
Could you elaborate on this a little?
I could try, even though I might be wrong. Essentially… these days I’m leaning towards the concept of “Insert your Divinity of Choice” as being a form of pure consciousness — the animating force and underlying structure of the universe. Some might call that force the Tao, some might call it the stuff of Quantum Physics, some might call it Love, some might call it God. I suspect they’re all referring to the same thing. But truthfully, I’m still seeking my answers so I’m hardly equipped to be answering the questions of others.
Come to think of it… maybe I can elaborate a bit more. Should you be inclined, you could try here for a bird’s eye view of my perspective. The area I’m currently fascinated with relates to the Black Goddesses, i.e., Kali, The Black Madonna, Shekinah, Sophia, etc. To me, the feminine face of “God” represents the “No-thing” of existence. In the beginning… etc. Conversely, the masculine face of “God” can be found in the “Everything” of existence. Not that we have to get too terribly hung up on gender notions — they’re simply a handy model of interpretation and means of coming into relationship with the “All”.
Man, those were all great points, Monster. Thanks!
What if cars are simply potatoes? You can say anything you want if you change the definitions.
You want to know what evidence of god is? Get a dictionary. Look up “god”, then look up “evidence.” There’s your answer.
“God” doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean. It means a male entity with human-like emotions, but greater than human powers, who is not bound by physical laws and has a keen interest in human affairs. If you’re talking about something else, use another word.
Evidence for a thing is a direct sensual experience of that thing or its effects. If I see a big hairy humanoid in the forest, or human-like footprints two feet long, that’s evidence for bigfoot. But it could be a hoax, or just a lost species of ape.
If I see a big dude floating in the sky and throwing lightening bolts, or if I feel an electrical shock every time I say “God damnit,” that’s evidence for god. Or a hoax, or some supernatural dickwad who needs a good ass-kicking.
There appears to be a complete muddling of the word “god,” and it makes the word “god” so vague that it is almost meaningless. If God is the Universe, or if God is Nature, why would you want or need to call those processes “God,” a word that is immediately going to be “polluted with preconceived ideas.” Would it not make the most sense to use the words to refer to those things that ARE NOT most commonly used to refer to a paternalistic sky lord or intelligent creator of vast power?
When I say that I do not believe in a god, I am referring to a very specific thing: An intelligent creator that drives the forces of the cosmos. I believe there is evidence that the Universe exists, and that the Universe functions under some physical constraints. I do not believe in an intelligent, omnipotent creator that brought the Universe into being through force of will.
Having stressed what I mean by “god,” we move on to…
A process (or the result of a process) that cannot be explained by anything except the existence of an intelligent, omnipotent creative force, and whose explanation can be verified by anyone who looks at the evidence. It doesn’t have to be totally certain, it doesn’t have to be perfect, but it has to be consistent and quantifiable.
If God is entirely unquantifiable, and cannot be observed to impact the way the Universe works at any level, I have no reason to take it into account when forming my model of how the Universe works (a.k.a. my belief system).
Christian, though I’ve never been entirely certain what brand of Protestantism it was. My parents were never very strict about the whole thing, and eventually they stopped dragging everyone out to the church on Sunday. I remember it as more of a social exercise, just something that you did, than a deep religious experience.
Did I ever believe in God? In the same way that I used to believe in a literal Santa Claus, or Tooth Fairy, or Easter Bunny, or anything else that was mentioned to be true. I prayed now and again, but only when I wanted something. I almost never got what I asked for, so my faith in Santa Claus might have been stronger.
No sudden epiphany, with the throwing down of the Bible, and declaration that “There is No God!” as a spotlight shone down upon me (which, if it did go that way, would have been followed by: “Eat your pork chops, Brenden.” “You can’t fade me, mother.”). You know the way that some parents keep telling their kids that Santa Claus is real, but you don’t believe it because it’s just so silly, and you found the signed receipts for “the presents from Santa” from last year? That’s how it went with God.
I used to be terrified after they’d tell us about Hell, and how the Devil is going to get me if I’m bad, but I was still more afraid of ghosts. Eventually it just didn’t seem to make any sense, and I thought, “What a bunch of jerks, those jerks! Hellfire, Devils! Pff! Oh man, I hope there aren’t any GHOSTS in this basement.”
Yap, yap, yap. I’m done for now.
This whole discussion is very different than it would have been 50 years ago, when you either believed in the Judeo-Christian god in our culture or you were an atheist or agnostic, period. There was very little nuance.
