Ok thanks for that . I know it is difficult to put stuff out there like that.

One last thing. At the time it happens, do you actually know its christ, or does that come afterwards in thought about it. What I mean is, when you are having the experience, the direct experience , is it labelled "christ" or "god" ? Or does that label only come in just after the experience, when you start thinking, classifying and labelling?

Excerpt from William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience (Lectures XVI And XVII: Mysticism):

I have now sketched with extreme brevity and insufficiency, but as fairly as I am able in the time allowed, the general traits of the mystic range of consciousness. It is on the whole pantheistic and optimistic, or at least the opposite of pessimistic. It is anti-naturalistic, and harmonizes best with twice-bornness and so-called other-worldly states mind.

My next task is to inquire whether we can invoke it as authoritative. Does it furnish any WARRANT FOR THE TRUTH of the twice-bornness and supernaturality and pantheism which it favors?

I must give my answer to this question as concisely as I can. In brief my answer is this—and I will divide it into three parts:—

(1) Mystical states, when well developed, usually are, and have the right to be, absolutely authoritative over the individuals to whom they come.

(2) No authority emanates from them which should make it a duty for those who stand outside of them to accept their revelations uncritically.

(3) They break down the authority of the non-mystical or rationalistic consciousness, based upon the understanding and the senses alone. They show it to be only one kind of consciousness. They open out the possibility of other orders of truth, in which, so far as anything in us vitally responds to them, we may freely continue to have faith.

I will take up these points one by one.

1.

As a matter of psychological fact, mystical states of a well-pronounced and emphatic sort ARE usually authoritative over those who have them.[281] They have been "there," and know. It is vain for rationalism to grumble about this. If the mystical truth that comes to a man proves to be a force that he can live by, what mandate have we of the majority to order him to live in another way? We can throw him into a prison or a madhouse, but we cannot change his mind—we commonly attach it only the more stubbornly to its beliefs.[282] It mocks our utmost efforts, as a matter of fact, and in point of logic it absolutely escapes our jurisdiction. Our own more "rational" beliefs are based on evidence exactly similar in nature to that which mystics quote for theirs. Our senses, namely, have assured us of certain states of fact; but mystical experiences are as direct perceptions of fact for those who have them as any sensations ever were for us. The records show that even though the five senses be in abeyance in them, they are absolutely sensational in their epistemological quality, if I may be pardoned the barbarous expression—that is, they are face to face presentations of what seems immediately to exist. [281] I abstract from weaker states, and from those cases of which the books are full, where the director (but usually not the subject) remains in doubt whether the experience may not have proceeded from the demon.

[282] Example: Mr. John Nelson writes of his imprisonment for preaching Methodism: "My soul was as a watered garden, and I could sing praises to God all day long; for he turned my captivity into joy, and gave me to rest as well on the boards, as if I had been on a bed of down. Now could I say, 'God's service is perfect freedom,' and I was carried out much in prayer that my enemies might drink of the same river of peace which my God gave so largely to me." Journal, London, no date, p. 172.

The mystic is, in short, INVULNERABLE, and must be left, whether we relish it or not, in undisturbed enjoyment of his creed. Faith, says Tolstoy, is that by which men live. And faith-state and mystic state are practically convertible terms. (cont'd)

I think it is more prudent to assume knowledge and rationality have limitations. For example we can then allow two different rational beliefs to be contradictory.

The world will become a much trickier place however. This case will go from "simple" to "bloody difficult" for example.

Well Named already alluded to what I'm going to say here and I've already explained this I know at least once but I'll give it another shot.

To me, beliefs should only be based on experience. The value of faith is not attempting to adopt a set of beliefs that contradict your experiences but to suspend your current perspective, or belief system, to explore another. I've told atheists on this forum in the past that if you've had the experiences that I've had, which have come about through exploration by faith, then you too would almost surely be a believer. Of course, I can't speak in certainties because the experiences require interpretation. Atheists assume similar experiences so they point to interpretation as the main factor for difference and claim believers are irrational which is true most of the time. But it's only true for those who's belief is not based in experience.

Now, intuition is the vessel through which we experience the higher power or God. There are two ways these experiences happen: one is through conscious intention or exploration and the other is as a reaction to life. N_R has talked about his experience which occurred as a result of his struggle with alcohol, so he would be grouped in this second category. This group, since they didn't deliberately undertake the process, are much more likely to look outside themselves for an interpretation of the experience and find religion. The first group will instead be much more likely to continue the inward journey to develop their intuition and awareness to provide clarity. Instead of realizing that the initial experience is the beginning of the spiritual development journey, religion will convince group two that it is the end based on their doctrine which is appealing because the journey is hard and uncertain.

This guy's command of the English language is quite remarkable. I would like to have said this if I was smarter.

There's a similarity here to arguments about perception. That is, when he talks about "pain" you think it's similar in experience to the thing that you think of when you talk about "pain." But there's a very real sense in which you don't really know that there's a correspondence. It's just an assumption that others experience reality in a sufficiently similar way to how you experience it that they're really the same.

It's kind of like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08

You don't have to think about it after you are used to it, like talking to someone close to you, you recognize them immediately. When I first became born-again, I just knew it was Christ. If I had known it was another God, then I'd likely have faith in that other God. I didn't really have an agenda coming in.

well, yes. I agree. I was just going with his analogy.

Fair enough. Although I was using a literal definition for deists, I dont know very much about them or the different kinds of deism.

I still stand by what I believe for them jumping to an irrational or unknowable position. For me its like working on an unknown picture puzzle with only the outline finished, and then saying for sure that its a picture of the ocean.

Ty for the link I will read when I have a little more time.

It's interesting to see an acknowledgement of a lack of information, while still standing firmly by the claim. It's like someone is working on an unknown puzzle picture with only the outline finished, and then saying for sure that its a picture of the ocean.

