Yesterday Anurag Nathyal left this comment on a recent blog post. I'm pleased to take Nathyal up on his challenge. Replies below in bold. At the end of this post I'll also share an excellent rebuttal to what Nathyal said by Appreciative Reader, a regular commenter on this blog.
I have a challenge for the atheists here. You say that we can't prove god is there. I ask you can you prove anything in this world? This may sound absurd at first but think about it.
It's tough for me to respond about "proof" any better than Appreciative Reader said in a reply to your comment, which I've shared below. He's right. In science and everyday life, we don't go about trying to prove things. Basically, we try to explain things. Often this is called "inference to the best explanation."
As Appreciative Reader noted, mathematics has proofs. Science and everyday life don't, at least not in a formal mathematical sense. So atheists don't ask for proof that God exists. We ask for evidence that God exists that pr0vides a persuasive explanation or reason for why, as you put it, God is there.
Science haven't been able to prove consciousness. The very basis of our existence. I bet can you prove anything. Literally anything? By proving I mean there should be no room for doubt. Can you even prove we are not living in a dream or this world is a computer simulation?
Again, science isn't about proof. It is about explanation. Neuroscience has made a lot of progress is understanding consciousness. How much progress have religions made? Zero, essentially. Also, you're mistaken if you believe that science has no room for doubt in its explanations. Every scientific explanation is open to doubt, to refinement, to being overthrown.
That's how science keeps learning more and more -- by challenging current explanations and looking for better ones. In science and everyday life we aren't after certainty. Instead, we seek the most likely and reasonable explanation. Such as, we aren't living in a dream or a computer simulation, though this is a possibility.
You may think I have gone absurd but still you won't be able to answer my question. Can you prove that this world is real and not a dream. No you can't. All what you can say is that according to my experiences I believe the world is real. But still you can't say that you are certain of it because certain means having no room for doubt and that's not possible.
For some reason you keep asking us atheists to prove things, whereas if you want people to accept that God is real, you should be focused on presenting evidence that supports God's existence. Like I said, nothing is 100% certain. Since you appear to agree with this, I assume you also agree that it isn't certain that God exists. Correct?
All we do is believe. And if this argument isn't enough I have got another. How can you tell a person who doesn't feel pain how pain feels like. It's a real question not a hypothetical one. There are people who don't feel pain. And they just don't know what pain is. You can only try to describe them what pain feels like but you will never be able to know what it actually is.
This is true of everything. You have no idea what my experience feels like, and I have no idea what your experience feels like. No one can know someone else's experience, because all experience is personal.
They might think that you are telling lies. You can't tell a blind person what it feels like to see. You can't tell a mute person what it's like to hear what you can do is try. They may tell to your face that you are telling lies.
Correct. And us atheists can't tell religious believers what it feels like to not see God. So you simply have a belief about atheists, because there is no way that you can tell what we actually experience. Nor can an atheist tell what a religious believer experiences. Again, this is true of every experience.
Same goes with those who have experienced the allmighty. They can just describe to you. But they can't tell you exactly because words can't describe such things just like you can't explain to a blind how it feels like to see , you can't tell a mute person how it feels like to listen.
OK, but here's the thing. We know a lot about sight and hearing. Eyes see. Ears hear. And seeing and hearing are senses that tell us things about the physical world, the reality that we all share. By contrast, those who claim to have experienced God can't tell other people what sense they used to have this experience. Nor can they point to the divinity that the unknown sense produced an awareness of. So your analogy fails.
I'll say this again: if I see a movie, like Summer of Soul (great movie, by the way), I can try to describe why I liked it, but the description doesn't capture my experience of the movie. However, I can tell you how to watch the movie, so we can be sure we're having different experiences of the same reality. Where is this God you speak of? How can we be sure that your God is the same as the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or the thousands of other Gods? Which experience of God should I trust?
You can't describe pain to someone who doesn't feel it , there are some actual people like that. You just can't describe these things through words !!! You just can't !!! I will copy paste this message to every section of this website where there are atheists. Don't think I am a bot. I just need to say the same thing to everyone.
Your argument is weak, if you're trying to defend a belief in God. Psychotic people have experiences of realities that are only in their own minds. So do people who dream, or take psychedelic drugs. Again, this is true of every experience anyone has ever had or will have. No one can fully describe their experiences through words, because experiences aren't made of words.
But you've used a lot of words to argue why words can't capture all of reality. I agree with you, of course. What we do in science and everyday life is use words for various purposes, one of which is to explain the nature of reality. So I invite you to use words to describe how you had an experience of God, and what that experience consisted of.
And I swear if you give answers to my these 2 questions. I will become atheist !!! Try to give a logical explanation , be true to yourselves.
In my opinion, you've just become an atheist. Congratulations! Glad to help.
Here's the excellent comment from Appreciative Reader.
Hello, Anurag Nathyal. It's astonishing, how people are so very ignorant about the basics of the scientific method. And no, it isn't just you, and nor is this a derogatory comment against you: this ignorance is far more widespread, and extends to far more ...stratified realms, than one might imagine.
I don't think you're trolling. I do think you're honestly ignorant about this very basic thing, as so many others are.
The short answer to your question is: "Proof" is what you do in closed systems, essentially tautological systems, like logic and math. When it comes to the real world, and specifically when it comes to the scientific method, the operative word you're looking for is not "proof", but something like "best-fit model", or, more generally, "best and most consistent and most economical explanation", that is based on, another operative word, "evidence".
I'm not looking for a detailed discussion, just thought I'd send out a helping hand to a fellow human being who's seemingly grappling with an honest question. Just think over the short paragraph above, and you'll find your answer. You're welcome.