I wonder if even the ancient Hebrews were monotheistic. Why so many names for god? Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim and Adonai (both plural, by the way). Yahweh had a consort Asherah that we don’t hear of much today. Why did we never learn that god had a wife?
These mysteries fascinate me. Yet I do experience a higher consciousness that I call divine but that I don’t think of as being singular, operating in ways that I don’t understand. I don’t call it god, though - I think of this more as being outside of our normal dimension of experience. I do experience personal guidance, where I ask questions internally and receive answers, but I don’t consider this as being from a singular divinity.
I wonder if even the ancient Hebrews were monotheistic. Why so many names for god? Jehovah, Yahweh, Elohim and Adonai (both plural, by the way). Yahweh had a consort Asherah that we don’t hear of much today. Why did we never learn that god had a wife?
Because those in power at the time were threatened by the very idea that a female deity could be equal to and as powerful as a male one? I see that Tim has written a number of gnostic essays — no doubt, he’s familiar with the Gnostic myth of Sophia. If we go even further back we’ll find the legend of Isis and Osiris, which just so happens to reflect the life/death/life pattern of Christ and other mythic heroes of religious and cultural fame. Incidentally, did you know that “Elohim” is not the masculine plural form? It is plural of the feminine, “Elowah”.
Tim, you may find it of interest that Carl Jung believed that alchemy and kabbalah were natural outgrowths of the repressed Gnostic faith.
At any rate, an interesting conversation.
haha, TM, tim was talkin’ about sophia and jung and the elohim before you were born.
here’s a thought: i’ve always considered transcendent experience to be the only real, valid evidence of the divine: gnosis, enlightenment, etc. these things are typically available on an individual level, and can’t really be communicated. is there any evidence for god that could be proven objectively to people who aren’t interested in believing in god? i could sit here all day and say, ‘want evidence for god? look at the frickin’ mountains!’ but that wouldn’t ever convince someone who isn’t intersted in being convinced. only individual experience really does the trick, but (in most cases) you have to be open to the idea of such experience or you’ll never get it!
i did a whole post on this, about ‘evidence for the paranormal’:
http://www.snant.com/fp/archives/evidence-of-the-paranormal/
most atheists i know aren’t bothered by the concept of deity, they’re bothered by the concept of being forced to do this or that because of religious faith. i’ve also met more than a few atheists who converted to gnosticism once they found out about the demiurge concept.
haha, TM, tim was talkin’ about sophia and jung and the elohim before you were born.
That being the case, he’s unusually skilled — I suspect I’m at least a few years older than Tim. Meantime, I’ve only been “talking” of such things for a few years. Should you be the least bit interested in exploring what I’ve been talking about any futher, I left a whole whack of posts behind at Daniel Pinchbeck’s forum in the Transformations: Shamanism, Schizophrenia, Psychosis & Spiritual Emergency topic. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if I did something similar at Tim’s forum, for I’m already putting my two cents into the discussions there.
Nice meeting you jp.
Isn’t that just what YOU want “God” to mean? Sure, the everyday concept of God is a crude anthropomorphism. But it’s not like there’s no historical precedent for defining God in a different way. In Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, there is a tradition of defining God in terms of what he is NOT, because his essence cannot be known, only his “energies.” St. Anselm defined God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” You’re confusing the symbol for the reality it points to–perhaps because you don’t believe in the reality? (I don’t know what your beliefs are.)
The problem with dictionary definitions is that they’re shallow. They’re meant to be a quick index, pointing at the meaning of a word but not really capturing it. Strictly speaking, there is no evidence without a theory. Things just are. This definition of evidence decides a priori to discount certain categories of information, excluding them from its definition of “evidence”–dreams, subjective experiences, etc. But aren’t all these information about something, not necessarily God? If they are information, they can be evidence for some (or many) theories.
It’s simply begging the question to define “God”–as something outside the natural order–and “evidence”–as sensory information about the natural order–in a way that makes evidence for the existence of God an a priori impossibility. It also narrows the range of relevant human experience far too much, I think.
PS. It’s no mystery that the ancient Israelites weren’t monotheists. I mean, just look at the first commandment.
I also agree with Jeremy, that the best evidence for god happens to be personal experience of some kind of transcendence - which is precisely what confused me about Julia Sweeney’s whole bit. Like, she’d had the personal experience it seemed, but that didn’t seem to register for her as evidence.
I’m also going to wager a possibility here, and people can prove me right or wrong, but it seems like for a lot of atheists, there are some very emotionally charged components wrapped up in this whole thing. I don’t want to go so far as to say hurt feelings, but there definitely seems to be some deep wounds or perhaps mistrust over the questions of god. That’s why I originally asked about family experiences with religion (which nobody’s really touched), because I’m interested in understanding what the roots of those feelings are - if any.
