Proof of a Higher Power

[TigerWoman]

If that's what you want to believe, TigerWoman, knock yourself out.

How does one reconcile your statement with the commonly held belief that salvation is available only to those who accept the divinity of the son of the Christian skygod?

People know and seek a higher power. It seems evident to all the faiths there is one. But they are not on the right path to get to him. Doesn't mean God is not trying, and is not a benevolent God to those who do not believe in him. Hey, I wasn't the best Christian, had a 30 year "lapse" in believing in anything unless I had a near disaster. So why did he answer my prayer? During that lapse, I didn't necessary believe Jesus Christ was our saviour. I have trouble with pure "faith". But as I said before, a rock fell on my head. I cannot deny it was anything but God who interfered and saved my daughter. I can't debate Christianity. I can only report what really happened. It is up to you whether you believe or not. And I hope that a rock doesn't have to fall on your head for that to happen. TW

 

[Jay Bell]

But they are not on the right path to get to him.

Edit: I was going to reply to the above statement, but there was just absolutely no way that I could do it diplomatically or with kind words..

 

[Scout_379]

But they are not on the right path to get to him.

Edit: I was going to reply to the above statement, but there was just absolutely no way that I could do it diplomatically or with kind words..

I'll give it a try. What do you mean? how are they wrong, or what is the right path, in your opinion? NOBODY pounce on the answer if it disturbs you! please, I don't we need a religious debate, i was just asking for opinions.

It seems evident to all the faiths there is one.

I thought buddhists denied the existence of a god. But it seems more like a philosophy rather than a faith.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Besides, the "goal" of all religion is transcendent of any particular path anyway. Kinda similar to martial arts. Again.

If you are speaking from personal opinion, well and good. If you are speaking *for* various religions, I'll have to disagree. Some faiths emphasize particular practices more than others, meaning what you do or how you do it (or what you believe) is definitionally important to that faith.

 

[Firona]

I thought buddhists denied the existence of a god. But it seems more like a philosophy rather than a faith.

There are three groups of religion, Monotheism, Polytheism and Atheism. Buddhism falls under the Atheistic category, they don't necessarily believe in god but it is a legitimate religion as opposed to agnostics and the like.

 

[Flatlander]

There are three groups of religion, Monotheism, Polytheism and Atheism. Buddhism falls under the Atheistic category, they don't necessarily believe in god but it is a legitimate religion as opposed to agnostics and the like.

Oh, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Buddhism would fall under the Monotheistic approach. Though their definition of God may not include anyone you can specifically point at, I believe that their idea of Oneness qualifies them as monotheist.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Edit: I asked TigerWoman for a bunch of details about her miracle, when in fact she had already described it in much detail in an earlier post. Sorry about that.

I can only report what really happened. It is up to you whether you believe or not.

At this point, at least, I am entirely willing to believe that you prayed, and that your daughter was saved.

As happy as I am about her being healed, though, nothing about your account logically proves the intervention of some supernatural being or force. In your own account, you describe a number of, as you say, "non-medical" steps you took to improve your daughter's asthma... why isn't that as likely, or more likely, to have brought about the improvement in her health?

 

[heretic888]

Why do you want to discuss it if you are so SURE.

A silly non-question, one that only seeks to privilege the questioner by not providing any kind of valid demand in the first place.

That's like asking a quantum physicist why he wants to discuss mathematics if he's "so SURE", or why a developmental psychologist wants to discuss levels of psychological growth is he's "so SURE".

God has a different form to people all over the world, but he is still GOD.

Notice, again, the attempt to privilege one religious position over all others without an attempt to provide logic or evidence as support.

Apparently, "God" appears in different "forms" to different individuals --- but his "true nature" (i.e. "he is still") is the form that certain Christians adhere to. Very interesting, since Christian texts and sages themselves state that God's "true nature" is completely incomprehensible, ineffable, and "beyond forms" altogether (which is fundamentally identical to virtually all higher religions). Very interesting, indeed.

I still see the underlying arrogance: God is completely beyond understanding, but WE know what he's really like. And what he really wants, thinks, desires, etc.

People know and seek a higher power. It seems evident to all the faiths there is one. But they are not on the right path to get to him.

I challenge you to provide empirical evidence, cross-cultural proof, or a logical basis for any of the claims you have just made. The burden of proof is on you.

I also further challenge you to demonstrate how these different religious paths are so radically incompatible with one another. You can start by comparing the Christian St. Dionysius-Areopagite with the Buddhist Nagarjuna.

Hey, I wasn't the best Christian, had a 30 year "lapse" in believing in anything unless I had a near disaster.

