Calling myself a christian is irrational. Here I am specifically referring to the more primitive and ill defined belief that something outside the physical universe causes my spiritual experiences. Do you think even that belief is irrational? How about my belief that a physical world gives rise to the sensations I feel? Rational, irrational or arrational?

My main point is - why "entities" at all (disinterested or not)? That implies so much and limits your options greatly. The leap to "entity" is wholly unnecessary IMO.

I'd have to think about it.

I sincerely doubt that we will discover that these experiences are due to noise. Even if it turns out that it is a brain process that is partly random, isn't the important part that you get something valuable out of the experience? Does it make them less real somehow? If you gain some sort of insight that gives you peace, let's you see things more clearly, or helps you along in any way isn't that an important part of life?

I don't know if I can say that I was ever really a theist. But after all the reflection, discussion, and my conclusion that atheism is the correct stance, I honestly am more interested in these things. I am absolutely fascinated by how powerful these experiences are, where they could come from, why we have them, how they are useful, etc. I suppose it's more of an academic interest, but still.

In this case I don't think anybody is going to discover the truth any time soon. At some point you are going to have to just choose what you think to be the most likely possibility. You admit that you likely have it wrong and that seems to be the most honest, rational, and truthful position to take.

Yes, but I think there are degrees of these things. As an example of what I mean, I once saw a documentary where a preacher from Texas City described the events that caused him to devote his life to preaching. He was present at the Texas City Disaster (a ship exploded in harbour, killing and injuring many). He helped with collecting bodies and identifying the dead (many of whom were his friends) for three straight days. At this point the dead began to speak to him, asking him why he hadn't preached to them. He felt a great guilt; he prayed to Jesus and the guilt was lifted.

Do I think this guy was irrational for giving much weight to this experience? Emphatically yes. I think anyone putting too much weight on this experience, traumatic though it no doubt is, is completely clueless.

There are a couple of differences in your case. First, your experiences don't have any obvious basis in some emotional trauma. Second, you don't claim to know for sure that your experiences are genuine, whereas the preacher did. While I would technically call your beliefs "irrational", in that they are without rational basis, there ought to be a synonym for "irrational" when it is being used in a pejorative way. I don't have a problem with your irrationality, because unlike most theists, you are not, in the words of Sam Harris, "claiming to know something which you manifestly do not (and cannot) know".

Yes and no, respectively. Rationality might almost be defined as an attempt to exclude uncorroborated beliefs from our minds.

If I was in your position, I wouldn't see the point in struggling against your beliefs. I would make a note to myself in the back of my head that there is a possibility I am delusional and then carry on. As long as you don't claim to definitely KNOW that your experiences are genuine, there is no problem.

One question. I have seen research done on the area of the brain responsible for religious feelings. If one day you consented to have your brain stimulated with magnetic fields and you discovered that scientists could reproduce this "talking to God" feeling at will, what impact would this have on your beliefs?

That's the main problem with just about everything, so I won't go through the rest.

You can't on the one hand say the above and then also say:

You either believe it (i.e. you are willing to say "yes this is the cause") or you acknowledge it as a possibility. The whole problem with theism is the lack of ability to prove anything. Great, you've thrown out an idea that can not be proved or disproved. Whatever. But you can't say you "believe" in it.

I have no idea what you mean by any of this. You're saying we've improved on how well we're able to use our minds? And that as we improve our minds things get better?

That's the entire point of my previous statement.

read a few 'atheist' texts and see what you think of things afterwards (assuming you havent already done this.) if you have done this, and you still are unable to 'break the spell' so to speak, worry not. your mental state seems rather healthy anyways, and i dont think you'd have any (or many) negative consequences as a result of you still believing. hell, it might be optimal for other reasons besides rationality. (health, happiness, community and social matters, etc.)

you would be AMAZED at how few of these seem at all mysterious to a non believer. (or maybe you wouldnt) ive had 0 experiences with god, ghosts, aliens, odd coincidences, and on and on. when you lack the mental framework for these things to exists, the world surprisingly doesnt offer any of it to you. its almost mundane.

Hi.

Quickie - I haven't even read the whole thread yet. But I wanted to quote something Phil wrote that is vibrating in my head...

Very simply - we can have feelings and thoughts that we can't explain. There's a real human tendency for humans to try to explain, label and compartmentalize things. Look at Splendour... she thinks mystery alone is evidence of a God?!?! That's like suggesting that simply because she doesn't understand things means their must be a supernatural force behind it. That's such horrific logic I'm at odds to think of an appropriate analogy.