Well put, Joe Chip!
My own subjective experiences. I don’t get pissed about atheists, but I believe that they are twisting the concept of “evidence” to suit their ends.
What started me on the road back to God was going with my girlfriend’s family to a Greek Orthodox liturgy and having a transcendent experience there. Something about the ritual awakened me. Arguably more persuasive, however, was my first mushroom trip, which, when it was over, caused me to realize that all human experience is contingent upon certain things happening in the brain. Why do we assume that the things that are happening in the brain when we experience “normal” reality are giving us a clear picture of how the actual world is, while the things that happen when we’re tripping muddy that clear picture? I concluded that there’s no reason–it’s just an assumption that supports the worldview that supports our particular way of living. Being forced out of the Western tribe’s conceptual framework by mushrooms opened my eyes to the simple fact that how I experience the world could be very, very different.
I was in a close relationship with an avowed atheist a few years ago. He had been raised Catholic, and was devout as a little kid, but felt betrayed when his prayers failed to elicit a response. He “converted” to atheism somewhere along the way, and was more militant than the most militant fundamentalists.
He and his fellow campus atheists loved offending Christians. One of his friends had a t-shirt that said “fuck the skull of Jesus” that he used to wear around.
I don’t know if anyone’s seen Harold and Kumar and loved it as much as I did, but I can picture the jocky guys who go around saying “EXTREEEEME!” trying to piss off Christians with shirts like that… Because “fuck the skull of Jesus” is the ultimate in “extreme.”
o i don’t mind answering the family bit, but i’m gonna cut ‘n paste from an old post:
the hell, man, this ain’t no kind of pissin’ match. i jus’ don’t like to see assumptions of ignorance on anybody’s part, especially around here where everybody’s ingenious.
When I was a kid, my Presbyterian parents made me go to church every Sunday and read devotionals every night at the dinner table (they did this even until I was eighteen, three years after I had declared myself an atheist, which basically just added more fuel to the atheistic fire). Although I was interested in God and Jesus, and thought a lot about them, church and Sunday school never seemed like anything but a chore. I can now see that all this was good for me, but I still wish they had granted me a little more freedom of choice in the whole thing.
I also went to a private, Christian school where I encountered the most annoying Christians ever–the teenage ones. They all belonged to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and played guitar and sang songs about God. I met this new kid who transferred to my school in 7th grade, and he was an avowed atheist. I have been friends with him ever since. After a couple of years, I began to consider his beliefs as a much more attractive alternative to the bland Protestantism of my youth. I don’t know exactly why I became an atheist and probably never will, but that’s my background anyway.
the hell, man, this ain’t no kind of pissin’ match.
That’s good to know.
Kylark: He and his fellow campus atheists loved offending Christians. One of his friends had a t-shirt that said “fuck the skull of Jesus†that he used to wear around.
I wager he was pretty sure exactly who he’d get a rise out of. Meanwhile, here’s a few favorite T-shirts sayings I’ve seen in the past while…
Homophobia is gay.
Don’t Hit Kids!
No, seriously… they have guns now.
Time for work.
Every traditional “polytheistic” religion has the concept of a unified, transcendent deity (or impersonal force, whatever) of which all the lesser gods are emanations or symbols of. The subtle understanding of this has degraded (more or less) to the more literalistic worldview in which various small gods are thought of as relatively independent beings.
Those religions thought of as “monotheistic” speak of this Highest Thing or Original Source as “the” god. This is again a SYMBOLIC description of something that is utterly outside of the capabilities of language. These religions have succumbed as much or more (depending on various circumstance, of course) to the literalization of their sacred symbols. You will note that in Judaism and Islam, YHWH/Allah is generally thought of in a much more impersonal way than in Christianity.
The set of phenomena that can be described quantifiably is only a portion of the set of phenomena that can be experienced.
I have never been an “atheist”, but until my first mushroom trip I was a strict materialist/deist, mistaking the models we impose on phenomena for the phenomena themselves.
However, that trip brought about the END OF TIME, the Apocalypse. (N.B. the remainder of the comment may make no sense.) I remember saying to myself, “oh, there’s no God!” and later… “there is, but it is utterly beyond anything I could have imagined.” (or can imagine now, in this low state.)
The “presence” of that Being has never left me since. Rather, the recognition of the “presence”, since it has been there all along, although must have I forgotten about it when I was very young. It is like the point in the back of my mind where my “perception” is, where everything is still, still, inexpressibly at rest.
