Thread: Atheists Experiencing Divine

Yeah, it's obvious. This idea of atheism vs theism distinction in regards to spirituality is something people made up as just another lame argument to fight and discredit atheism. How an atheist's life is gray and purposeless. Not to mention the fact that its foundation lies in generalizations, which both sides dislike if I may add.

We are all humans, with the "same" brains and we all have the potential to feel god, the holy spirit, etc. I doubt that there is religion specific experience, other than the variations in characteristics by which they emerge. The same goes for concepts. What is divine? Well for some it might be baby angels wrapped in white light smiling, Jesus or whatever. For me the image is cheesy, simplistic, aesthetically unpleasing and eventually quite pathetic. But "god" knows what the person feels thinking about concepts like that. It's all relative. I've probably felt god or the holy spirit a thousand times by now, I just didn't have a reason deduce god right after I felt it. Just because I don't "feel the love" of some god for example doesn't mean that I don't "feel it". So the same goes for any notion of divine and one's relation to the subject.

The only difference is in the dimensions on which we operate and eventually experience what could be described as "divine". It's easy to see this. Lets compare what some IDer believes and some generic scientist:

The scientist's view is that the whole universe seems to have begun with the big bang, space, time and matter were created, elementary forces took hold, things went into motion (atoms formed, clumped together, created stars, galaxies, new elements, planets). Where conditions were favourable the elements clumped into molecules which eventually increased in complexity. One that could replicate itself emerged and obviously filled up the place. Through these everchanging molecules a system we call evolution emerged, which basically means that the thing that can survive will. This probably simplistic molecular competition, in millions of years, turned into battle for survival between unbelievably complex reproducing war machines. One of these evolveed a skill in adaptation to the environment and adaptation of the environment for its survival. One thing led to another and here we are thinking of new ways to survive using the power of thought. The inherent nature of our brain that makes this possible now makes us look at existence and spawns our apparently unique self-awareness. So as Carl Sagan said, we are a way for the universe to know itself (by the way isn't this the most awesome story ever?).

If we now compare this to the IDers idea: a "designer" a.k.a. god put his omnipotent 10 foot finger up to an apparently helpless molecule to start everything. It all spins around the human, his soul, free choices and whether he's going to burn in a cave or walk around in the clouds. Then there is an actual purpose that this fulfills for the designer. Moving aside my opinion on the absurdity of such "theories"...

The fact is that they respond to the "deep questions" about life on this level, the level of everyday human experience. For example: things have to have purpose, we had to be created, the creator had to be like us, there is free will because we feel it, existence revolves around emotions, relationships etc.

It's obvious that you don't need to be like that to contemplate or experience reality, existence, death or anything else religions claim to have the authority on. The only difference is the level on which you get to answer your "deep questions" (or more likely ask more deep questions). For example, I don't contemplate about the universe using emotions. Lets face it, neither a snake nor a giant meteor will give a shit whether you die, suffer or both. There are obvious evolutionary reasons for the existence of emotions and I have no reason to believe that they have some objective meaning in the general universe or its existence, as opposed to some christian doctorine.

So there it is. I can experience divine by looking at and contemplating existence. Somebody else does this by contemplating about himself walking around heaven with Jesus.

No doubt many atheists have transcendent experiences. Indeed, one can be an atheist Buddhist or an atheist Taoist, or even an atheist Christian or Jew if one holds those teachings in high regard but does not take the cosmology literally, but even in the absence of any map or method for exploring "the divine," transcendent experiences/states will sometimes occur.

Atheists are also equally subject to the fallacy that befalls fundamentalists of every stripe: the leap from, "I can experience/accomplish x, y, z from viewpoint ø," to "Everyone SHOULD experience/accomplish x, y, z from viewpoint ø ONLY." Whether the subject is morals, culture, governance, mental health or, in this case, transcendent experience, one often hears atheists make the assertion, "x can be achieved without religion" to support the claim, "religion is not necessary." At best, you're refuting only the fundamentalists of any given faith: the only ones making the claim that, "x can be achieved (or achieved properly) only via my viewpoint." At worst, you're joining their ranks, adding to the chorus of, "x can be achieved properly only via my viewpoint."