God as a creature of duality is hard to produce evidence for.
A God such as Allah, Jehovah, Sat Purush is a “duality based God”
That means he has certain characteristics. Example “I am a jealous God” which Jehovah supposedly asserted if the bible is to be believed.
Such a duality based God is easy to deny because there is no evidential proof of such a God. The atheist position of “give me evidence then I can accept your claim” is a strong position. No such evidence can be given.
Now compare this to the Buddha claim of nirvana or emptiness. He is referring to a non-dualistic state.
No evidence can possibly exist in duality. It makes no sense to say “show me your God” or “give me evidence of the existence of your God”
Why? Because Buddha is not claiming objective existence, so to ask for objective evidence is the strawman logical fallacy. It is changing the Buddha’s claim then arguing against the changed position.
Emptiness cannot have any evidence.
A non-duality thing doesn’t have “existence” as one of its attributes.
Posted by: Osho Robbins | July 14, 2021 at 10:15 PM
From AR ( think): >> When it comes to the real world, and specifically when it comes to the scientific method, the operative word you're looking for is not "proof", but something like "best-fit model", or, more generally, "best and most consistent and most economical explanation", that is based on, another operative word, "evidence". <<
The "real world" is actually code for "this is the only acceptable view
of the world. We, the truly sane you understand, look only through
that lens as well." "Real world" is subtle language designed to lump
pejoratively together any outlook that speaks of transcending the
physical whether it's a lunatic's ravings or the mystic talking of inner
regions. The latter speaks of proof and a methodology for realizing
it however. But those claims are quickly dismissed. Consciously or
unconsciously.
The holy grail of "evidence" is then spoken of in hushed, solemn
tones. A compelling word that. Quickly tagged as "best", most
"consistent" and "economical". Science's best fit in lieu of an
elusive, mythical proof. The mystic's "proof" of God (or a more
nuanced "totality of consciousness") may resonate but it's clearly
subjective only. Real "evidence" is garnered only in a scientific
sandbox by pedigreed... real scientists. Where is the predictive
experiment. Double blind test. Journal publication?
But the mystic argues the proof is inside and that's where it must
be found. It will never be found in a book. The real scientist smiles
benignly and changes the subject.
Posted by: Dungeness | July 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM
Humans are born with, what is called their heritage or birth right, free choice and attention.
They can direct that attention to whatever they deem fit and ... They can also direct that attention as function of time and to complete exclusion of something else.
The outcome of that process is all that matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkxnFL5zsCM
Often he would say someting about the price he had to pay, for his capacity to have and bring joy in others life.
It seems that the more abstract the object of focus, the greater the price to be payed.the more rewarding the outcome, not only for the person in question but also for those who happen to come into his sphere.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 03:56 AM
The ability to honor the variety of experience, and to acknowldge the unknown, are two foundational skills required for good believers of faith and good scientists.
When we see Atheists or Believers dismissing the experience and the wisdom each relies upon, we know that each is speaking over the other, not with the other.
A really good scientist regards the believer as an actual part of reality as real and worthy of investigation as any other part.
And a true believer understands that others outside their experience and practice of faith are going to base their beliefs on their own unique experience and personal logic. They can do no other.
Science has yet to duplicate life, or a fully functioning human consciousness, therefore by its own standards science has not yet achieved full scientific control and therefore understanding of all the variables that make up both life and consciousness. Science every day, however, is learning more about these things, and with advances in instrumentation, analysis and discussion, science reachs a very high degree of understanding about the things it does study.
However, science, legitimate science, has never tackled the very subjective topics of God and Soul. This is because the foundational requirements can't be met for scientific investigation.
Science has tried to study supernatural phenomenon, and with mixed results. It is such a political topic that what data does exist, and it is there, is hard to acknowledge.
Therefore, why bring science into it?
Why do we see references to science as leverage by both Believers and Atheists?
Scientists would not permit that abuse of science.
So let me suggest that when either a believer or atheist attempts to bring science into the discussion of God and Soul they discredit the integrity of their remarks, because the hard sciences have long rejected these as subjects of serious investigation.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 04:48 AM
Let me take this one further step.
Presume that the terms God and Soul are efforts to explain the experiences of others.
If that is true then God and Soul do exist as experiences.
Or, more accurately, the are the labels applied to experiences.
And therefore these are concepts formed around existing experience.
Atheists try to dismiss those experiences as something science already understands, often as brain injury.
But when we look at meditation practice, science has proven it to be a means to increase the health of the brain and raise its cognitive functioning level.
Therefore, we can ask the believer to understand their label is simply a label they have applied using their own logic.
We can also ask the atheist to understand that their label is also much the same.
In both cases, without actual investigation, we have not furthered the dialogue.
Until we get beyond labels, we are not advancing understanding.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 05:05 AM
>>So let me suggest that when either a believer or atheist ....<<
But why do people want others to see them as this or that in the first place?
The saying goes that ....... good wine needs no bush.
But what about other wine?
We see that the lower grades of wine needs ever more promotion as "good"
Those who drink, smoke, in early stages tend to influence others around them to do the same. Why? Well because the more people do as they do, the more "normal"it becomes. "Normal" what they know deep down NOT to be normal.
Those that deep in their hearts do not believe they pretend to believe, are also more prone to convince others of what they believe. Irrespective of what they believe. Those who are devoted to something or somebody and/or love to it never go around to convince others of their love and devotion.
Those who need to convince themselves of what they stand for, will also try to convince others around them ... doing so the compensate for the lack of devotion and love.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 05:22 AM
The bliss, peace, inner vision and inner experience of deep prayer and meditation are often referred to as personal evidence of the divine. And when these experiences repeat themselves in the life of the practitioner they become a source of personal reality, regardless of the label. That reality can be labeled anything at all by anyone. The label becomes meaningless.