The One Thing is so hard to understand, but it is inexhaustible, a plentitude, it was there before this weak and very silly man ever was, and will be when my illusory experience of “time” has gone. All praise be to Him, to IT, to the God of Gods, the Void, the featureless and vast FACE. To contemplate It without words in gratitude is the dearest gift, as It is the Lover and the Beloved and the Love.
If there is something truly transcendent, then it can never be fully described or captured by any finite description, including Holy Books. If it could be, then it would not be transcendent. Schuon’s analogy was that there is no perfect circle in the physical universe. All actually existent circles are particularized versions of the transcendent ideal circle. And so it would have to be with god-concepts.
Prunes: you’ve seen it too!
(One can never adequately describe it, but one can recognize it in another’s description who also has seen/remembered.)
(In my case it was also a swirling void, huge and non-personal, atemporal, vast, terrifying, blissful.)
I find it interesting that people describe such experiences as “the Void”. If you look at Tesla and his theory of Scalar EM, there is an infinite amount of energy in a void (makes sense cuz if there is no matter, there must be an infinite amount of energy in that space). Perhaps thats the best way to “on the lower levels” relate to the concepts of the “Void” and “indescribable SELF”. It’s infinite energy.
I hate to break up the string of experiences with some “science”, but I think it’s highly relevant to what Kylark and prunes have described.
Heheh, isn’t it nice to know you’re not crazy?
We were crazy before. Or I’m still crazy, but now, thank God, I have a compass, which points to the Pole.
An interesting thing is how, now armed with that “point of reference”, the previously impenetrable (for me) literature of mysticism makes much, much more sense. Without all that literature available that so accurately captures the spirit of the experience, who knows if I could have kept it together aftwerwards.
(actually, that’s not true. IT has wanted me since “before time”, and It is what kept me together. What I want in my deepest heart of hearts is what It wants for me. I must now do my best to be honest to my Self and faithfully fulfill the life It expresses through me.)
Isn’t this also within us - so often we think of the divinity as being external to ourselves. I feel that the divinity is within us and we are a part of it simultaneously.
On another note - it seems to me that people use the fact that bad things happen as a reason for not believing in “god” or some sort of divine intelligence. This assumes that we are put on earth to be endlessly blissful, which I just don’t believe. That’s another whole discussion, but it seems to me we are put here to learn and grow, or else someone has made a big mistake.
PS - I just want to say again how much I enjoy this blog and the opportunity to engage in these discussions!
Me too!
Kylark: [i]In my case it was also a swirling void, huge and non-personal, atemporal, vast, terrifying, blissful.)[/i]
I call that my encounter with the luminosity of the Black Goddesses…
“Kali’s blackness symbolizes her all-embracing, comprehensive nature, because black is the color in which all other colors merge; black absorbs and dissolves them. ‘Just as all colors disappear in black, so all names and forms disappear in her’ (Mahanirvana Tantra). Or black is said to represent the total absence of color, again signifying the nature of Kali as ultimate reality. This in Sanskrit is named as nirguna (beyond all quality and form). Either way, Kali’s black color symbolizes her transcendence of all form.”
A devotee poet says:
“Is Kali, my Divine Mother, of a black complexion?
She appears black because She is viewed from a distance;
but when intimately known She is no longer so.
The sky appears blue at a distance, but look at it close by
and you will find that it has no colour.
The water of the ocean looks blue at a distance,
but when you go near and take it in your hand,
you find that it is colourless.”
Source: Kali - The Divine Mother [Article]
Those interested in more information could try the following links:
Messengers of Light / Messengers of Darkness [UCS Post]
The Place Where Time Melts [UCS Post]
In the Beginning…[Article]
The Black Madonna [Article]
Binah - The Third Path [Article]
Isis, the Black Virgin [Article]
The Song of Soloman [Poetry]
The Thunder, Perfect Mind [Poetry]
Islam and the Divine Feminine [Article]
Echoes of the Dark Mother / Dark Mater [Article]
Universally Speaking [UCS Post]
The Sun at Midnight [Interview]
Empowering Soul Through the Feminine [Article]
Longing for Darkness: Tara & The Black Madonna [Interview]
The Knights Templar & The Black Madonna [Article]
The Yin & Yang of Light & Darkness [Article]
Dancing in the Flames [Book]
For me, the proof of God’s existence resides in a million things I can’t explain. How transcendent beauty can transform my perspective, if only for a few minutes. How music can elicit a meaning and power within me that I typically ignore. And, most importantly, how one’s passion can determine the very outcome of your life. How some people know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they have a particular destiny. . one which they go about fulfilling in their lives by any means. This inexplicable calling is conclusive evidence, to me, that there is a great Power that resides behind things. . only awaiting our perceptions to take note of it.