Whether we're talking about morals, culture, governance, mental health or transcendent experience, there is no right answer. Different individuals will find their footing in these matters, or fail to do so, by many different paths.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to pin this outlook on O'nus or atheists in general, just pointing it out as a common fallacy, and we can already see Bonsay heading in that direction in the first response.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

No doubt many atheists have transcendent experiences. Indeed, one can be an atheist Buddhist or an atheist Taoist, or even an atheist Christian or Jew if one holds those teachings in high regard but does not take the cosmology literally, but even in the absence of any map or method for exploring "the divine," transcendent experiences/states will sometimes occur.

Atheists are also equally subject to the fallacy that befalls fundamentalists of every stripe: the leap from, "I can experience/accomplish x, y, z from viewpoint ø," to "Everyone SHOULD experience/accomplish x, y, z from viewpoint ø ONLY." Whether the subject is morals, culture, governance, mental health or, in this case, transcendent experience, one often hears atheists make the assertion, "x can be achieved without religion" to support the claim, "religion is not necessary." At best, you're refuting only the fundamentalists of any given faith: the only ones making the claim that, "x can be achieved (or achieved properly) only via my viewpoint." At worst, you're joining their ranks, adding to the chorus of, "x can be achieved properly only via my viewpoint."

Whether we're talking about morals, culture, governance, mental health or transcendent experience, there is no right answer. Different individuals will find their footing in these matters, or fail to do so, by many different paths.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to pin this outlook on O'nus or atheists in general, just pointing it out as a common fallacy, and we can already see Bonsay heading in that direction in the first response.

Although it is digressive, do you think that we ought to allow all beliefs to be exercised, regardless of their efficacies?

~

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to pin this outlook on O'nus or atheists in general, just pointing it out as a common fallacy, and we can already see Bonsay heading in that direction in the first response.

In a way I agree with your post. Although I don't see how I am heading in that direction. Ok, I guess the sarcasm and the mocking attitude didn't help and do imply such attitude, but I didn't say that any view is inherently better and I can't remember if I ever did. Beside the mocking episodes, I don't think I've stated how only my view is correct...

What I will say is that I feel that there is a strong probability humans experience certain aspects of reality the same way and that ignoring this aspect while reaping it's benefits is self delusion. I don't know whether abiogenesis took place, nor do I know whether god really did or didn't do his "inteligent design". But since important aspects of our civilization and advancement are based on this scientific view, encouraging it's actual acceptance to a certain degree isn't too much to ask. Not to mention encouraging the refutation of other clearly immoral, useless, deluded beliefs and practices. Although I might hold the opinion that it would be relatively better for the progression of our civilization, I must highlight that as far as I'm concerned you can view whatever from whichever angle you want.

At the end of the day you have to hold a belief whoever you are, because you just can't escape it. Since we are all humans, many issues are probably solvable. And if an issue is a direct result of some "x view", why shouldn't we "go there", as you put it? How bad is it to refute something and claim a certain authority if the problems would be solved? I'm not saying that we have some right or obligation to do it, it's just the way things work.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Although it is digressive, do you think that we ought to allow all beliefs to be exercised, regardless of their efficacies?

~

We don't have much choice in what we "allow" people to believe unless you propose genocide, which is still far from foolproof. In terms of how well belief systems work, those that have survived the centuries and millennia have demonstrated some sort of fitness, whether one wants to chalk it up to efficacy or virulence. All of your major categories of belief--Monotheist, Polytheist, Contemplative, Materialist, and Universalist, for instance--have their strengths in terms of "liberating" or "saving" people, and their vulnerabilities to error and corruption. What worldview will be most effective and how well it will be put to use depends mainly upon individuals.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

We don't have much choice in what we "allow" people to believe unless you propose genocide, which is still far from foolproof. In terms of how well belief systems work, those that have survived the centuries and millennia have demonstrated some sort of fitness, whether one wants to chalk it up to efficacy or virulence. All of your major categories of belief--Monotheist, Polytheist, Contemplative, Materialist, and Universalist, for instance--have their strengths in terms of "liberating" or "saving" people, and their vulnerabilities to error and corruption. What worldview will be most effective and how well it will be put to use depends mainly upon individuals.

