What more did I say?

That's not really necessary if we're being reasonable, most people have some kind of spiritual life, only a tiny minority are complete nihilists.

...as someone who doesn't have those sorts of experiences, that contributes to not being prone to those sorts of beliefs. — Terrapin Station

It's not that these types of experiences result in belief or imagination (two closely related psychological functions). It's rather that belief in, or imagining, a narrative/mythology/worldview results in these types of experiences.

And while the spiritual experiences of an individual are not the result of sensory stimulation, homeostasis, or affect, they can be inferred by others through the observation of subsequent behaviour.

What more did I say? — Sivad

One thing was, "You have enter into the mystery."

That's not really necessary if we're being reasonable — Sivad

I think it is really necessary if we're being reasonable.

It's not that these types of experiences result in belief or imagination (two closely related psychological functions). It's rather that belief in, or imagining, a narrative/mythology/worldview results in these types of experiences. — Galuchat

Sure, but once people have those experiences, it typically reinforces and strenghthens their beliefs. I was saying that not having those experiences contributes to me not having those sorts of beliefs. I don't have those sorts of beliefs, and so I don't interpret anything as those sorts of experiences, which reinforces or strengthens that I don't have those sorts of beliefs.

What about it? Anyway you look at it there's a mystery to it.

I don't want to argue about every phrase in that post of yours--I wouldn't have left it at rolling my eyes if I'd wanted to do that. It's just something other than whether myth and religion have any impact on the "psyche" or whether people have transformative religious experiences. So that myth and religion have an impact on the "psyche" and whether people have transformative religious experiences wasn't all you said, after all.

So you're denying that there are millions of atheistic Buddhists and liberal Christians that don't believe in God? There are tens of thousands of atheist and agnostic Untiarian Universalists, thousands of nontheist Friends, cultural Christian atheists, and that's just the Christian tradition. In Holland there are tens of thousands of Ietists that don't believe in God, and in the Western world alone there are hundreds of nontheist religious sects and atheistic spiritual philosophies. Are you interested in good faith dialogue or are you just arguing on the internet?

That's what I figured.

So you're denying that there are millions of atheistic Buddhists and liberal Christians that don't believe in God? — Sivad

I'd deny that there's a single Christian who doesn't believe in God. I consider that contradictory.

Buddhists are more complicated. I'd agree that there are some who don't believe in God. But plenty do. I have no idea what the numbers would be. That's why we'd need a good survey of that.

When it comes to making claims that are about what masses of persons' beliefs are, I'm only interested in pretty rigorous data about that. I have zero interest in someone just claiming that they know what individuals' beliefs are on the Internet, especially when I point out that I'd only accept a rigorous survey, they just ignore that and double-(and triple-etc.)down that they know, with zero empirical data to back it up.

I'd deny that there's a single Christian who doesn't believe in God. I consider that contradictory — Terrapin Station

Then you just don't know what your talking about. I think we're done here.

I hope you weren't under the impression that I believe that you know what you're talking about.

I don't have those sorts of beliefs, and so I don't interpret anything as those sorts of experiences, which reinforces or strengthens that I don't have those sorts of beliefs. — Terrapin Station

True enough. And yet you have a belief system (or worldview) of some sort; even if it consists of unbelief, such as Scientism.

When it comes to making claims that are about what masses of persons' beliefs are, I'm only interested in pretty rigorous data about that. — Terrapin Station

Then you would probably be interested in the fact that The Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life has been publishing The Changing Global Religious Landscape since at least 2010.
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/

True enough. And yet you have a belief system (or worldview) of some sort; even if it consists of unbelief, such as Scientism. — Galuchat

Yeah, I have tons of beliefs. Just no beliefs that any religious claims are true.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/

That could be handy if we could find surveys about atheists who are "spiritual" etc., and I could check the methodology they use (hopefully they detail this in their articles/papers).

Yeah, I have tons of beliefs. Just no beliefs that any religious claims are true...That could be handy if we could find surveys about atheists who are "spiritual" — Terrapin Station

I think your self-report suffices in this respect.

I think your self-report suffices in this respect. — Galuchat

Self-report about?

I have often thought that knowledge of the religions of other cultures, other societies, presents a challenge of some sort to religious belief. There's a difference between distinguishing only between yourself and others as accepting or not the beliefs that you do, and recognizing that some of those others don't have no beliefs, but a complete set of beliefs that act as a substitute for yours.

I wonder if a similar challenge doesn't arise from the psychology of peak experience, of flow, and so on. If you have an experience that you interpret religiously, does it really not matter that someone else has a similar experience when surfing?

I had a fellow philosophy major tell me once over beers that he was a believer because of a particular experience he had while tripping on acid. He explained that, at the time, he was already an experienced tripper, and so he was able to recognize that this was not the usual experience of using LSD, but something completely different. I took him at his word, but what are you really to do with something like that?

I agree with that, but as someone who doesn't have those sorts of experiences, that contributes to not being prone to those sorts of beliefs. — Terrapin Station

Which brings us back to what I think is the big idea here - is the experience of god something fundamentally different from our experiences of anything else. My answer is "no."

There is a common human experience. I've had it, many others have had it. Apparently you have not, or at least you aren't aware of it. Or maybe you use different words. Some people call it "God." Although I am not what you would call it a theist, I can understand that. For many of us, there is a fundamental feeling of gratitude for what we have been given. That feeling of gratitude leads us to want to thank someone, something.