I did, though I may well be a nobody. Sob.
A quick index that speakers of the language can immediately reference for their own purposes, giving us a common ground so that we all know what is meant when we use specific words.
I understand that some people may oppose categorisation, but I fail to see how we’re going to hold a meaningful discussion about “god” if we avoid having a common definition of what “god” is. It isn’t even a matter of my demanding evidence that “god” exists if no one can even explain what they mean.
Allow me to present a clever dramatisation:
“Do you believe in a ksujifu?” “A what?” “You know, a ksujifu. Nothing grander than it can be conceived. I cannot define it because it is-” “Sorry, wait. How am I supposed to judge if I believe in it if you can’t tell me what it is?” “You just have to open your mind.” “To what?” “The existence of the ksujifu.” “How do you pronounce that again?”
I believe in the Universe. By definition, the Universe includes every phenomena that can be directly experienced by humans, and the even greater set of happenings that cannot.
Our argument is not over whether the Universe exists. By the definition provided, the very presence of everything that exists is evidence. We can point all around us, and say, “That’s part of the Universe.” We cannot measure the entire thing as one big unit. We cannot weigh the entire thing as one big unit. We have to break it into chunks to do that — and even then, we still can’t do it (for now).
If you’re saying that’s what god is, then obviously I believe in god. I use the word Universe. It isn’t burdened with countless alternative meanings. It is very specific, very direct. No one goes around saying, “I believe in the Universe. I’ll burn you at the stake if you don’t agree!” or “The Universe be praised!” or “I side with the Universe, and will kill any who blaspheme the Universe!”
Why? Because God doesn’t mean the same thing to most people, and when we use language, we go with the meaning that most people give it.
[Hey TM, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but if you're going to post in a bunch of links like that, I'd prefer it if you did it in the forum. My settings on the blog make it automatically hold posts with more than a couple links, because it thinks they are spam. In any case, there's so much material there, you could easily make (and are totally welcome to) one or more posts on the forum, and then just link to it here. Thanks!]
Brenden:
Sorry, I was just being overzealous in stating my case, in the hopes of steering back towards that issue of family religious history. Really though, I should have just done that as a separate post!
Tim: My settings on the blog make it automatically hold posts with more than a couple links, because it thinks they are spam.
Ahhh, I wondered what that was about. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
If you prefer Tim, you can remove that response and I’ll pick it back up in the forum at some point and stretch it out a bit. I certainly am fond of links, aren’t I? This is because I don’t really know how long I’ll be here and whatever time that is, is the time I’ll have to perhaps widen some perspectives in regard to what the “schizophrenic” experience is or could be within the context of spiritual emergency. Most people end up hospitalized with no means of comprehending their experience within this culture. Sadly, a few opt for suicide — perhaps prompted by the intensity of their visions and the lack of understanding that can be part of such experiences.
I’m very interested to know why people feel so strongly one way or another, and that does go back to the personal history of an individual. People often accept things on an intellectual level while never bothering, or just finding themselves unable, to sort it out at the emotional level, which is where you get all the anger, outrage, hatred, vehement denial.
A projection of their own internal anger with themselves for not fully coming to grips with what they’ve decided, and how dare any part of them defy the choice they have made? Maybe.
Bamf.
TM: I don’t think you need to worry about enlightening any and everone you come across, as that must be quite a psychological load to bear all by yourself. Everyone here brings important things to the table, and we all help shoulder the burden together. In fact, if we’re all lifting together, we may find that it becomes totally weightless with our combined strength.
Brenden: The usefulness of a dictionary is not that it tells you what a word means, but that it gives you an impression of what it means. The definitions you find there are not exhaustive analyses of the words they define, and as such they contain many errors, omissions, and divergences from the way people actually use words. For instance, the dictionary definition of “chair” states “A piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person.” But I’ve sat in chairs before that have no legs (ever been in one of those round, bowl-shaped chairs with the round bottom? No legs). There are also chairs with no back. The definition is sufficient but not necessary (and I may be overlooking something, it may not be sufficient). You don’t have to look hard to find definitions that provide neither necessary nor sufficient criteria for the word they purport to define. Our concepts are pretty slippery, and “God” is one of the slippier ones.