Which should probably raise alarms right there in and of itself. Similar to how many Americans "rediscovered" patriotism after 9/11.

I can't debate Christianity. I can only report what really happened.

No, you can report your interpretation of what happened. As before, there is far too much room for projectionism and so forth for this anecdote to become a reliable phenomenological account.

It is up to you whether you believe or not. And I hope that a rock doesn't have to fall on your head for that to happen.

Nah, I just grew up --- and began to strenuously apply logic to the situation. I also began seriously researching other religions, and the underlying commonalities led my away from the notion that any one is privileged enough to be "the truth" (since they all basically claim that the Truth is beyond conceptualization to begin with).

I thought buddhists denied the existence of a god.

This is a misnomer.

There are several deities and gods (devas) within the various Buddhist sects --- for example, Fudo-Myoh of the Japanese Mikkyo traditions. In addition, there is also the Buddha Mind and Buddha Nature (Zen's True Self), which is very similar to some representations of a "One God".

But it seems more like a philosophy rather than a faith.

Another Western misnomer. Buddhism, depending on the sect, can be construed as a faith, a philosophy, or a mystical practice.

If its not a "faith", its very interesting how all those people in Japan, Tibet, and Korea pray and provide offering to statues of various Buddhas.

If you are speaking from personal opinion, well and good.

Try personal experience and observation, not to mention cross-cultural analysis.

If you are speaking *for* various religions, I'll have to disagree. Some faiths emphasize particular practices more than others, meaning what you do or how you do it (or what you believe) is definitionally important to that faith.

You will note that I said the "goal" of all the higher religions and wisdom traditions is the same, not the path taken to get there.

Of course, that in itself is inaccurate ---- since all the higher religions claim that meditative practice or contemplative prayer must be pursued at some point to reach this "goal". This is, in fact, the core of all the great religions.

There are, of course, different types (and levels) of contemplative practice.

There are three groups of religion, Monotheism, Polytheism and Atheism.

Wrong. There are several dozen more classifications beyond that --- including pantheism, panentheism, deism, qualified nondualism, nonqualified nondualism, kenotic nondualism, emanationism, henotheism, monism, and so on.

Buddhism falls under the Atheistic category, they don't necessarily believe in god but it is a legitimate religion as opposed to agnostics and the like.

Wrong again. Buddhism holds to a conception of a "higher power" (Buddha Mind or Shunyata), as well as the devas.

Oh, I don't think that's entirely accurate. Buddhism would fall under the Monotheistic approach. Though their definition of God may not include anyone you can specifically point at, I believe that their idea of Oneness qualifies them as monotheist.

That is not monotheism. It is a type of nondualism, depending on which sect you are referring to. Buddhism, in some of its strands, is also monistic or pantheistic.

Laterz.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Quote:
If you are speaking from personal opinion, well and good.


Try personal experience and observation, not to mention cross-cultural analysis.

Quote:
If you are speaking *for* various religions, I'll have to disagree. Some faiths emphasize particular practices more than others, meaning what you do or how you do it (or what you believe) is definitionally important to that faith.


You will note that I said the "goal" of all the higher religions and wisdom traditions is the same, not the path taken to get there.

Of course, that in itself is inaccurate ---- since all the higher religions claim that meditative practice or contemplative prayer must be pursued at some point to reach this "goal". This is, in fact, the core of all the great religions.

There are, of course, different types (and levels) of contemplative practice.

There are others of us out here who have both personal experience and observation, and pursue religious studies.

Embedded in certain faiths *is* the path - that is a proscribed part of reaching the "goal". "The journey is the destination." I am not questioning that the goals are similar in a lot of the religions mentioned. I think I know how people should pursue some sort of introspection and reflection - meditation, prayer, living thoughtfully - but within specific doctrines there are different "routes" that are considered to be part of the journey.

 

[heretic888]

Indeed. But, this doesn't change the fact that the "ultimate goal" is the same nonetheless --- and that this "goal" is not the exclusive province of any one tradition, religion, or culture. Very similar to martial arts training, in that respect.

For example, really listen to what Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart, St. Dionysisu, or St. Ignatius say about there experiences of the Divine --- and then compare that to what Hindu sages like Shankara, Ramanuja, and Sri Ramana say about their experiences of Atman/Brahman. There are far more commonalities than differences, and the differences themselves seem to be more a product of culture than anything else. This indicates a cross-cultural, religiously universal experience that is not the "property" of any one tradition.

If you have a vendetta against both Christianity and Hinduism --- then compare mystical Judaism (from Kabbalah to the Therapeutae) and, say, Buddhism (such as Nagarjuna). Could even through mystical Islam (such as Sufism), represented by Rumi, in the mix for flavor. The end result will be the same.


Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. A theist believes in a god of some sort. An a-theist denies the existence of any god. An a-gnostic claims to have no knowledge (gnosis) of whether or not there's a god. Atheism is a "religion," only in the sense that the insight that there is no God cannot be experimentally or observationally supported. The rigorous scientific position, in fact, is agnosticism: I dunno, because I don't have evidence one way or another.

2. Buddhism is a "religion," but not in Western terms. As mentioned, these is disagreement in Buddhism on the issue of god/gods--but no gods are necessary for Buddhism. Much of the description of Buddhism I'm seeing here is the result of the projection of Western ideas elsewhere.

3. It is sloppy logic to argue that someone who claims a certain experience did not have it. One may believe that a religious vision is the result of wishful thinking; one may offer substitute explanations; one may provide psychoanalytic theories. However, we cannot know whether or not the Big Kahuna is speaking to someone, because we cannot objectively measure and evaluate such an experience or the lack thereof. By definitions, it remains outside what any science can do, and it is arrogance to claim otherwise, arrogance based upon our own views of the world. Empiricism only goes so far.

4. I suspect it's a bad idea to mix religions like paint, till you get the shade you want. However, structural studies of religion are useful.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

As they ("they") say these days - Wordy McWord to you, Robert.

:inlove:

 

[PeachMonkey]

theism is a "religion," only in the sense that the insight that there is no God cannot be experimentally or observationally supported. The rigorous scientific position, in fact, is agnosticism

At what point does it become necessary to prove a negative? There is no evidence that there is a God... it is illogical to assume that any further experimentation is needed. Many people of different faiths and cultures have experienced mystical and spiritual paths, but none of this points to the existence of a specific, or even a general, higher entity.

However, we cannot know whether or not the Big Kahuna is speaking to someone, because we cannot objectively measure and evaluate such an experience or the lack thereof. By definitions, it remains outside what any science can do, and it is arrogance to claim otherwise, arrogance based upon our own views of the world. Empiricism only goes so far.

Poppycock. If a paranoid schizophrenic or someone suffering from amphetamine psychosis claims to be communing with spirits, we can believe that they are hearing voices and still maintain an empirical skepticism about their source.

Discarding empiricism because people's claims are based on religious belief is commonly done because of courtesy, because of cultural history, to avoid offense, and for many other reasons. In the end, though, maintaining skepticism about religious claims is no more "arrogant" than any other sort of healthy, intellectual, reasoned empirical standing.

 

[heretic888]

At what point does it become necessary to prove a negative? There is no evidence that there is a God... it is illogical to assume that any further experimentation is needed. Many people of different faiths and cultures have experienced mystical and spiritual paths, but none of this points to the existence of a specific, or even a general, higher entity.

This is one of the most bizarre claims that I have ever heard skeptic-types make.

Its like saying that many people of different cultures and backgrounds have come to the same observation by employing the Pyathagorean Theorem, but none of this points to the existence a squared + b squared = c squared. Likewise, you will never come to that conclusion, perception, or observation unless you engage the mathematical paradigm to begin with.

My guess its a form of "selective science".

Also.... since when did "empiricism" = "science"?? Most of the contents of psychology, anthropology, logic, and even mathematics can't be empirically observed --- and yet their adherents are pretty damn sure what they're doing is science.

Laterz.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Its like saying that many people of different cultures and backgrounds have come to the same observation by employing the Pyathagorean Theorem, but none of this points to the existence a squared + b squared = c squared. Likewise, you will never come to that conclusion, perception, or observation unless you engage the mathematical paradigm to begin with.

You and I have had this discussion before, but I still don't believe that simply because people across time have had "spiritual experiences", that there is, therefore, some sort of higher entity. Couldn't they all be tapping into some sort of common experiential thread in the human psyche?

What is more likely: that all humans have the capacity for "higher-plane" behavior, and mystics/spirtualists tap into this through their disciplines, or that there is some skygod out there that mysteriously heals some, tortures others, and is indifferent to many more?

Also.... since when did "empiricism" = "science"??

My abuse of the term was a response to a suggestion that lack of empirical demonstration of miracles did not mean that we shouldn't take miraculous claims at face value. My apologies for waving the term around.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, if we're gonna call old names---pish-tosh.

If we hear a paranoid schizophrenic claiming to hear God, we may very well assume that they're hallucinating. However, it is logically quite possible that they are a) nuts, b) actually hearing God. Occam's razor may suggest to us that the, "simplest hypothesis," is that they are making it all up, but this does NOT stand as proof that they are making it all up. It's simply a way of reminding us to look to the simplest, most-obvious explanations first, before we get fancy.