Whomever can explain that experience with the greatest detail naturally is attributed as having the greatest understanding.
If someone else, or several others, independent of any contact with you, can detail your inner experience exactly, and you discover these written account by them after you have had those experiences repeatedly, there is external verification of that inner experience as a real part of this reality.
The labels given by those who have detailed the experience accurately, as far as what you witnessed, gain scientific integrity.
The labels given by those who have not detailed the experience accurately in any detail, but are simply applying their conjecture to your experience, have no integrity. Their decision to label an event they have neither witnessed nor measured speaks volumes to their lack of scientific integrity.
Simply claiming "no one else has seen that" when others have detailed it independently, also reflects the lack of integrity of such comments.
Labels are separate from realities. But no one's reality should be dismissed or labeled as non - existent by those with no exposure to the experience or scientific understanding of it.
Conjecture without actual investigation is pure speculation, with neither weight nor validity.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 05:26 AM
>>Conjecture without actual investigation is pure speculation, with neither weight nor validity.<<
Well Spence .... As longs as people express their inner experiences without making claims. statements that involve others and their world they live in, it is all as you say.
But if mystics based on their inner experiences make claims and statements that have far reaching consequences for those who lent them their ears, it is an other matter.
As said before. There is no reason to doubt their was an Abraham etc and that they had experiences. Nor is their any need to doubt the content of these experiences as descriped by them and accept that for Abraham it was not possible for him to doubt the source of these experiences. ...
Nor is there a reason to believe them .... otherwise one is forced to label him and others as liars etc.
It is also understandable that his tribe, believed him on his words ... no problem ther either.
The problem arises as his statements had and have still far reaching consequences for others than himself and his tribe. Even today people kill one another over that inner ex[experience in which god made them his promised people and gave them for eternity a piece of this globe.
They, the believers and followers of Abraham wants us, the rest of the world, without giving notice from that same source, to accept these divine verdicts.
There has never been an revelation to the rest of the world to heed the words of Abraham.
That same problem does arrise with all inner experiences. As long as mystics do express it their should be no problem. but that problim arises when these mystics, based upon their experience, start to tell people what to do with their lives beyond ...it can be done.
The Mnt everest is there and it can be climbed and it might give an peak experience for the climber. So far so good. It can inspire others to follow in their footsteps, ... also alright ... but the problem starts that they claim that the everest was created for that reason and climbing is the ultimate goal of life.
That Spence ... is called the "evil of wealth" ... the suggestion that there is something, one has, that others do not have and without which one can hardly be called human or live a live that is worth its name.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 06:45 AM
"The "real world" is actually code for "this is the only acceptable view
of the world. We, the truly sane you understand, look only through
that lens as well." "Real world" is subtle language designed to lump
pejoratively together any outlook that speaks of transcending the
physical whether it's a lunatic's ravings or the mystic talking of inner
regions. The latter speaks of proof and a methodology for realizing
it however. But those claims are quickly dismissed. Consciously or
unconsciously."
-------
Hello, Dungeness.
I'd mentioned "the real world" not to refer to some particular view of the world, but to set it off from, and to contrast it with, closed tautological axiom-bound systems like logic and math. I'd done that specifically to make the point that while proofs apply to the latter, it is wholly fallacious to even look for "proof" (as Anurag Nathyal had done) when it comes to the real world; because the what is relevant in the real world is simply your best-fit model of the world, that is based on the broad principle of the scientific method.
Is a rationalistic view the only acceptable one? That's a separate question; and the answer would depend on the person doing the accepting or not accepting, obviously. But I'd say, yes, that is indeed the only reasonable position. Kind of tautological: It is reasonable to go by a POV that is grounded on reason and rationality.
That does not, IMV, rule out either the mystic's experiences or the mystic's broader worldview, should they be rooted in actual reality.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 15, 2021 at 07:41 AM
@ AR
Those who live in "the amazon" the "outskirts of "civilization""... hahaha ... have to live also and they do.... they have also to deal with the facts of life.
They too, have their world views, their mystics and have to deal with what they say
They too are human.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 07:51 AM
"(...)However, science, legitimate science, has never tackled the very subjective topics of God and Soul. This is because the foundational requirements can't be met for scientific investigation.(...)
(...)Therefore, why bring science into it?(...)
(...)So let me suggest that when either a believer or atheist attempts to bring science into the discussion of God and Soul they discredit the integrity of their remarks, "
-------
Spence, I am surprised to find you of all people taking up such an anti-rational and anti-scientific stance. I had to read your comments twice to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you, but your comments, as quoted above, can admit of no other interpretation. You seem to advocating the separate-magesteria argument here, in order to suggest that things mystical are not the province of science.
Rationality is meaningless if it is does not encompass each and every thing in the world and beyond the world. Selective rationality is no more than an entirely fallacious special pleading.
I don't see any reason why rationality in general, or the scientific method in particular, should not, in principle, admit of the "researches" of the mystic.
-------
Further, I question the distinction you make between athesim and faith. (You do that elsewhere in your other comments in this thread, that I've not quoted from in the interests of brevity.) Not that such a distinction does not exist, obviously that distinction is fact. But I think a more reasonable distinction, a more methodologically defensible distinction, and a more fundamental distinction, would be between rationality and (blind, that is to say, irrational) faith.