You're right, we cannot "allow" or "disallow" beliefs but we can show problems with them.

For example, how many people now zealously follow the Roman or Greek mythology?

How about Miter? Gates of Heaven? Helter Skelter? Nazism?

The point is that there is a type of a evolution of philosophical beliefs; survival of the fittest in regards to propositional thinking.

Now you'd have to ask if you can critically analyze this propositional thinking.

If you are the type to say no, then you ought to allow all beliefs to be potentially held and to be potentially true.

Otherwise, there ought to be a logical approach to belief systems to critically analyze the potential truth and validity of them.

I believe that religion, in the face of naturalism and science, will falter and ought to. To call me a fundamentalist because of that is to ignore the idea that some belief systems ought to be disseminated simply due to their illogical nature (eg. the above mentioned ones).

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

For example, how many people now zealously follow the Roman or Greek mythology?

How about Miter? Gates of Heaven? Helter Skelter? Nazism?

The point is that there is a type of a evolution of philosophical beliefs; survival of the fittest

This far I'm with you--obviously, seeing as I made the same point in my previous post ("those that have survived the centuries and millennia have demonstrated some sort of fitness"), but...

Originally Posted by O'nus

in regards to propositional thinking.

Now you'd have to ask if you can critically analyze this propositional thinking.

If you are the type to say no, then you ought to allow all beliefs to be potentially held and to be potentially true.

Otherwise, there ought to be a logical approach to belief systems to critically analyze the potential truth and validity of them.

...here we part ways. Approaching the symbols, texts, and traditions of religions as true/false history and science is absurd no matter who is doing it, critic or believer. If you critically analyze religion as "propositional thinking," you get nonsense results. All religious teaching is metaphorical vehicle, the tenor(s) of which are ultimately indescribable; in a sense, all language is like this insofar as words are not identical with the objects or concepts to which they refer. Like language, you don't have to understand how religion operates in order to use it, and you may use it well or poorly regardless of how much you understand.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I believe that religion, in the face of naturalism and science, will falter and ought to. To call me a fundamentalist because of that is to ignore the idea that some belief systems ought to be disseminated simply due to their illogical nature (eg. the above mentioned ones).

~

The world's religions have proven quite adaptive over the millennia, and large swaths of the major faiths have already accepted the likes of evolution and the expansion of the physical universe from a singularity. Personally, I was amazed the first time I read Genesis in college that people thought it conflicted with modern science.

Was "disseminated" (i.e. spread far and wide) the word you meant to use in that second sentence? I think you meant basically the opposite, though I would say yes, their illogical nature is precisely why spiritual teachings should be made available. Let logic handle what it's good at; meanwhile, there's this rather illogical experience of being human that needs dealing with, and six billion minds of varied ability and experience who need to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

...here we part ways. Approaching the symbols, texts, and traditions of religions as true/false history and science is absurd no matter who is doing it, critic or believer. If you critically analyze religion as "propositional thinking," you get nonsense results. All religious teaching is metaphorical vehicle, the tenor(s) of which are ultimately indescribable; in a sense, all language is like this insofar as words are not identical with the objects or concepts to which they refer. Like language, you don't have to understand how religion operates in order to use it, and you may use it well or poorly regardless of how much you understand.

You are too quick to lump all of religion to theologian philosophical thinking and say that no religious person thinks that their beliefs are derived from propositional thinking.

Are you truly under the impression that all religious philosophers do not propositionally argue for their religion? Or do you think that those who do claim it, ought not to?

If the latter, you have a lot of re-structuring of natural theology.

The world's religions have proven quite adaptive over the millennia, and large swaths of the major faiths have already accepted the likes of evolution and the expansion of the physical universe from a singularity. Personally, I was amazed the first time I read Genesis in college that people thought it conflicted with modern science.

Of course they want to think it is suited to it! There are many that want to show that the bible is adaptable. This doesn't mean that it is true.