I just noticed that both Original Position and duffee quoted from William James. I admit I don't know him, but from these two links, this guy is quite a special writer and thinker. Was this just a happy coincidence that both of you mentioned him?

I think William James is one of the more interesting writers on the nature and rationality of faith, and an excellent stylist. Most naturalistic atheists are unthinking evidentialists (they believe that in order for a person to be justified in holding a belief they must have sufficent evidence to support accepting that belief), and I think James is useful for them to read as a challenge to that assumption.

Original Position what is your profession? Just curious.

This is not entirely true. It's the "end" in terms acknowledging one specific path from many others, but it's the beginning in that you must now start the journey down this path. There has been nothing easy about my life as a believer, and even though I wouldn't trade all the pain for how far I've come, I wouldn't wish this on anyone. There was nothing easy about this. Not sure about other believers, but this couldn't have been harder.

What data have you looked at that caused you to a different conclusion to me? I'm trying to understand the reasons for your belief.

If I had a pain in my foot, it might be the result of an injury, or a medical condition, it might be my mind playing tricks on me. In other words, there'd be a reason for it, something I can point to and use to explain my pain. Your explanation seems limited to 'I just believe'. I don't think I'm one of OrP's 'unthinking evidentialists' because I also believe that we can come to knowledge through apriori reasoning but you haven't given any reasoning. You claim to live as rationally as possible but then begged the question to support your viewpoint so how can I accept what you believe, regardless of whether or not I agree with it, as rational or reasoned when the single reason you've given for believing it is fallacious?

The question I keep coming back to in my mind is how this is at all convincing to you. This seems like an example of someone who believes something simply because they know deep down inside, that it is true. But as Richard Rorty said, 'there is nothing deep down inside us except what we put there ourselves' (except perhaps for what has been put there by others and I say that because you 'happen' to believe a mainstream religion and perhaps what you believe didn't come from you at all, it was put there).

I am assuming that your knowledge of Christ gives you certainty that there is no other God.

When you hear others profess belief in other gods outside of them lying or being deluded do you have any other explanation for their false professions of faith?

Even though you recognise them immediately, there is still the experience of hearing their voice, and then the recognition and labelling of their name. The actual experience of hearing the voice does not come with the label. So, what I am asking is, how do you label your experience as "god"? The raw sensations and feelings do not come with any label, only afterwards does it get labelled as "fred" or "god" or "pain"

I'm not saying life isn't hard for you or other Christians. I'm just saying I don't think Christianity is hard. If you think Christianity is hard because you are expected to do the "right" thing even against your impulses, we expect the same thing from children. To me, Christianity is a coping mechanism or an escape for many when life is too hard. That's not meant to disparage; it can be very effective for that purpose.

I meant life in general, since there is a chance we have not shared the same experiences.

I tried to answer this in the form of a question, which was how do you know that you feel pain? How can you be so sure? I didn't mean what do you think caused it, since my answer will involve pointing to a cause, just like yours.

My point is that when you feel pain, regardless of where it comes from, perhaps you just wake up with an aching foot, is that you simply believe in the pain. You just know it. When pressed for a reason, we are unable to give one other than the obvious - it hurts. This is the exact same thing I'm trying to relate to you when it comes to a spiritual experience. I experience it, and I trust in it, just like I trust when I have pain.

Now, I can concede that both the pain and spiritual experience may not be what they appear to be. Some people experience phantom pains, or we could be part of a simulation programmed to "feel" pain. Just like I could be mistaken about the cause of the spiritual experience, it could be my own inner psyche, an evil genius, or once again, some sort of simulation. What I can't do is ignore the pain, it is very real, and the most rational thing I can do, from my perspective, is not to ignore it, but to follow it where it leads.

Edit: I'll answer you guys a bit later, I have to run.

Have you ever looked back on a childhood belief about the world and thought, "wow, that's crazy that I used to believe it was like that"? So much focus is on trying to interpret things at your current level of awareness. IMO, people would be much better off asking themselves how they can become more aware instead of trying to reach conclusions already. Needing the answers right away, needing certainty, is an urge you have to fight.

Nah this is wrong. In brief, the claim is (or should be) that humans never manage to be rational all the time, not that we can't be rational at any time.

I work in politics and research.

A few things. Either I'm wrong, they're wrong, or we're both wrong. There is a chance that we're both right, but we are somewhat confused at to the meaning of this spiritual experience.

One thing I will say, and anyone can object to this if they disagree, is that I have not met many people of different religions that claim to "know" God. The Muslims I have met that converted to Christianity have all said that they never really knew, or had communications with God.

I disagree, when you touch a hot stove, you recognize pain even if you had never experienced it before. I'm not assigning my preferable God to this equation, it is inherent in the experience.

It can be a coping mechanism I guess, but biblically, Christianity is about trials and tribulations, and embracing the pain of the transformation. Pain is expected as part of the process, and embracing it is recommended.

Its not possible for god to be inherent in the experience, since any experience comes unlabelled, raw, and clear of interpretation. If you touch a hot stove, you will find that the body moves before the idea of pain appears. There is no time for you to stand around and recognise pain. Theres the sensation, then the movement away from the heat, and then the thought "Ouch, thats hot!"

The reason for thinking it might be seen as disparaging is not with regards to the effectiveness. It's because of a misalignment of what people think of when they think of a "coping mechanism" and whatever it is you mean by that term. People get through difficult situations all the time and in all sorts of ways.

Is there anything that someone can do/use to get through a difficult situation (effective or not) and it not be counted as a "coping mechanism"? If so, then it might be worth expanding on what you mean by a "coping mechanism" and what distinguishes "coping mechanisms" from other things. If not, then maybe the label is kind of useless.