God, How Does He Feel To You?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Yah, my awe and wonder is gone. Today -->Close my eyes, part my lips slightly, inhale slowly, exhale and think what the hell am I doing? :)

I try not to get that far into thinking...all it leads to is head aches and heart aches.

[_ludwigm]

I've been a Latter Day Saint from the day I was born.

And what were your ancestors prior to 1830?

Potentially untrustworthy people.







.

[_Some Schmo]

God feels like every other fantasy ever created: an interesting story, but not something to get too excited about... well, any more than, say, Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

I just rewatched The Mothman Prophecies last night, and it's a very fun movie. It startles you in parts, and it's an interesting story. However, they'd have you believe it's based on a true story, and well, obviously, that's just not the case given its supernatural theme. I can enjoy the concept of the movie without buying into any of its truth claims. Although thinking it really happened might make it a more powerful experience to watch, that power doesn't give the story any added credibility. In a way, those claims actually diminish the movie's quality.

I understand your point, Schmo. I think we've discussed spiritual experiences before. I can't recall precisely what you may have stated at the time that differed from the same sentiments seen above. Ever have anything you'd call numinous -- something so outside the norm that it's almost indescribable?

Are you asking if I've ever been moved in a way that could be considered significant? If so, then yes, of course. I'm human just like everyone else. The only difference between me and someone who chalks those experiences up to a god (or something supernatural) is that I understand it begins and ends in my own mind. People tend to overcomplicate fairly simple things, for a variety of reasons, but mostly to support the ideas they cherish or in which they've invested.

The problem with framing it as something "indescribable" is that that says more about a person's ability to articulate their experience than it says about the supposed uniqueness of the experience. Just because a feeling is powerful, people want to attribute it to something external, and that's just silly fantasy stuff. What makes it most silly is that it diminishes the power of the human mind. It’s also problematic because it takes control away from yourself and gives it to an imagined external something.

It's sad (and ironic, incidentally) how people describe their experience as though they can make informed observations about it with just the information contained within the boundaries of their own consciousness. The fact is that the majority of experience is hidden within the subconscious, and largely informed by emotional states (and the protection thereof).

People have so many blind spots, it's ridiculous. That anyone claims knowledge of anything is an utter joke. The moment someone says they know this or that of a non-empirical nature, they lose all credibility. They're usually just another dumbass who wants people to think they're somehow special (likely because they don't feel special in and of themselves). The sooner a person lets go of what they think they know, the sooner they can move to true enlightenment. For most, that's too uncomfortable a proposition. They'd rather exist in their ignorance. It's just easier that way.

The god fantasy isn't just for conscious comfort. I suspect it's mostly used for unconscious comfort.

And I recognize I could be wrong about anything I’ve ever thought or written. So, my philosophy is to default to the most likely explanations for things, based on whatever observable data I have at my disposal (I regularly change my mind). But there’s no need for a god to explain things when there are plenty of natural explanations.

[_Moniker]

Are you asking if I've ever been moved in a way that could be considered significant? If so, then yes, of course. I'm human just like everyone else. The only difference between me and someone who chalks those experiences up to a god (or something supernatural) is that I understand it begins and ends in my own mind. People tend to overcomplicate fairly simple things, for a variety of reasons, but mostly to support the ideas they cherish or in which they've invested.

The problem with framing it as something "indescribable" is that that says more about a person's ability to articulate their experience than it says about the supposed uniqueness of the experience. Just because a feeling is powerful, people want to attribute it to something external, and that's just silly fantasy stuff. What makes it most silly is that it diminishes the power of the human mind. It’s also problematic because it takes control away from yourself and gives it to an imagined external something.

It's sad (and ironic, incidentally) how people describe their experience as though they can make informed observations about it with just the information contained within the boundaries of their own consciousness. The fact is that the majority of experience is hidden within the subconscious, and largely informed by emotional states (and the protection thereof).

People have so many blind spots, it's ridiculous. That anyone claims knowledge of anything is an utter joke. The moment someone says they know this or that of a non-empirical nature, they lose all credibility. They're usually just another dumbass who wants people to think they're somehow special (likely because they don't feel special in and of themselves). The sooner a person lets go of what they think they know, the sooner they can move to true enlightenment. For most, that's too uncomfortable a proposition. They'd rather exist in their ignorance. It's just easier that way.