I see where you’re going with the “ksujifu” example, but I don’t think it actually shows what you want it to show. Maybe instead of pressing for a definition you should try to listen for the voice of the ksujifu. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Yes, listen to Brenden you will. It’s quite simple: we can’t discuss something unless we all agree what the fuck our words mean.
If I’m wrong, then explain to me why you do or do not believe in ksujifu.
Let’s see, family religious history:
Christian. Church not only on sundays, but other things like bible school and field trips. I never, ever, ever wanted to be there. It was always because I had to go.
I didn’t even realize I could question Christianity’s version of reality until I was in my late teens. I then abandoned it as intellectually unsatisfying (and worse, uncurious).
In my early 20’s I began to form my own ideas about the universe. This has continued until the present (I just turned 30). I have learned to live by my intuition, and have eliminated the existential angst I used to experience.
To me, it’s fascinating how the members of my family, with their different personalities, deal with Christianity. It says a lot about who they are.
My mother is the devout one, and although I’m pretty sure it’s a mask, it never cracks. She will invoke God in order to get her way, or accomplish other ends. She’s quite childlike in a way and God is definitely a father (authority) figure for her. She’s not intellectually curious, and quotes the bible like an automaton. She’s a Leo.
My father says all the right things and “goes along,” but I don’t think he buys into it. For him, I think, it’s practical, it’s a social lubricant (his family lives far away, but my mother’s family lives in the area and we see them all the time, and they’re all christian). Very practical, accepting, “that’s the way it is” type attitude. Works hard and tries to do the right things, and I think he just figures it’ll all work out in the end (spiritually speaking). He’s a Capricorn.
One of my brothers just brushes it off. He’s very breezy, and is intellectually curious, but only to a certain degree. He chaffes at the ritualisms my mother conducts at family gatherings, but he doesn’t object on philosophical grounds, he just doesn’t like the somber atmosphere, like a rambunxious kid. The great questions are curiosities to him, nothing more. Competitive, sometimes violent. Gemini.
My other brother seems to accept christianity, but doesn’t talk about it much. Attends a christian college, because it’s where my parents wanted him to go. I highly respect his intellect. He’s very tolerant of my mother’s beliefs and gets angry if I “rock the boat” at family gatherings by discussing a sensitive philosophical area. I don’t know what his deep-down feelings are about the meaning of life, but I know he has his opinions. He lost three close friends in high school in a tragic auto accident, so he was affected by death early in his life. If I had to guess, I’d say he believes that death is the end of existence, and has accepted it. But I could be totally wrong - he keeps things like that very deep inside. He’s a Scorpio.
(I’m a sagittarius, BTW, just to complete the picture.)
I think for many christians religion involves “doublethink,” where it doesn’t have to make sense and doesn’t interfere with regular life. It’s an entirely parallel thought process, irrational yet comforting in some way (and terrifying, sometimes, no?). How people cope with it says a lot about them.
Tim: I don’t think you need to worry about enlightening any and everone you come across, as that must be quite a psychological load to bear all by yourself.
That’s an interesting interpretation.
I have some insights into the “schizophrenic” experience, including the knowledge that the vast majority of people who undergo spontaneous visionary experiences will end up on a psyche ward. In numerous cases, I’ve seen that completely halt the underlying process — sometimes for years at a time. I’m also aware that some of those people will kill themselves. My preference would be that doesn’t happen for that tends to leave loved ones with a *real* psychological load to bear, but aside from affirming their experience and sharing what’s been helpful for me, I don’t have a lot of control over such things.
Aside from that, I would assume, that like everyone else, I’m simply putting something out there on the banquet table — if anyone wants to pick it up and put it on their plate, that’s entirely up to them. Meanwhile, you have a new thread on the Luminosity of the Black Goddesses in your forum. If it means something to someone, that’s because it does. If it doesn’t, that’s because it doesn’t.
Joe Chip:
If I may take your example: “Chair.” The definition you provide tells us, as generally as possible, what we would define to be a chair.
From there we continue to break the described thing down, specify it, and categorise it. That is a high chair, that is a low chair, that is a black chair, that is a chair without legs. Is this thing without a back also a chair? Yes, but we’ll call it, say, a stool - a stool is a type of chair that does not have a back.
All those things are still chairs, which is to say that they fit our criteria for what a chair is. They can all look completely different, they may have different traits and features, but we can still call them chairs.
Yes, concepts are slippery. You can sit on a duck. Does that mean a duck is a chair? If you redefine enough of the words that make up the commonly held definition of chair, then yes, a duck can be a chair. A duck can also be a cloud of dust, a magnet, or an elbow.