It seems to me you're living a dichotomy -- you want to be rational, but you WANT and find comfort in the belief of a God. You hesitate to latch onto any specific religion because your rational side finds too many flaws. So you remain vague because, if its vague, you cannot dismiss it because of any particular dogma.

The part that is irrational is that you have thoughts and feelings you can't explain. And you leap to explaining it as communication from a mystical being (as opposed to just the happenings of a complex mind). As you say, there is no real evidence to collaborate your explanation. But I'm willing to bet the idea of it being a God brings you some comfort.

Anyhow... I'm just babbling and speculating wildly. It would be easier to hash it out more over a few beers in a pub!

Gotta fly.

A spiritual feeling or experience IS evidence! And even if it's only of a very personal nature, I'd go so far as to say it can be very strong evidence (although proper analyzation and conclusion can be tricky or even misleading). I've never had a problem with acknowledging this when it came to accepting your world view.

If I do have a problem, it's how you managed to connect these feelings or experiences with one particular religion. I know you've explained before how you settled on Christianity, but to be honest, I didn't find it convincing and I'm still not sure why you do.

I also can become spiritual in a ala Sam Harris way, I guess. I can imagine a universal rhythm which one can be in or out of sync with. Or a oneness with nature, etc. I don't feel it as the physical presence of a supernatural entity the way you do, but spirituality to me, does have some merit. Even so, I'm not sure how to link it up with any one religion. It does not seem to me, that I must find it to be compatible with outrageous claims such as virgin births, floods, resurrections, or 72 virgins. So while I don't necessarily deny these spiritual feelings and am willing to construe them as evidence of some sort, I can in no way be sure of what. This is the leap that to me, seems irrational.

lol someone's going to have to define a "spiritual experience" for me. It's as if people can't find the correct adjective for how I feel so they throw the word spiritual at it and voila, they no longer need to actually describe it.

Those moments that you have an internal mental experience that you can't describe verbally where you feel as though you are part of something greater or that you are in tune with nature. Have you ever lost yourself in a piece of music or while dancing or while playing a sport or while meditating? Some would call those spiritual experiences.

I expect it would make me discard them, although I'm not 100% sure. One possibility would be that they were simulating a genuine experience. (Splendour might see it as a mystery how I could regularly have the experience of magnetic fields zapping my brain when there was no actual magnetic field there).

I'd certainly consent to this sort of experiment in a flash if it ever becomes feasible.

If your basis of belief is the experience, and the experience can be shown to be a brain function outcome and doesn't need a entire out-of-the-universe out-of-time out-of-space entity with amazing communicative powers as an explanation and you would still want to hold that up against the simple explanation right in front of you .... then yes, that would be beyond rational. Now, you're just believing what you want to believe and the virtual total erosion of your 'evidence' not changing your viewpoint illustrates that the evidence wasn't evidence.

You can make the same statement of any magicians trick. "well, it could have happened magically, too." when you have hard evidence of one causation and zero evidence of the magic one.

luckyme

I dont accept materialism, so it is often hard for me to understand points like these. What I was referring to was the possibility that magnetic fields could cause me to feel some way but that the experiences also occured without the brain going into that state - then I would regard it as a simulation.

As I said, though, such an experiment would probably be enough to tip the scales and convince me the feelings I get are just the subjective element of a physical state of my brain - at this point I think they are more than that (spiritual or any other kind).

Oh. Ok. I've always read you as thinking there was no good explanation for having such an experience and were just going with the way it 'felt?'.

That was my point about the magician. If you are going to stick to a real wowser of an explanation in the face of a simple and demonstrated one then it's not the experience that is the source of the belief, it merely is being used as pseudo-support. Materialism doesn't play into it... other than in the same sense. You can come up with any number of other 'realities' and claim they are the explanation for X and there is no 'evidence' that can sway you. In which case 'evidence' or 'reason' have no meaning in your world, so what's the prob.

There is the material world, there is the spiritual world and the agents of middle earth. The agents of middle earth are able to X and it looks like a material occurrence, but I don't buy into materialism so X is the product of middle earth agents. FTW.

No argument here. How could there be?

I didnt explain myself very well. I dont mean "I dont accept materialism, so in ChrisV's scenario I would look for an alternative explanation."

