There is evidence for the experiences, but not that they are actually cases of divine revelation. It could never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not such experiences are caused by divine revelation or brain chemistry. If you disagtee then explain how either could be shown to be the case either logically or empirically.

I’ve stated the purpose of my participation in this thread. It isn’t to provide religious instruction or explanation to you. ….or to propose or advocate a Theism. Neither is it to argue the “issue” of Theism vs Atheism. …about which, at these forums, only aggressive Atheists are making an issue. I have no idea what motivates you to pursue that “issue” of yours.

I’ve merely been letting you know that you aren’t being at all clear about what it is that you’re talking about. — Michael Ossipoff

Oh the irony. In fact, right here in this discussion, you've said quite a bit on atheism vs. theism, yet, bizarrely, you deny to be engaging in that very discussion. Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

The rest of your post is filled with deflection and misunderstanding, and I refuse to be sucked into that. That's your problem.

If you disagree then explain how either could be shown to be the case either logically or empirically. — Janus

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. — David Hume

David Stove, under whom I studied Hume, observed that all of these questions could also be asked of Hume’s book, and that the answer would be negative. It’s like the uroboros, the mythical snake that eats itself. ‘The hardest part’, he would always say, ‘is the last bite’.

I know what you mean. I tend to think of the term as an established structure, whereby if significantly disturbed will throw the surrounding order out of balance. For instance, we have a natural craving for fat and sweetness. This craving is out of balance with the current availability of fat and sugar today, and our health suffers for it. If this continues we would eventually adapt to it, but for now things are out of balance and we might say the current availability of fat and sugar is unnatural. — praxis

Environments change. There is no established structure except that things change. Therfore it is natural for environments to change and species to adapt. That whole process is called NATURAL selection. So it would be inaccurate to call some part if that process, "unnatural".

I asked a simple question. You've made it clear that you'd rather dictate my motives than answer it - a reoccurring problem with you. — S

The thread isn't about theism or even atheism. It's a broad question, in which the only demonstrable interest you have is baiting 'theists'.

You appear to be unwilling to clarify what you mean by 'thought'. Most neural activity is subconscious.

Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory?? — praxis

Until you're willing to address the universal nature of human psychological suffering I don't see the point of further exchanges on this particular topic. Happy to engage with you on other topics where the opportunity arises.

Sorry, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t addressing it.

We apparently have somewhat differing views about the nature of this suffering.

Sorry, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t addressing it. — praxis

No problem, you're under no obligation to do so. I'm just suggesting that the universal nature of psychological suffering seems an important clue which merits our attention. If others don't find this interesting, ok, that's their call.

Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory?? — praxis

This seems a quite useful and relevant question to the subject of religion, so thanks. I agree, thought has been evolving in the animal world for a long time.

As I see it, religion emerged in response to thought evolving to such a degree in humans that our experience became dominated by abstraction. That is, our focus became increasingly dominated by the symbols in our mind. This took much of our focus off of the real world, thus seriously diluting a deep psychic connection with reality that animals and previous humans enjoyed.

Religion is an attempt to restore that psychic bond. But as we've discussed above, it typically uses thought as it's methodology, the very thing which has broken the bond. And so it's often the case in religion that the harder we try, the behinder we get.

As example, Christianity was intended to unite humans in peace, but before long we're burning each other at the stake for being a different flavor of Christian than we are. We can observe that it's the people most wound up in the thought content, ie. ideology, that do most of the burning.

Thought operates by a process of division. Understand that, and many other pieces of the human story fall in to place.

Hope this response is at least somewhat helpful.

At times religion has seemed a lot like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and other times it has felt better than that.

I haven't read the thread, but complex human organizations need glue to hold them together. I think @praxis talked about glue.

We need various things to establish controls, order, hierarchies, meaning, and so on. Religion is one piece among several systems for holding societies together. Just because we are alive in the 21st century doesn't mean that we are different than we were 15 centuries or 150 centuries ago. We still need institutions like religion, law, courts, schools, etc. We still need to make many things, grow food, trade, and what not -- and manage all of that economic activity. And more besides.

The trick with religion is to prevent them from becoming static and irrelevant on the one hand and tyrannous on the other hand. Something in between. Reformations have to happen periodically.

As amusing as that anecdote might be, I'm afraid I can't see the relevance; could you explain?

Elsewhere, @Marcus de Brun asked: Should Religious Posts be banned from the forum?