Mystical experiences, or indeed a worldview based on mystical experiences, aren't necessarily irrational. Rationality will take you to reality (that is to say, to a rationally defensible model / explanation / understanding) of reality. Whether that model, that explanation, that understanding, is atheistic or theistic is a function of the nature of reality itself.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 15, 2021 at 08:04 AM
Hello, um. You've said some things here that I find myself agreeing with fully.
-------
"Those that deep in their hearts do not believe they pretend to believe, are also more prone to convince others of what they believe. Irrespective of what they believe. Those who are devoted to something or somebody and/or love to it never go around to convince others of their love and devotion.
Those who need to convince themselves of what they stand for, will also try to convince others around them ... doing so the compensate for the lack of devotion and love."
.......How true! And how very insightful!
Not, of course, that that is (or can be) the only reason to speak out. But it so very often is, in practice.
-------
" As longs as people express their inner experiences without making claims. statements that involve others and their world they live in, it is all as you say.
But if mystics based on their inner experiences make claims and statements that have far reaching consequences for those who lent them their ears, it is an other matter."
,......Bingo!
An experience is what it is. Mystical or mundane, it is simply what it is. But to attach a broader worldview around it is, as you say, a whole different thing.
-------
"@ AR
Those who live in "the amazon" the "outskirts of "civilization""... hahaha ... have to live also and they do.... they have also to deal with the facts of life.
They too, have their world views, their mystics and have to deal with what they say
They too are human."
.......This last, I'm afraid I see in this a nuance that may be different from the point you're trying to make.
I agree, there are people who may not have access to everything (or for that matter, in some extreme case, much of anything) that science has to offer, and that we take for granted.
And I agree, that they do need to make the best of the situation they're in.
Here's where I might offer a different nuance: While one wouldn't fault them for dealing with the world as they can, but, as you say, they too are human. They are no less than you are, or I am, or Brian is, or Spence is, or for that matter Stephen Hawkins or Albert Einstein are.
I think it is condescending to think that they are somehow incapable of rationality, and therefore that a rational understanding of the world is wholly beyond them. That is, there is no reason, in principle, why that should be so.
Should they also have access to the things, and specifically the rational framework and the basic scientific understanding, that most of us take for granted, then they too are equally as capable of a rational worldview as is anyone else.
(But sure, in practice, and to the extent that a rational framework is something some people might not be exposed to or aware of, to that extent it makes no sense to expect them to apply reason and rationality to their worldview. That much I agree with, sure.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 15, 2021 at 08:25 AM
@ AR
>> Rationality is meaningless if it is does not encompass each and every thing in the world and beyond the world<<
THAT ... AR ... will be the end of the path you have chosen.
You will be the one to discover that and nobody else can help you.
Do not give up, no matter what.
Do not ask others to do the work for you.
That would be a wast of their time and yours aswell.
You have to encompass all those things others claim that are beyond rationalism.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 08:33 AM
@ AR
Some times, maybe all times ... what I write is to be labeled as an .... "generalisation" ... or "exageration".
Bright colors in paintings bring the softer tones to the surface ... seems strange, but that is how it works.
Those who love others, can as a token of love, present flowers.
But those who do do present flowers do not always have good intentions.
That said ... of course all who give flowers deserve the respect they are due to
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 08:50 AM
Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"Rationality is meaningless if it is does not encompass each and every thing in the world and beyond the world."
Rationality? That's quite a loose term.
A rational discussion requires an agreement upon the definition of principles in discussion. God and Soul require an agreed upon definition that is testable for scientific investigation.
But no such agreement has been obtained among scientists. It is not that God is beyond investigation. It is that Atheists cannot agree with Theists on the definition and hypothesis to be tested.
Testing requires the ability to manipulate the variables under controlled conditions. Which definition of God do you accept for testing that allows for such experimental control?
In time science will help uncover the unknown as it is doing now.
But there is no integrity in presuming that what science hasn't yet investigated doesn't exist, and therefore wrapping one's view in the labels of science without the actual substance or adherence to its principles.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 08:53 AM
@ AR
An other thing ....
In a swift tempo, Europe is becoming atheist and religion has become meaningless.
Playing a ball derives its meaning from the rules of game that is played, rugby, football etc. Take the game and its rules away, still one can kick a ball.
Religion etc was a game people played, and it had to be played by guven rules.
Watch the coming time and see what it means for society to kick the ball around without the rules of a game.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 09:01 AM
Hi Um
You wrote
"But if mystics based on their inner experiences make claims and statements that have far reaching consequences for those who lent them their ears, it is an other matter."
Any perspective on reality different from our own has far reaching consequences for each of us. In fact such a different version of reality can be quite threatening to the status quo each of us builds for ourselves....
If, as you wrote
" for those who lent them their ears."
Who would they be?
Unlikely anyone satisfied with their current life and world view. Maybe people looking for something better.
Who are these great unwashed you refer to?
Do they actually exist?
Or do they only exist as the platform for our own position?
If they do exist, they have serious creds for looking outside their cocoon
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 09:43 AM
@ Spence
I do not follow what you wrote.
Although my english is not my mother tongues and I am not an developed linguistic scientist or mystic, I thought what I wrote was very clear.
Do I have to name all the groups and all the levels of [self] interest that motivates people all over the world to do what they do in general and nocking at the doors of mystics in particular? You are and intelligent, and schooled enough to answer these questions yourself.
Who lent their ears to what Abraham had to say?
First of all his tribesmen for very mundane reasons.
Next the religious people of the 3 mono theistic religions for their own reasons.
But that is not the point .... the point is that Abraham, as example of all mystics and mystical claims, was ALONE in his claims and declaration of the source thereof.
There has never been a god that told the priests and kings of other tribes, peoples, nations, that they had to heed the words told to Abraham.
And again ... praised are those who have inner experiences.