I meant "I dont accept materialism, so I find it hard to imagine the scenario even occurring at all."

If someone threw a switch and showed me a portion of my brain glowing, accompanied by the exact feeling of praying, then I expect materialism would seem much more likely to me than it does now.

When I raised the prospect of simulation, I was imagining the situation where two distinct physical states yield identical mental states - such a situation is impossible if materialism is correct (yes?) so that's where I think it enters into it.

you seem to be making this awful difficult with this dragging in of materialism. You have already set the boundaries of what could be material and what couldn't? you'd be in serious trouble not so long ago when that 'immaterial' umbrella covered a ton of stuff you now accept as material but don't have to face by luck of birth day.
Iow, how can you be so sure just what is covered off by material and by non-material. Life sounds awful boring already knowing the big stuff.
You are on the losing side historically. It's like the people that would say, "yeah, but a computer will never ..x" and then it does it. Think of all the roles that 'spirit' stuff was credited with over the centuries and has been shrunk down to a thimbleful now. It's a shrinking gap position with no evidence of it's own, just claiming the shadows.
No need to argue it. Just didn't realize it was set in stone.

I can't think of a reason why 20 different physical states couldn't produce the same mental state. There are billions of possible different physical causes for any given macro effect. Brains and elsewhere.

luckyme

You think that if a brain is in two different physical states they may give rise to identical mental states? I thought this was inconsistent with materialism (stubbornly continuing to make it hard perhaps...)

You think it matters what specific spoon ( externally identical) I stir my coffee with?
My door could blow open identically from an infinite number of different forces acting on it.
Mind is an emergent property, I think it's impossible for there to be a one-to-one relationship, if that's what you're claiming.
Look at it from a tipping point perspective. The neurons could have endless various states of excitement and synapses loaded but all that matters is which triggers what and when. A1, B5 and C8 may trip the same signal as A8, B1,C5 and that type of situation can go on all through the cascade.
If that's non-materialism, that's fine by me.
luckyme

No, I wasnt thinking clearly - or rather I was processing payments whilst jumping back and forth to SMP. Materialism clearly doesnt imply what I said it did. My bad.

Come on - I never claimed to know the big stuff, nor to have set the boundaries of what could be material and what couldnt. All I said was I do not accept materialism. If materialism is something like the claim that "Everything which can be said to exist is either matter or an emergent property of matter." then I am saying I dont currently believe it. I make no grand claims about it being definitely false, nor that I know the big stuff and definitely not that anything is set in stone.

The reason I raised it at all was in answer to ChrisV - I'm not really sure what I would do in his scenario since I find it hard to imagine the world being like that. It was an offhand comment on my limitations, not some "God must exist since materialism is wrong" argument.

Surely I can have a belief that I'm not sure of. Dont you hold some beliefs which, if they were shown to be false you wouldnt be that surprised about and others which would absolutely floor you if they turned out to be wrong?

I dont understand why belief is imbued with certainty, nor why acknowledging that there is likely to be some error in my set of beliefs implies I must be irrational.

I get caught in some of these at times. The hypotheticals I have trouble with are the ones of ethical issues that are oversimplified.
So, although I can pretend to ride on a light beam, and these type give me no pause, I'll take it you see something in it that I'm missing.
Somebody could ask me, "Casper the friendly ghost will come to your door on wednesday" and even though I can't imagine the world being like that, I probably won't have a problem with the scenario based on that.
We all have our mental blocks.

I'm trying to do my part in questioning the hell out of your positions. You seemed to be clinging to a position that had counter evidence even when the original only has 'proof by default'. Doesn't that indicate to you, if you can detatch for a moment, that it isn't JUST the experience that is leading to your take on it? If it was just a result of how the wind blew you, well the wind just shifted big time.
I was deliberately pushing on the "boundaries of materialism" aspect, if I'm going to get any grasp of where you are coming from it's an area that needed clarification. Your post helped.
luckyme

At least one gopher appreciates the effort, thanks.

The more I think about it, the more I think that if ChrisV's scenario came to pass I wouldnt remain a believer (nor be particularly interested in the whole topic) although it may take some time - I dont have many A-Ha! moments these days...

For the sake of neatness, I would like materialism to be true. However, I dont accept it at the moment for two reasons - first the experience of consciousness (which I readily admit may just be a limitation of my imagination or understanding), second the laws of logic/maths which dont seem to me to be dependant on physical things at all (with the same limitation of imagination).