There are way too many full-time professional religious apologists making lots of $s trying to talk their respective deities into existence, catering to adherents' confirmation biases.
Heck, they've been at it for centuries on end.
What better place to show them the door than the Philosophy of Religion sub-forum? ;)

It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. — Thomas Nagel

Who in their right mind would want the universe to be like that? The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings. I wouldn’t want a God designed by human beings!

This is a disappointing notion by Nagel, I must say, that within atheists lies a deep-seated fear that there may actually be a sky father. Children may fear the monster under the bed but in maturity they usually come to understand the nature of such fears and outgrow them. There may be a God or designer, but I seriously doubt it could be anything even remotely like a human could even begin to conceive.

Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.

Is that what Darwin did? How does one accomplish anything without purpose?

... our focus became increasingly dominated by the symbols in our mind. This took much of our focus off of the real world, thus seriously diluting a deep psychic connection with reality that animals and previous humans enjoyed. — Jake

Thought operates by a process of division. Understand that, and many other pieces of the human story fall into place. — Jake

The problem here appears to be that you're pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the cause of human psychological suffering (or a diluted deep psychic connection with reality) and fail to acknowledge that mammals use the same process of conceptual division but don't share the same affliction. All mammals distinguish things in the same basic manner that we do. The issue must be something unique to humans besides simple conceptual division, right?

The problem here appears to be that you're pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the cause of human psychological suffering (or a diluted deep psychic connection with reality) and fail to acknowledge that mammals use the same process of conceptual division but don't share the same affliction. — praxis

I don't fail to acknowledge this, and already have done so above. Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough.

My theory is that thought has been evolving in animals and primitive humans for a long time, and continues to do so today. This evolution involves a long slow gradual shift of focus from the real world beyond our minds, towards the symbolic realm within our minds. As example...

I've gone to a lot of trouble to travel to the beach for a vacation, and now I'm walking down an empty gloriously beautiful north Florida beach. My body is there, but my mind is still here on the forum going blah, blah, blah. I'm lost in thought. And so while I'm on the beach, I don't really see it, don't really experience it. And so my psychic connection with reality is diluted, broken.

My theory is that at some point in human history this "lost in thought" experience became dominant enough that the loss of psychic connection with reality became problematic and we began looking for solutions, and religion was invented. Religion personalized reality in the form of a God to make it more relatable, and the focus became "getting back to God", or re-establishing the connection with reality.

As example of the connection with reality, consider your dog with his head out the window as you drive down the road. You're lost in thought to a significant degree as you drive, but your dog is totally in the moment, his focus is right here right now, in the real world.

The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings. — praxis

Actually, the Jehovah character seems remarkably similar to nature. He's both a gloriously beautiful giver of life, and an utterly ruthless killer of the innocent, just like the real world is.

And what is the rational relationship to have with such a character (theism) or with such a reality (atheism)? The rational relationship is to make peace with this situation, to love it with all your heart if you can, because it's way to big to change so there's no point arguing with Him, or if one prefers, It.

The rational person doesn't waste a lot of time in the God debate, but instead picks which ever system one can best relate to, and then focus on the falling in love part.

The bottom line question for all humans, religious or secular, is that we are here in this place for a very short time, so how do we want to experience it? The rational answer is to embrace this place and love it, by whatever method works best for us.

The thread isn't about theism or even atheism. It's a broad question, in which the only demonstrable interest you have is baiting 'theists'. — Wayfarer

Allow me to explain. This discussion is about religion. The comment that you chose to reply to made a specific point about how religious people can get to karma, reincarnation, resurrection, a personal God, and that kind of thing. The suggestion was that these kind of things require dogmatic faith.

My interest, which I have demonstrated by pursuing the point in multiple comments, and in spite of your red herrings, is whether you or anyone else here disagrees, and if so, the reasons behind that disagreement.

If that is "baiting theists", then so be it. There's nothing wrong with my line of enquiry. It's on topic and appropriate. Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically. I'm done explaining myself. I shouldn't even have to. Either answer the question or do not, but stick to the topic. This is not the place to speculate about malicious intent. In future, please either keep those kind of thoughts to yourself or at least express them somewhere more appropriate. Thanks.

I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser


But is it accurate? Yes, sadly, for a large segment of the population, I think it is — S

Then why are you posting here? The topic asks for how we feel about religion, and you clearly feel it is a waste of time. For you. Fair enough. But if all you can do is to insult those who believe, there will be no constructive dialogue here. Or, at least, not with you. Which is a shame. :fear:

Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically. — S

If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions.