If there is a lord that want to be worshiped he should have told all of his subjects that that is his will.
The tale about the universe, its plan etc as told by Kabir and those who followed him later, however beautifull, was only revealed to him.
Or if the Lord wants me to worship him, he should come to me and speak up ... i am not interested in fellow human beings that claim that they have come to speak in his name. ...., and .... THAT is the real problem .... those who speak to their fellow human beings in his name..... mind you ... without his consent and knwoledge
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 10:05 AM
"Rationality? That's quite a loose term."
.......Agreed, Spence. That was loosely put, and to that extent imprecisely put, and therefore, I suppose, incorrectly put.
I should have said "rationality, and the scientific method", rather than simply "rationality". (Except that "the scientific method" conjures up a grand image of formal scientific investigation, and I wanted to include, and in fact emphasize, our everyday understanding, that is based on an essentially scientific worldview.)
-------
"But no such agreement has been obtained among scientists."
.......First, that's not an fundamental, in-principle disagreement. That there is no agreement at this time does not mean there never will. And second, there need be no universal agreement between individual scientists about the details, as long as one adheres to the broad principles of rationality and the scientific method. And thirdly --- although it is possible, and in fact probable, that this is exactly what you did mean, but still, in case not, I'll point it out --- the term "scientists" can very well include mystics as well; and nor would they have take along white lab coats to cover their otherwise au naturel mystical "researches". ("Ha ha ha", as um would add!)
-------
"Atheists cannot agree with Theists on the definition and hypothesis to be tested"
.......I'll repeat what I'd said in my earlier comment, Spence, that you're fixatinf on a distinction that, while obviously real, is not fundamental to this discussion. The fundamental distinction is not so much between atheism and theism, as between rationality (and specifically a scientific outlook) and irrational blind faith. Whether rationality (and a scientific outlook) lead one to theism or to atheism, is a function of the nature of reality itself. A true scientist should unflinchingly be prepared to embrace either conclusion.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 15, 2021 at 10:06 AM
"THAT ... AR ... will be the end of the path you have chosen.
You will be the one to discover that and nobody else can help you.
Do not give up, no matter what.
Do not ask others to do the work for you.
That would be a wast of their time and yours aswell.
You have to encompass all those things others claim that are beyond rationalism."
-------
God willing, um. Amen.
And thank you for both your words, and the sentiment that clearly underlies you your words.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 15, 2021 at 10:11 AM
Hi Um
You wrote
"But that is not the point .... the point is that Abraham, as example of all mystics and mystical claims, was ALONE in his claims and declaration of the source thereof."
Was he?
Was he or is he an example of all mystics?
Did no one else share his view?
I suggest they followed him for some reason. But what that is would be conjecture today.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 10:14 AM
Hi AR
You wrote
"The fundamental distinction is not so much between atheism and theism, as between rationality (and specifically a scientific outlook) and irrational blind faith"
Every scientist must have enough faith to vigorously conduct the experiment under highly controlled conditions. Often for decades.
I wonder if the Faithful have that much faith.
But if they put their faith into practice, maybe so.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 10:18 AM
@ Spence
>>>
Was he?
Was he or is he an example of all mystics?
Did no one else share his view?
<<<<
Although all people dream, no people have the same dream.
Although certain features appear in many dreams, every dream is still personal, individual.
To which other tribe all over the world and in all ages, their priests, holy men, magicians, medicine man, sjamans, mystic or their worldly rules, was told that the god of abraham gave a piece of earth to him and his tribe.??
Why would anybody honor that claim?
Now it is FORCED upon the world at the cost of lots of misery and much, much more to come.
And ... That is what happened with many claims prophets and mystics made.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 10:40 AM
Hi Um
You wrote
"Now it is FORCED upon the world at the cost of lots of misery and much, much more to come."
By whom? Who is doing the forcing?
Is it unique to one small part of the world or the entire globe?
Isn't this story reinvented for every place on earth, each culture its own story for every square inch of land and water covering the globe?
And was this done by any mystic or by those who were interested more in land?
I think these stories have had many unknown authors and would be highly suspect attributing the stories to any historical figure of the past.
Facts are lost in moments but prejudices and biases seem to live forever, and in each age, clothed in the popular bad guys of the times.
Now, spirituality is a different matter. Non - corporeal, with no association with this physical place. Even connecting the two is suspect.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 11:48 AM
@ Spence
The point is that claims that are attributed to mystics, can always traced to one source, an individual human being having an inner experience and that these claims are never supported by revelations to others.
>> Now, spirituality is a different matter. Non - corporeal, with no association with this physical place. Even connecting the two is suspect.<<
Did not all the prophets, speak to the world, in the name of god, based upon their personal inner experience? Those who are called "man of god or god man".
Is that not what you do too?
If something happens to me that makes me smile, it also affects those that come in contact with me. So if that is true for a cup of coffee, how much more with other more elevated or abstract matters ... but I do not go around telling people to drink coffee and what role coffee has in the overall management of their lives.
Spence I have read what you wrote about your inner experiences and the effect they have on your day to day life. They are impressive and you are blessed having them but that is it. They can not and should not be used to tell others what the meaning of life is in general.
That inner wealth, like any other form of wealth, can be used in many ways. If it cannot be used to elevated the condition of the poor, it better not to be mentioned at all.
If you are an millionaire and have found no ways to have others profit from that wealth, those who lack that wealth are better not informed.
To tell them that they can be wealthy like you ... is not of great help to say the least.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 12:20 PM
Hi Um
You wrote
"The point is that claims that are attributed to mystics, can always traced to one source, an individual human being having an inner experience and that these claims are never supported by revelations to others."