For example, no Christian will be able to prove that Adam and Eve is real in the face of the insurmountable evidence against the possibility.

Was "disseminated" (i.e. spread far and wide) the word you meant to use in that second sentence? I think you meant basically the opposite, though I would say yes, their illogical nature is precisely why spiritual teachings should be made available. Let logic handle what it's good at; meanwhile, there's this rather illogical experience of being human that needs dealing with, and six billion minds of varied ability and experience who need to deal with it.

What I meant by disseminated was that the religious ideals be examined in critical detailed (spread far and wide, and then analyzed explicitly).

In addition, I understand that there is a sense of Foucaultian "unreason" that we ought to cherish.

However, as someone who works in the field of psychology, do you really think that I am going to say that "un-thinking" and "illogical beliefs" are beneficial?

I like to reference Charles Manson. He did not kill anyone himself but got people killed with his beliefs (perhaps he arguable did kill someone, but regardless, he got many others to kill due to his beliefs).

What of many other consequences of illogical beliefs? Ought we just "experience" them and wash out the blood with more water?

No. I won't. Maybe you are content with letting religious fundamentalism indoctrinate people but when it comes to experiencing the divine, a profound purpose in life, a sense of meaning in this world, I can still attain this as an Atheist, a Humanist, and an existentialist.

It is with death and death alone. All other imaginary concepts are man-made. Does that sound too logically positive for you?

~

I'm with Taosaur on this.

Also O'nus your OP is far too rhetorical. I would think it is best to research what religiously and spiritually constitutes for a Divine experience instead of simply playing with words.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are too quick to lump all of religion to theologian philosophical thinking and say that no religious person thinks that their beliefs are derived from propositional thinking.

Are you truly under the impression that all religious philosophers do not propositionally argue for their religion? Or do you think that those who do claim it, ought not to?

If the latter, you have a lot of re-structuring of natural theology.

Perhaps some points got buried in my last post:

...here we part ways. Approaching the symbols, texts, and traditions of religions as true/false history and science is absurd no matter who is doing it, critic or believer. If you critically analyze religion as "propositional thinking," you get nonsense results. All religious teaching is metaphorical vehicle, the tenor(s) of which are ultimately indescribable; in a sense, all language is like this insofar as words are not identical with the objects or concepts to which they refer. Like language, you don't have to understand how religion operates in order to use it, and you may use it well or poorly regardless of how much you understand.

I acknowledge that the majority of religious persons are unsophisticated believers of one stripe or another. In fact, it's the essence of religion: someone with an understanding that lets them be comfortable in their own skin trying to convey that view to someone who does not understand. Many of the unsophisticates do hang on to the notion that their narratives are exclusively true, factual statements about the physical universe, but plenty also acknowledge their own ignorance and the fundamental mystery of these subjects, and suspect or believe outright that other faiths address the same mysteries. The same can be said of theologians; while some hew to exclusivity and proselytism above all else, more and more take an interfaith approach.

The primary selection pressure on the world's religions comes not from science, but from each other. Along with growing knowledge and secularity in government and education, this pressure has been driving deeper investigations, internal and external, of what religion is and what it's for.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course they want to think it is suited to it! There are many that want to show that the bible is adaptable. This doesn't mean that it is true.

For example, no Christian will be able to prove that Adam and Eve is real in the face of the insurmountable evidence against the possibility.

If they even try, they're doing it wrong. Religious truth =/= historical fact.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What I meant by disseminated was that the religious ideals be examined in critical detailed (spread far and wide, and then analyzed explicitly).

In addition, I understand that there is a sense of Foucaultian "unreason" that we ought to cherish.

However, as someone who works in the field of psychology, do you really think that I am going to say that "un-thinking" and "illogical beliefs" are beneficial?

While one can hold "illogical" religious (or nonreligious) beliefs, in the sense that they are connected by poor logic, the methodology of adopting religious beliefs is not illogical but a-logical; applying logic to healthy religious beliefs yields few if any usable results. Where logic is used in spiritual practice, it is often used to erase itself: to demonstrate the futility of demanding logic from the non-dual and eternal.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I like to reference Charles Manson. He did not kill anyone himself but got people killed with his beliefs (perhaps he arguable did kill someone, but regardless, he got many others to kill due to his beliefs).