I think there is a naturalistic, reasonable argument that it makes sense to grant personhood to the world we live in. My vision of how that might work won't be satisfying to monotheists, but I think my way of thinking and theirs grow out of that common experience. — T Clark

I think I can conceive of such an experience and might well have had it, but I just reach a different conclusion. And no, unlike some people, I certainly wouldn't call that - or any experience - "God". I don't lack the words to describe the kind of experience that I suspect you have in mind. One might use words like "profound", "wonder", "awe", "amazement ", "appreciation", and so on. I would also call it a fundamental feeling of gratitude, as you do, if that is what was felt. But I recognise that that's all it is, a feeling, and I do not jump to conclusions that are unwarranted. I do not make the unwarranted assumption that we've "been given" anything, if by that you mean what I think you mean. And it can't be reasonable to grant personhood to something like the world we live in - that's a simple category error and an example of anthropomorphism.

Buddhists are more complicated. I'd agree that there are some who don't believe in God. But plenty do. I have no idea what the numbers would be. That's why we'd need a good survey of that. — Terrapin Station

This just shows that you are ignorant about Buddhism. There are Buddhists who believe in gods. It is considered more fortunate in Buddhism to be born a human than to be born a god. There are no Buddhists who believe in God the Creator of Everything in the Abrahamic, or even God in the Hinduistic sense. In fact Buddhism distinguishes itself from Hinduism precisely by denying the ultimate reality of the Atman/ Brahman relation, including their identity, and the reality of Atman and Brahman. Your idea about surveys is quite idiotic; to know what adherents to various faiths and their sects believe all you need to know is the relevant doctrines

that's a simple category error and an example of anthropomorphism. — Sapientia

Yeah, that's one explanation, and a very fashionable one indeed.

Yeah, that's one explanation, and a very fashionable one indeed. — John

It's correct, which is all that matters.

Of course it is already obvious that it is correct in your opinion, so that unsupported comment seems redundant, and hence pointless.

Of course it is already obvious that it is correct in your opinion, so that unsupported comment seems redundant, and hence pointless. — John

Indeed. Almost as pointless as pointing out that it's one explanation or that's it's very fashionable, which is blindingly obvious and utterly irrelevant, respectively. But I do enjoy the irony in your last few replies, so they're not completely worthless, in my opinion.

There are no Buddhists who believe in God the Creator of Everything in the Abrahamic, or even God in the Hinduistic sense. — John

Which just shows that you're completely ignorant about people I know and what their beliefs are, as well as people they know but who I don't know personally and what their beliefs are. Which isn't a surprise--why would we expect that you and I know the same people? Maybe it would be wiser to not act so arrogant, as if you know what every single person's beliefs are, though.

Could you argue that insofar as the folks in question believe in God in the Abrahamic sense that they're not following Buddhist beliefs? Sure, but that's irrelevant. They're Buddhists (in many of their beliefs and practices otherwise; they self-identify as Buddhists and consider it an important part of their identity) who also believe in God. They're not Buddhists who are atheists. There are also Buddhists who are atheists but who are not at all spiritual.

And by the way, no, I'm not talking about westerners who were born into a very different culture. I'm talking about people from countries like Japan, China, South Korea, Laos, etc. who were born into Buddhist cultures.

Almost as pointless as pointing out that it's one explanation or that's it's very fashionable, which is blindingly obvious and utterly irrelevant, respectively. — Sapientia

I only said it because it certainly didn't seem as though it was obvious to you that you were doing nothing more than trotting out an unsupported, fashionable opinion; it rather seemed as though you thought you were expressing an infallible truth.

They are deluding themselves if they think they are Buddhists (as opposed to people who merely accept some Buddhist tenets) and they also believe in God in the Abrahamic sense. It's called cherry picking, and it's a common New Age phenomenon manifested by the poorly educated and lightly committed. What people say they are and what they really are may indeed be two very different things.

And you're committing the no true Scotsman fallacy there. Per that, maybe only a small percentage of folks would qualify as "true Buddhists" per your criteria. The bulk of real folks' beliefs, in all religions, are often quite different than academic analyses of them.

Most of the people I'm talking about aren't poorly educated in general. One is a physician, one is philosopher, one a marine biologist . . . not all of the people I'm thinking of have college degrees, but if we're talking about all of the Buddhists in a country like Laos, what percentage of them are what you'd consider well-educated?

I only said it because it certainly didn't seem as though it was obvious to you that you were doing nothing more than trotting out an unsupported, fashionable opinion; it rather seemed as though you thought you were expressing an infallible truth. — John

It's not unsupported, although of course I didn't support it in my original comment, because I didn't think it was necessary to do so, which, in hindsight, was naive of me, given that this is a philosophy forum, where anyone can, and probably will if given the opportunity, cast doubt on or dispute just about anything, no matter how obvious.

Personhood is for persons, and the world is evidently not a person, it's the world - it merely contains persons. So to categorise it as such is to make a category error. And to assign personal attributes to nonpersons is to anthropomorphisize. The world is composed of numerous nonpersonal things which lack many obvious qualities of personhood. The wind doesn't have aspirations in life, rocks don't self-reflect, buildings don't talk about how they feel.