They are most certainly supported by their avid followers. The disciples of Jesus saw their Teacher in a form of light, along with, btw, Abraham. They saw him raised from the dead and were able to do miracles in his name, according to several reports.
The revelations of the mystics have striking familiarity. Mystics from different geographies and times have recorded very similar mystic experiences. Probably because the human brain is very similar and contains the same routes of conscious internal experience.
As for the meaning of life, that is a personal adventure, a personal discovery, even a personal act of creation.
And that journey should be celebrated. It is beautifully unpredictable.
That is a wealth within everyone, and anyone can and should mine that wealth, in whatever form they find it.
These experiences of spirituality often have a foundation of love, a source of love within ourselves. The followers of a teacher loved their teacher, plain and simple. And their teacher helped awaken love within their disciples.
I tell you, there are followers today whose most ecstatic experience is sitting at the feet of their Master. There is no other place they wish to be. They are there only for one reason. They are happiest in that place.
So, if you are happiest spending time with your family, or hiking in the peaks, or reading a great book, or surfing, or going to spin class, or even debating philosophy, there is more wisdom celebrating that for each who has realised it for themselves, then trying to weigh these things on a scale.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 01:12 PM
Hi AR
We were discussing faith vs science, and I'd indicated that science requires significant faith.
But this faith is of different things.
There can be faith in the methods of science to uncover the truth.
There can be faith in the Truth itself to be revealed as we work with the variables, the controlled environment, the feedback, results and our own ability to digest these
There can be faith in our love for the unknown and the drama of that flash of reality as our experiments begin to show results.
And there can be faith born of our love for Science. Science is the purest wealth on earth. It is knowledge stripped of bias, pared down to its most essential existence.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 01:27 PM
@ Spence
There is the Mount Everest.
There are people that climb that mountain.
Those who did spoke of an "peak" experience.
Many of them spoke to the world, using the media.
Many were an source of inspiration.
Many followed them in their foodsteps.
And what more can be said to it.
That all being said, it is an step to far to state that the Mount Everest was created to be climbed and the purpose of life is to climb that mountain.
What i stressed and will stress is that last sentence.
That is to tell others what to do with their lives.
When I asked my father, whether I should take on a study, He answered son, I never studied, why should you? He was a man of honor.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 01:34 PM
@Spence
What kind of faith is that
being a good scientist absolutely knowing that you will end with 9 to the power of a xillion
of not at all knowing
But if there is a compassionated factor in science, you are right
same with this "atheistic" blog ; if empathy is UP, it's OK
777
Posted by: 777 | July 15, 2021 at 01:38 PM
@ Spence
All forms of Guru Mat, Sant Mat and the mystics behind the major relgions come with and tale; an tale about the creation and the role humanity has in it.
The founders are seen or have made themselves seen as the saviors of humanity, best expressed in that simple, yet beautiful story of the shepherd that is ordered by the owner, to collect an flock of sheep and bring it into the stable.
That is the promotional story.
The problem with that story is the same as the story of abraham and my reaction .... that divine messenger forgot to inform the rest of us about his plans for us.
If he can create this world and speak to a selected few he can also speak to the rest and if he doesn't do that what remains is HEARSAY ... however beautiful the tale might be.
Posted by: um | July 15, 2021 at 02:05 PM
"Hi AR
We were discussing faith vs science ..."
-------
No, Spence, what we were discussing is blind faith vs science, or irrational faith vs science.
You'd used what was effectively the separate magesteria argument, as well as posited some fundamental distinction between theism and atheism ; whereupon I suggested that the scientific method is not antithetical to studying mysticism, and that a more fundamental and meaningful distinction would be between rationality and scientific method on one hand, and blind irrational faith on the other. And you'd finally ended up agreeing with that.
In order to properly do science, one does, as you suggest in this comment, need faith in science, sure. But that observation is entirely trivial, and to state that is to use the word "faith" is an entirely different (and more trivial) sense. To conflate the two senses of the word "faith" like this is to simply play with words, and use those words to deflect rather than to illuminate. Not something I'm a fan of.
We'd discussed two things here, in this thread, and although you started out saying something very different, I think we ended up agreeing on both points. Those two points were: first, that the separate-magesteria argument does not hold, and that, in fact, like I'd said (or at least, implied) to Anurag Nathyal, the scientific method does apply to things mystical. And second: that whether rationality, and specifically the scientific method, lead one to theism or to atheism is a function of the nature of reality itself, and that the true sincere scientist should be prepared to embrace either conclusion.
If I'm mistaken in thinking we're agreed on both those issues, then perhaps you could make that clear, and discuss the nature of such disagreement. And if over and above that you wish to discuss something else, that's fine too, of course, happy to.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | July 15, 2021 at 02:28 PM
I agree that feelings aren't proof of God's existence or lack of existence. But books like The Goldilocks Enigma and The Return of the God Hypothesis explain in detail the many ways that this universe was constructed by a Designer. This universe was fine-tuned for life to exist. These are books that atheists should read if they want to truly explore the question of the possibility of God's existence.
Sir Fred Hoyle was a renowned scientist and atheist (he called religion a desperate attempt to flee from the obvious conclusion that God didn't exist) until his atheism was shaken by what science showed him about the universe's fine-tuning.
Posted by: Tendzin | July 15, 2021 at 04:40 PM
@ AR : [start] I'd mentioned "the real world" not to refer to some particular view of the world, but to set it off from, and to contrast it with, closed tautological axiom-bound systems like logic and math. I'd done that specifically to make the point that while proofs apply to the latter, it is wholly fallacious to even look for "proof" (as Anurag Nathyal had done) when it comes to the real world; because the what is relevant in the real world is simply your best-fit model of the world, that is based on the broad principle of the scientific method. [end]
Ah, the "real world" was the ephemeral one of sense perception and "best fit"
describes it well. A false whiff of snobbish exclusivity triggered my Pavlovian
bark. I beg your pardon.