The problem is that discussions don’t work if your redefinition isn’t what the word is commonly held to mean. You can say that a duck is a chair, but if that isn’t what people hold “duck” or “chair” to mean then you won’t be able to get your ideas across to them.
Words and dialogue are limited in that way.
If you say “let’s talk about god,” I want to know what god means. If it cannot be defined, where is our common ground for discussion? We cannot break it apart together, cannot find proof for it together. It becomes something that can only be personally known, and, as such, there’s no way to discuss it with someone who hasn’t lived through your experiences.
Is that why Buddhist masters do not discuss enlightenment? They may discuss what it is not, or offer koans to try to provoke an understanding of it, but they cannot define it, and so they cannot offer an easy, reliable, replicable, testable way of showing us what it is.
And that is… uh… all I have for now.
Brenden: I majored in philosophy and therefore have had way too many arguments about chairs. I don’t desire to have another one. So without getting deeply into the discussion, let me just say that I don’t believe there are necessary and sufficient definitions for most words. For the most part, I espouse something like Wittgenstein’s theory of words as picking out a set of “family resemblances” rather than a discrete group all meeting the same criteria.
That’s the thing, I don’t say “Let’s talk about God.” I’ve been on the atheist side; I know how frustrating it is when some overzealous god junkie wants to convince you of the reality of something they’re incapable of describing. Think of God as like the Matrix. “Unfortunately no one can be told what God is. You have to experience it for yourself.” Then take the red pill, if you want to. Or take the blue pill. I don’t care. Eventually, left to their own devices, most people will hammer out their relationship with the absolute, whether they call it “god” or not. But I have never known of any nonbeliever who’s been convinced of the existence of God by an argument–except for Elizabeth Anscombe, a philosopher who converted to Catholicism because of St. Anselm’s ontological argument.
Discursive interaction is limited that way. Poetry and all kinds of art are not, as they evoke something beyond the mere specification of their topic. We must resort to evocative language for some objects of experience. Some of these objects cannot, even in principle, be discussed exactly.
By evocation, I mean not merely the connotations of words, but a “stirring within” that responds to something in the thing that is evoking this stirring in the beholder. This cannot be precisely defined.
Now, what is being evoked, and how is it evoked? This is the topic of esoterism. That is not to say that esoterism is an analytic study of evocation, but the topic of esoterism bears directly on those questions.
The esoteric object of interest is prior to the phenomenon of evocation. Insofar as evocation evokes, it is due to this unutterable thing.
That sounds about right as far as Zen goes, but there are other traditions, even within Buddhism, which employ art and symbol to a much greater degree.
For instance, there are many traditions which have a “Chosen Ideal” who embodies the “enlightened” person. This ideal is a symbol which the aspirant must strive towards continuously, until their personal identity is no longer distinguishable from the ideal (or something along those lines.)
Anselm’s argument is a perfect example of what I was trying to get at. If you just consider the phrase “that which nothing greater can be thought of”, then you can keep it at arm’s length, play with the logical predicates, and handle it like a formal logical statement.
But you can also try and understand the phrase, to allow your mind to move in the direction it indicates, try to directly apprehend its ineffable topic. What the argument evokes is more than what it strictly defines.
“Infinity.” Why can a three-year old immediately grasp the idea? Is there really something in the human that is attuned to the absolute? Everything and nothing. Not easy to represent in a neural net (well, except as predicates!), but so easy to float around in our own minds.
These “absolute ideals” are often referred to as the “divine names of god.” But, of course, a name cannot capture entirely that which it names, and the god (so-called by men, but this is another name) is fundamentally and supertranscendently beyond any name or description.
prunesquallori: Yes, yes, and yes.
Btw, I wasn’t using Anscombe’s conversion to make a point, but to bring up a historical oddity. I just find it amusing that someone could get religion from an argument that strikes so many people (myself included) as cheating.
Joe Chip: I did not major in philosophy, so I could not possibly know if that was the beginning of an argument from authority. (I kid, I kid!)
With regard to Wittgenstein, I think we must still clearly understand what is being said when a word is used. It may well be impossible to completely tack down a word, but it is not impossible to gauge a general meaning from the word when it is used. This suggests that “god” has a meaning when it is used, and that meaning should be able to be gleaned.
If one has no idea what another is talking about, that is a hindrance to understanding. It can only provoke understanding of an idea if both parties share the same basic framework.