Moreover, the claim that there is or isn't a God simply is not a testable hypothesis. It's not something that can be settled on empirical grounds, though some peripheral claims of various religions (for example, that there was an Adam and an Eve in the Garden a few thousand years back) can pretty much be handled as empirical questions.

I haven't at all chucked empiricism out the window. If you'll actually read what I write, you'll notice that I've repeatedly argued for empirical approaches to all sorts of questions. However, there are limits to the questions empiricism can handle--and to me, claiming that there are no such limits is indeed arrogance.

What I never quite understand is why religious folks don't simply rest their arguments on faith, on the authority of books, and on their brands of logic.

Oh yes. Science, philosophically speaking, is a particular type of empiricism.

 

[pete]

A theist believes in a god of some sort. An a-theist denies the existence of any god. An a-gnostic claims to have no knowledge (gnosis) of whether or not there's a god.

then, what do you call someone who despises the whole concept of a god, and them that hear him? democrats?

uh oh, gotta go... i've been beckoned again...

(all in good fun kiddies...)
pete

 

[heretic888]

You and I have had this discussion before, but I still don't believe that simply because people across time have had "spiritual experiences", that there is, therefore, some sort of higher entity. Couldn't they all be tapping into some sort of common experiential thread in the human psyche?

What is more likely: that all humans have the capacity for "higher-plane" behavior, and mystics/spirtualists tap into this through their disciplines, or that there is some skygod out there that mysteriously heals some, tortures others, and is indifferent to many more?

Ah, ok. I think you may have misinterpreted me.

This is where I think something like a "cross-level analysis" would become extremely useful. Suppose, for example, that someone at a pre-operational stage of development (say, a 7 year old child) temporarily had a "peak experience" of formal-rational cognition (and, say, temporarily "grasped" an algebraic formula like the Pythagorean Theorem). Now, this preop individual is not likely to interpret, analyze, and undestand that formal-rational cognition the same way that someone at the formal-operational stage itself would. It would have been a real formop "experience" --- but being interpreted and filtered by preop cognition. Thus, the preop person would have a much different interpretation of the experience than the formop person would.

This is also what happens with "spiritual" peak experiences, IMO. A person is temporarily having a peak experience of a level of cognition or whatnot FAR above their normal mode of functioning. That is why there are so many radically different types of interpretations of the same experience.

This is why, as a whole, most of the "enlightened" mystics from any religious tradition generally talk the same way and about the same thing (there are cultural differences, of course). St. Catherine of Genoa didn't talk about a skygod that was "higher" or "separate" from herself. She said, and I am paraphrasing here, that: "My very being is God, me me is God!" Meister Eckhart pronounced similar notions. St. Paul of the New Testament said something akin to "No longer do I live, but Christ liveth in me." The Shakyamuni Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) reported self-annihilation, as well. We hear similar ideas from Vedantic representatives like Shankara, Ramanuja, and more modern sages like Sri Ramana and Sri Aurobindo. Mystical Islam, such as Rumi's Sufism also says similar things, also with al-Hallaj.

Of course, the usual adherents of these various traditions have VERY different interpretations of these experiences... and they constantly argue and bicker vehemently (even within the same religion). This has lad to some pretty nasty wars, among other things. But, the mystics and sages and saints of the traditions themselves (y'know, the guys that hang around monasteries and temples sitting on their butts all day meditating?) are in much more agreement with one another, and typically treat too much analyzing or philosophizing of the experiences as... well... stupid: "Think too much."

I would say the differences you see are more a matter of different "levels" of interpretation more than anything else. These kinds of practices and experiences could be studied "scientifically"... but, I don't really see the point. If you want to experience what they do, meditate. Looking at pie charts, graphs, and cross-cultural comparisons is interesting but it won't help you understand what they're talking about. Which, I guess, is a much more "scientific" suggestion to begin with (direct experience).

Oh yes. Science, philosophically speaking, is a particular type of empiricism.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "empiricism", then. :uhyeah:

If we're going by the popular definition of a type of philosophical materialism, then that excludes a lot of disciplines from the "scientific" table --- including psychology, anthropology, linguistics, most types of mathematics, logic, and so forth. If, by "empiricism", you mean direct experience or observation, however... well, that's a bit more broad and inclusive.

Just my thoughts, anyway. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

then, what do you call someone who despises the whole concept of a god, and them that hear him? democrats?

Yeah, let's ignore the fact that most Democrats are devout church-goers.

I think you are mistaking despising the concept of "God" with despising the concept of "State Religion". Heh.

 

[pete]

Yeah, let's ignore the fact that most Democrats are devout church-goers.

awh rats, i knew i shouldn't trust any club that would have me as a member.