@ AR : [start] Is a rationalistic view the only acceptable one? That's a separate question; and the answer would depend on the person doing the accepting or not accepting, obviously. But I'd say, yes, that is indeed the only reasonable position. Kind of tautological: It is reasonable to go by a POV that is grounded on reason and rationality. [end]
Quite. There's a fluidity in that reasonable approach for a mystic though. He
claims that by discarding blind belief and looking within deeply enough, the
doors of perception open enabling him to realize a transcendent realm of
super-rationality and incontrovertible proof.
@ AR : [start] "That does not, IMV, rule out either the mystic's experiences or the mystic's broader worldview, should they be rooted in actual reality. [end]
Amen!
Posted by: Dungeness | July 15, 2021 at 04:56 PM
@all above
The only proof is to BE HIM !
777
See that you allways were HIM
until you wish, sign in for another amnesia
That way eternity is do-able
Posted by: 777 | July 15, 2021 at 05:46 PM
Hi AR
You wrote
"that the separate-magesteria argument does not hold, and that, in fact, like I'd said (or at least, implied) to Anurag Nathyal, the scientific method does apply to things mystical."
Whatever spiritualily exists will at some point be subject to hard scientific investigation. I had not claimed otherwise. That is a misunderstanding.
My point was using the packaging of science to make derogatory remarks about spirituality in the absence of actual scientific testing or experimentation. To apply science you must operationalize a theory with a testable hypothesis. That operational definition needs to be agreed upon by the scientific community in order for the results to mean anything.
Both theists and Atheists, as I've written before, attempt to claim their position is supported by science. That is false. The definition of God must be operationalized by agreed definition in order for it to be tested. That hasn't happened yet. Therefore to apply the scientific method you must first establish agreed definitions of spirituality. So long as that hasn't happened, the scientific method cannot be applied to God or Spirituality.
You claimed that rationality should apply to everything and then mentioned scientific investigation as if the two are the same. They are related but not the same. Science can only test what can be operationalized under controlled conditions.
But conjecture has no limits. Rationality also depends upon agreed premeses. Those may only be agreed by one group of people. Those who agree. As for the legitimate scientific community, they aren't conducting research into the existence of God or soul. Those terms have too many different definitions to have any kind of testable agreement.
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 06:46 PM
Hi Um
You write
"The problem with that story is the same as the story of abraham and my reaction .... that divine messenger forgot to inform the rest of us about his plans for us."
The discovery of our own purpose in life is a beautiful adventure, and in part an act of creation. And that is available and in fact a responsibility of everyone.
You may refer to these ancient stories as metaphors for our personal journey of discovery and understanding. But in all cases it is an individual decision what we choose to believe. And everyone carries the responsibility of making that decision for themselves.
In Judaism, the Torah, or commentaries consist of various opinions by ancient Judaic scholars. Even Atheism is included in their arguments. And no conclusions are drawn. Why? Because a fundamental principle of Judaism is that God cannot be known by human beings directly. Therefore there is commentary conjecture and debate through all the ages. It's built into that religious philosophy.
No practicing Jew expects God to speak directly to anyone. Jews have the commandants, which tell us what we can't do. Beyond those ten, we may live as we choose to the best of our ability.
Your presumption about Abraham doesn't reflect the actual purpose of his story or the covenant with the chosen people. If you read Leviticus you will find that anyone, Jew or foreigner, can find favor with God. This is echoed in Jesus' story about the Good Samaritan who was Jesus ' definition of a good neighbor, better than the unhelpful priets and Rabbis, even though Samaritans were not Jews and did not worship the God of Abraham.
So if Judaism doesn't expect God to tell people the purpose of life, and that religion expects each person to make that decision for themselves, I don't think your scenario, that what Abraham or Moses saw should be believed, is correct. Their work was to refer people back to their own personal responsibility to work that relationship out within and for themselves.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 15, 2021 at 07:06 PM
food for thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkY2xxPWpYM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggTJCCxFss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI95hFZMe_I
Posted by: Osho Robbins | July 15, 2021 at 09:57 PM
@ Spence
The point I wanted to make has nothing to do with the content of religious books but how humans deal with so called inner experiences and the meaning attributed to them by those who have these experiences and those who hear about them.
Posted by: um | July 16, 2021 at 01:27 AM
Hi Um
You write
"The point I wanted to make has nothing to do with the content of religious books but how humans deal with so called inner experiences and the meaning attributed to them by those who have these experiences and those who hear about them."
I'm not sure I understand your point.
People respond to different people in different ways. They are conditioned by different experiences to respond that way. By their genetics, upbringing, education and the rules of society. At some point they may become self - aware and realize they can choose what to believe. Or they are raised to take that responsibility from the start.
To me it is all spectacle, a passing show.
How do you deal with it?
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2021 at 04:13 AM
@ Spence
>>To me it is all spectacle, a passing show. How do you deal with it?<<
What to say?!
If I would look you in the eyes, while drinking a cup of coffee, I would answer that question in detail.
From what I have written before you might have come to understand, that what appears before me, is seen and appreciated for what it is. These things have lost their attraction or otherwise I gave up to push or pull the ropes binding myself to them.
That process started many decades ago. In the beginning it was scary to lose interest and meaning but it was bearable as it started out at the outskirts of my sphere of interests. By the time it reached those spheres of life I though that was impossible, I was all ready used to the process.