The god fantasy isn't just for conscious comfort. I suspect it's mostly used for unconscious comfort.

And I recognize I could be wrong about anything I’ve ever thought or written. So, my philosophy is to default to the most likely explanations for things, based on whatever observable data I have at my disposal (I regularly change my mind). But there’s no need for a god to explain things when there are plenty of natural explanations.

Schmo, I agree with you for the most part. I don't think these experiences point to anything other than our minds. I also think it's not a plus when I find myself incapable of describing something -- my lack of ability to articulate is a definite drawback. I just asked you with that wording because often times those that have these experiences do have problems describing them. There are a number of things I've experienced in my life that I can't adequately describe, and yet, that's just because, perhaps, my language usage is limited.

You remind me a bit of JAK tonight. :) I'm not suggesting numinous experiences in any way, shape, or form point to a deity. I hope you aren't reading my comments in that way. If you're not then I'm reading more into your comments than I should! :)

[_dartagnan]

The only difference between me and someone who chalks those experiences up to a god (or something supernatural) is that I understand it begins and ends in my own mind.

That is a myth among atheists actually, and it depends on the experience. Not all experiences can be explained to the individual naturally. Of course there is always an atheist nearby ready to tell him that it is all in his head, but the atheist doesn't "know" this, he assumes this.

As you said: "That anyone claims knowledge of anything is an utter joke"

Do we actually know how many scientists are theists? Not "religious" people in particular, but scientific minded people who believe the evidence in the universe supports the idea that a deity exists.

Einstein was one among many prominent scientists who accept the existence of God.

People tend to overcomplicate fairly simple things, for a variety of reasons, but mostly to support the ideas they cherish or in which they've invested.

There is nothing simple about supernatural perceptions that cannot be explained naturally. You can chalk it up as a natural event for dismissive purposes, but then again, you don't really "know" what you're talking about (That anyone claims knowledge of anything is an utter joke)

You merely assume that since there are some religious fanatics who base their stupidity on "feelings," that this pretty much sums up all theism.

There’s no need for a god to explain things when there are plenty of natural explanations for things.

Oh really? Can you explain why the natural laws of the universe are what they are? Scientists can't. Do you understand the anthropic principle and what its implicatiosn are? Do you know what common value is shared by all the universal constants? If any of them were changed in the slightest degree, human life would not be possible. The universe is fine-tuned for our existence. God can explain plenty that natural science cannot. Some of the greatest minds like Hawking and Einstein have admitted this (before you go calling me a moron). Only the recent wave of bigoted atheists like Dawkins are the ones having a hard time with it. But I can see why he has gained some devout followers from this forum.

[_Jersey Girl]

Do we actually know how many scientists are theists? Not "religious" people in particular, but scientific minded people who believe the evidence in the universe supports the idea that a deity exists.

We likely could never know that. It wouldn't/couldn't come up in their professional writing.

[_dartagnan]

There have been polls taken.

From what I hear on this forum from the leading atheists, you'd expect only 10% of the scientific community to be theistic.

[_Jersey Girl]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

There are more...

[_Jersey Girl]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

There are more...

[_dartagnan]

A 1916 survey showed 40% of scientists did not believe in a personal God who answers prayers. This survey was repeated in 1997 and that number went up slightly to 45%. But this question asked for belief in a personal God. How many more would have said they believe in a God that doesn't interact with our daily lives? I know Einstein was one. As McGrath notes, "Dawkins is forced to contend with the highly awkward fact that his view that the natural sciences are an intellectual superhighway to atheism is rejected by most scientists, irrespective of their religious views."

Just to give you an idea how much of a ass Dawkins really is, when Freeman Dyson won a Nobel Prize for his work in quantum electrodynamics and gave an acceptance speech celebrating the achievements of religion (and criticizing its downside), Dawkins viewed this as an act of apostasy and betrayal, offering "an endorsement of religion by one of the world's most distinguished physicists." Then when Dyson later said he was a Christian who wasn't interested in the dogma of the Trinity, Dawkins said that this meant he wasn't a real Christian! He accused Dyson of lying about being a Christian: "Isn't that just what an atheistic scientist would say, if he wanted to sound Christian?"

Amazing.