This is not the place to speculate about malicious intent. In future, please either keep those kind of thoughts to yourself or at least express them somewhere more appropriate. Thanks. — S

You proclaimed your own combative attitude. It seems a bit much to object when someone else calls you out for it. Your attitude isn't helpful. You simply seek to ridicule a topic that you cannot support, or see any benefit in. Fair enough: don't participate. :roll:

Then why are you posting here? The topic asks for how we feel about religion, and you clearly feel it is a waste of time. For you. Fair enough. But if all you can do is to insult those who believe, there will be no constructive dialogue here. Or, at least, not with you. Which is a shame. :fear: — Pattern-chaser

Why am I posting here? To express my views in an environment whereby they can be subjected to intellectual scrutiny, and to challenge the views of others.

What has my statement - a true statement, I'd argue - that a large segment of the population unthinkingly give the main tenets of religion special treatment, got to do with why I am posting here? Again, whether it's insulting or not, that's secondary to whether or not it's accurate. This is a philosophy forum, not a tea party. Speaking the truth should take precedence over hurt egos. If your bum looks big in that dress, then, whilst we're here, and so long as it's relevant to the topic, I'm going to tell you so, whether you like it or not. That's much more constructive than telling a white lie, but if you'd rather keep up appearances than get to the heart of the matter, then that's the real shame. If all you can see is someone hellbent on insulting for the sake of insulting, then look harder.

If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions. — Pattern-chaser

If you want to cooperate, then stick to the point and be more combative. Then we might get somewhere.

You proclaimed your own combative attitude. It seems a bit much to object when someone else calls you out for it. Your attitude isn't helpful. You simply seek to ridicule a topic that you cannot support, or see any benefit in. Fair enough: don't participate. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

I didn't object to that, I objected to his bad habit of going off into an ad hominem, making it about my motive - or rather, what he suspects to be my motive - and such.

There's an important difference, on the one hand, between speaking bluntly and remaining on point, even if some might find the language I use insulting, and on the other hand, going off on one in a disapproving manner about my tone or what you suspect to be my motive, when that's completely off topic. You're guilty of this too, by the way.

May I remind you, and all to whom it may concern, that the topic is actually religion, not me.

My only issues are, do not say as a matter of fact that God is not. And do not directly or indirectly with the oft used " fairy tale" "spaghetti monster" "Santa Clause" type language say that theism is unreasonable. — Rank Amateur

Yes, simple insults achieve nothing. :up:

The Hitchens- esk smugness and sarcasm of the pseudo intellectual atheist is trying. — Rank Amateur

I can't disagree! :wink:

there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god". — Harry Hindu

There isn't one bit of evidence - in a strictly scientific sense, which is how you meant it, I think? - for the existence of God. Not one bit. If you think attacking the Objective existence of God is relevant to an investigation of religion, you don't understand religion or God.

And, to be even-handed, if you are a believer, and you assert the Objective existence of God, then the same applies to you too.

God is about different things to different people. God is an impression, an inspiration, a role model, and so on. Religion is a belief system. It is not based in science, or on science, which is fine. God is not an Objective concept. Neither is religion. If it is important to you, or to anyone reading this, I (as a believer) am happy to agree with you that God and religion cannot be Objectively or scientifically justified. There is no such justification, as far as I know. And this does not devalue God or religion in the slightest.

Separating the creations of man from other natural products (artificial vs natural) stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature. We aren't. — Harry Hindu

Agreed. :up: But we do have a tendency to think, speak and act so as to establish ourselves as separate from 'nature', even though, as you say, we are not. But because we work so hard to convince ourselves of this odd notion, our very efforts require consideration. We need, if we can, to accept that we are all interconnected, and that we are part of everything else, not distinct from it. But that's ought, not is. What is is that we consider ourselves apart from the rest of nature. Why do we do this, I wonder? Is it wrong of us to think this way? If so, in what way? Perhaps there's a good reason for us to act this way, although I can't think of one. Let's not just dismiss this attitude; let's try to understand it. Maybe then we can reach useful and helpful conclusions.... :chin:

Again, you're merely putting on show your shortsighted analysis if you think that comparisons to the flying spaghetti monster, fairy tales, and so on, are only made simply to be insulting. Do you know the background of how the flying spaghetti monster became a thing? How about Russell's teapot? Are these just simple insults to you? If so, you're missing the point. But whatever, carry on cheerleading and taking cheap shots at me indirectly.