In the end did happen what I thought would never happen, that what i have mentioned as "waking up in the movie". All things religious and spiritual, and philosophies of life, lost their meaning and attraction and became just things other people do as going out for a walk, or buying a loaf of bread. It does not impress me, in any way any longer.
What remains are vage waves of "?????" that pass by now and then, that make me aware of something ominous of life. Especially when I see on TV youngster making a drama about the lack of possibility to go to a festival due to corona ... I would like to call them out and say to them "wake up"... wake up from your day dream.... your cultural house, where you consider yourselves safe, is on the brink of collapsing, as the mortar has turned into sand and only lose bricks stand upon each other.
I hope this will do .... :-))
Posted by: um | July 17, 2021 at 04:59 AM
@ Spence
AND .... the awareness that people and the institutions they run, are selling each other their way of life
Posted by: um | July 17, 2021 at 05:01 AM
Hi Um
Your comments remind me of the poetry of Ecclesiastes. "All is vanity."
I understand your world view, though I don't share it.
I have a different experience.
But it is no more wrong or right than yours, and of no less import to share it, just as you have shared yours. I think it is important for people to share their views with the understanding that they emerge from our different experiences. Therefore they will always be different. That is a source of beauty, not conflict.
The new buding rose is lovely, face brilliant, flawless, smiling at the sun, strong and brave. And the aging rose, shedding it's petals one by one, bowing in wise resignation and gratitude, is also lovely, bending to the same time that once brought it into power and strength. This brings the story that only time and that full cycle of life creates.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2021 at 08:36 AM
@ Spence
We all have to face and deal with what we are "given" .. not to say there is a giver.
At the end if, there is some sort of questioning, the question will be:
"We gave you XXXX what have you done with it."
"XXXX" can be anything ... also inner experiences :-)) .... or the absence of the same.
And ... I would never say "all is vanity" that would be a shameful expression. Who am I to make judgements on reality as it appears before me based upon my feelings and thoughts?!
I am born in bewilderment, have lived that way and if "nothing happens" I will die that way.; in bewilderment about everything. Nothing I have done to bring that to an end has worked so far.
And I am grateful for the moments I have been able to spent in the company of, what I call great human beings, the humans that have the outlook of the Mnt Fuji, silent, unmovable and impressive.
Posted by: um | July 17, 2021 at 08:59 AM
Even if god exists, why would he care about us?
The mind is the strongest force according to rssb, can you prove to me that sachkand isnt a creation of the mind?
Posted by: Neon | July 17, 2021 at 11:03 AM
@ Neon
It depends who you ask.
Some will answer .. "what is sach Khand"
Others will answer ... yes it exists ... or ... no it doesn't exist at all
Some will say it is beyond the mind and others as you suggest it is a creation of the mind.
You can ask a Buddhist, a Hindu, and god knows how many religions there are and not to forget the atheist .... or just anybody in the street.
What ever answer you get and from whom it just doesn't matter .... as you are the one that wants to hear and accept an answer and THAT choice of yours doesn't make the answer true.
It is up to you what you want to believe and why ... nobody can help you ... nobody.
And ..,i suppose if there is a god he will be the last to care what you want to do with your life, your free choice ....but Neon ... you are the one that has to suffer the consequences of your choices.
If religion is not your cup of tea, do not drink it
Posted by: um | July 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM
Hi Um
You wrote
"At the end if, there is some sort of questioning, the question will be:
"We gave you XXXX what have you done with it."
Whomever asks that question already knows the answer. If it will be asked, it is already being asked. And we answer with how we lead our lives.
You wrote
"And ... I would never say "all is vanity" that would be a shameful expression. Who am I to make judgements on reality as it appears before me based upon my feelings and thoughts?!"
Everyone can judge their own actions. If it is in the positive context of progress its a very good thing.
You wrote
" I am born in bewilderment, have lived that way and if "nothing happens" I will die that way.; in bewilderment about everything. Nothing I have done to bring that to an end has worked so far.
"And I am grateful for the moments I have been able to spent in the company of, what I call great human beings, the humans that have the outlook of the Mnt Fuji, silent, unmovable and impressive."
If in your judgment you value their company perhaps they can help you out an end to your bewilderment...
" Nothing I have done to bring that to an end has worked so far."
If you have made effort, at least your good friend has something to help you with. Perhaps they have helped you get this far. It's always a team thing with progress. We all need teachers, though human beings have a hard time accepting instruction.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | July 17, 2021 at 03:22 PM
What the hell is this bat shit crazy, delusional and dogmatic conversation trying to convince people of?
Atheist: Haha, there's no scientific proof of God (and I personally have never experienced anything which suggests there is a reality to this beyond language & science), you are insane and exceptionally stupid to even consider such an idea if science is unable to prove it to me right now.
Person able to think for themself: Yeah, but likewise there's no scientific proof the most fundamental part of our existence even exists, consciousness. If we are unable to prove the reality of consciousness scientifically, how can we even begin to prove the reality of our highest subjectivity or consciousness, that which our ineffective words label "God"?
Atheist: Oh you're so silly, you don't expect science to actually prove things do you? So naïve. I'm going to make up scientific sounding terms like "functional evidence" & "explanation" to avoid & deflect the exceptionally obvious double standards I employ when demanding "scientific evidence" for God whilst ignoring there is no "scientific evidence" for consciousness.
In this way, maybe I'll carry on believing I understand what reality is, and how intellectually superior I am to those who believe otherwise......
Oh, and btw, you're welcome my dear simple and gullible fellow.
Person able to think for themself: Good luck, I think you'll need it.
Posted by: manjit | July 28, 2021 at 07:54 AM