If “god” is an intelligent force of creation that is active in the Universe, I am an atheist. That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time (in so many different words, in so many different combinations), and now have repeated again.
All that said, I think that my point of contention is actually focused on what is meant by the word “intelligent,” and if anyone cares to get into that, bamf, I’m there.
As for frustration, I don’t find myself at all frustrated. I actually enjoy it, and this whole talk here, very thoroughly. I am a simple man, who takes simple pleasure from the fine art of talk, even if it’s just me repeating the question “Why?” over, and over, and over.
prunesquallori:
I concede that you are very right on this point, and I believe that you’ve put it very well. Words can prompt a “stirring within” if used in certain ways. My point remains that “god” does not help stir much of anything when I see it used. Is it too often repeated? Too loaded with different meaning?
And now I am totally befuddled, uncertain how to reply to the rest of your reply. I do like what you’ve said about words… Hmm.
Brenden: Thing is, I don’t think I can have a very rewarding conversation about God with an atheist, any more than I can discuss a book or film in depth with someone who hasn’t read or seen it.
But if you really want to understand what I mean by God, I guess a good place to start is by trying to comprehend nothingness, or trying to figure out what the number zero really is. If you think about it long enough, you might find something stirring in the void.
Or we can take this tack: Let’s have a discussion about Brenden. What is Brenden? Can we define the essence of Brenden? Well, here’s what I have to go on: Brenden is the name attacked to posts in the Pop Occulture comments. Presumably there is an author behind these posts, also named Brenden, because the posts make reference to him and certain claims about him.
We quickly run into a problem: my concept of Brenden right now is inconceivably shallow because my interactions with him are so limited as to be nearly negligible–a fleeting, half-formed image of a shadow of the true Brenden. Now, he can tell me a good deal about himself over the Internet, but if I really want to know what Brenden is, I need to meet him face-to-face, spend a lot of time with him, walk around in his house, have long discussions with him, meet his family and friends and hear their perspectives on him. And even then my knowledge of Brenden will be basically perspectival. Even my life-long friends have sides that are inaccessible to me–e.g. their romantic sides. This crash course in Brenden would scarcely give me a fraction of the understanding that I have of my friends, which in turn is a fraction of the understanding of their true being.
God’s the same as Brenden. Only God is much, much, much more difficult to understand than Brenden.
I take that back. It sounds arrogant and it’s probably false, anyway.
Try explaining what the film was about and what happened in it and who acted in it. Then, you could discuss it.
Joe Chip: It is so very disorienting to see my name repeated over, and over, and over again.
Okay, as difficult as the idea of god may be, it is impossible to understand nothing, because understanding is a substantive quality, and nothing is… nothing. The absence of everything, including understanding. The presence of understanding, or anything at all, means that nothing is impossible.
“If god is beyond understanding, does god understand itself?”
Let me try something: Universe. It is Everything; Absolute, Whole, All Encompassing.
If you study the “Big Bang” theory, you do not find that it supposes everything exploded from a single origin. There is no place you can point at to say “That’s where it started” because the Big Bang happened everywhere in the Universe at once. We can point to evidence that confirms that theory. We can make predictions based on that evidence.
Back to me.
If you study “Brenden Simpson,” we can build a theory about him based on observations. We can point to evidence that confirms our model. We can make predictions based on our gathered evidence. If our model is wrong, we can change it - either because it makes faulty predictions, or because new evidence shows it to be wrong (even if it was making good predictions - see also: Newtonian physics still in use).
Gathering evidence about “Brenden Simpson” requires us to break him down to component pieces. We cannot point to a single component, and declare “That is Brenden.” It’s part of him, but not the whole of him.
Back to the Universe.
Gathering evidence about “the Universe” requires us to break it down to component pieces. We cannot point to a single component, and declare “That is the Universe.” It’s part of it, but not the whole… because the Universe is the whole, and you cannot point to the whole without being outside of it, which you cannot be because the Universe is everything, including anything trying to point at it from outside.
Mind-boggling? Yes. Helpful? Probably not. It only gives you a glimmer of a sense of scale.
Is that God?
“No.”
It’s not the Universe either. It’s just part of it.
“God” means the intelligent creator, or, as you said, “the everyday concept of God is a crude anthropomorphism.” When I talk to people in the everyday world, they don’t want me to stand around, waving my arms about, raving on and on. They want a clear concept.
I do not accept that crude anthromorphism to be true. There is no evidence for it. I am an atheist.
My question: Why do you call what you call god using the word god? What makes it a good reference point for you? Emotional resonance? Provocative history?
(Mush, my brain is mush.)