If all you can see is someone hellbent on insulting for the sake of insulting, then look harder. — S

If all you can do is to insult those who believe, instead of addressing that which they believe, then all you can hope to achieve is to make entrenched beliefs more entrenched. It's a human thing. :roll: If you are here to persuade, then express your thoughts about the message, not the messengers. If you are here to browbeat others with your superior views, go ahead; you're doing great! :confused:

But whatever, carry on cheerleading and taking cheap shots at me indirectly. — S

I don't think they are cheap shots, and I don't think they're indirect either. :up: Address the beliefs, please, instead of insulting believers. That would be nice. :smile:

If all you can do is to insult those who believe... — Pattern-chaser

It isn't. But it seems as though you're determined to mischaracterise me in that way.

I don't think they are cheap shots, and I don't think they're indirect either. :up: Address the beliefs, please, instead of insulting believers. That would be nice. :smile: — Pattern-chaser

I have done so, but you let yourself be distracted by my choice of terms.

I have done so, but you let yourself be distracted by my choice of terms — S

Then perhaps you could choose terms which do not characterise believers (not their beliefs) in such a negative way? Attacks on believers are distracting. They distract from our consideration of their beliefs. So yes, I let my self get distracted, as you intended, when you started insulting those who believe.

You say "I have done so", but your words, particularly those you use to describe believers, say otherwise.

Then perhaps you could choose terms which do not characterise believers (not their beliefs) in such a negative way? Attacks on believers are distracting. They distract from our consideration of their beliefs. So yes, I let my self get distracted, as you intended, when you started insulting those who believe.

You say "I have done so", but your words, particularly those you use to describe believers, say otherwise. — Pattern-chaser

I choose whatever terms seem best fitting at the time, and I intend to continue with that method. I have no intention of adding a filter to protect vulnerable egos from having to face up to the possibility that everything might not be so hunky dory. That would be anathema to getting to the truth of the matter, come what may.

If you see criticism of belief as personal attack, if you see telling it as it is as going out of your way to insult, and if you allow yourself to become distracted because you do not have thick enough skin, then these are your problems for you to work on. Don't put that on me.

Going back to the original point I made, the wording of which you objected to, do you actually have anything of substance to say about that? Or did you just want to cry about how offensive you find my choice of words? If the shoe fits, accept it. What good will relenting achieve? Is it just virtue signalling? You feel duty bound to defend the vulnerable? Heaven forbid we draw attention to the unthinking mindset of the dogmatic devotee! Thou shalt not address the elephant in the room.

Your mistake here is to fail to realise that you aren't justified in claiming that it's not a fact that unicorns don't exist. It could be a fact that unicorns don't exist, even if we can't yet justify that fact! How could you possibly know that it's not a fact? Have you searched the entire universe for unicorns? You're making the same mistake you suspect of me. The biologist, to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, wouldn't say one way or the other whether it's a fact, and for the same reason — S

i am, and always have been in complete agreement with this point. Yet again it is not a matter of fact that unicorns are or are not. And it is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not.

I agree to some extent, as with the historic case of black swans, and then black swans were of course discovered. However, if we know enough about them and their habitats, and we have searched well enough, in all the right places, over a long enough period of time, then we can say that it's very unlikely that unicorns exist on Earth. And that likelihood can be so low that for all intents and purposes, unicorns don't exist — S

Seems a restatement of my point that it is reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist -

Absence of evidence, in some cases, can be evidence of absence. If a unicorn would leave traces, which it almost certainly would, then it can be traced. No unicorn traces have been found. Possibility alone is insufficient. What if it were possible, yet 99.9% improbable? That's no good reason to believe that it's a serious prospect, and it's very good reason not to believe that you'll ever encounter a unicorn in your lifetime. — S

This is in conflict with science - in science absence of evidence is only absence of evidence - the rest to this paragraph is using reason to believe a truth that unicorns do not exist - which is fine, but not science. It is reason, not fact.

Your belief in God, like a belief in unicorns, is unscientific and requires a leap of faith. — S

Agree - and have never said my theism is supported by science. And the same can be said of any claim that God does not exist can not be supported by science.

Then, for that same reason, it is a very reasonable belief that God does not exist. — S

I have never said anywhere that atheism is not a reasonable position, as is theism - both have reasonable arguments, neither argument has been shown to in conflict with fact.

It seems we are violent agreement on many things - other than your belief that theism in unreasonable. I have not seen, or if you have I don't remember any supported argument you have made yet that theism is an unreasonable position.