What of many other consequences of illogical beliefs? Ought we just "experience" them and wash out the blood with more water?

We've already talked about evolutionary fitness as it applies to worldviews. Has Manson's worldview proven itself even to the extent of Scientology, much less the Abrahamic faiths or Buddhism? Would you use a rabid dog as an example in a debate over training methods?

Originally Posted by O'nus

No. I won't. Maybe you are content with letting religious fundamentalism indoctrinate people but when it comes to experiencing the divine, a profound purpose in life, a sense of meaning in this world, I can still attain this as an Atheist, a Humanist, and an existentialist.

It is with death and death alone. All other imaginary concepts are man-made. Does that sound too logically positive for you?

~

We've both stated our opposition to fundamentalism probably hundreds of times all over this forum; how is it relevant to this discussion? You're just repeating the two fallacies I've been pointing out here:

1) Call it a "synecdochal strawman fallacy," you're trying to apply criticisms of Fundamentalism (on which we agree) to religion as a whole.

2) "There can be only one." In the same breath that you declare common ground with religious/spiritual traditions, you assert in fundamentalist fashion that yours alone is the right and true Way.

This type of argument reduces your position to one more voice in an internecine fundamentalist squabble, with little relevance to religion/humanity as a whole. You can hardly make the case that fundamentalism's existence alone makes religion untenable, when you've acknowledged numerous times throughout this thread that fundamentalism is not confined to, much less identical with, religion.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Perhaps some points got buried in my last post:

Your points are still null, to me at least.

You may believe that religious beliefs cannot be propositionally thought out, but there are many religious philosophers who would beg to differ. You may think that it does not need logic to be used, but there are many that would fervently argue otherwise, and have.

I acknowledge that the majority of religious persons are unsophisticated believers of one stripe or another. In fact, it's the essence of religion: someone with an understanding that lets them be comfortable in their own skin trying to convey that view to someone who does not understand. Many of the unsophisticates do hang on to the notion that their narratives are exclusively true, factual statements about the physical universe, but plenty also acknowledge their own ignorance and the fundamental mystery of these subjects, and suspect or believe outright that other faiths address the same mysteries. The same can be said of theologians; while some hew to exclusivity and proselytism above all else, more and more take an interfaith approach.

The primary selection pressure on the world's religions comes not from science, but from each other. Along with growing knowledge and secularity in government and education, this pressure has been driving deeper investigations, internal and external, of what religion is and what it's for.

If they even try, they're doing it wrong. Religious truth =/= historical fact.

Of course. How are you not seeing my point?

They still try to do it and try to adapt their beliefs to new society truths/facts.

While one can hold "illogical" religious (or nonreligious) beliefs, in the sense that they are connected by poor logic, the methodology of adopting religious beliefs is not illogical but a-logical; applying logic to healthy religious beliefs yields few if any usable results. Where logic is used in spiritual practice, it is often used to erase itself: to demonstrate the futility of demanding logic from the non-dual and eternal.

We've already talked about evolutionary fitness as it applies to worldviews. Has Manson's worldview proven itself even to the extent of Scientology, much less the Abrahamic faiths or Buddhism? Would you use a rabid dog as an example in a debate over training methods?

My point was simply that beliefs can be destructive, especially if they are illogical. Now imagine that if the entire world continued to be a Feudal society. It would be entirely different and bound on illogical propositions.

What approach do you suggest to take to keep the most common belief system under scrutiny? Ought we not question everything?

I am also the advocate for questioning and scrutinizing the government, science, and all other things in general.

We've both stated our opposition to fundamentalism probably hundreds of times all over this forum; how is it relevant to this discussion? You're just repeating the two fallacies I've been pointing out here:

1) Call it a "synecdochal strawman fallacy," you're trying to apply criticisms of Fundamentalism (on which we agree) to religion as a whole.

No.. This clearly exposes the problem here..

I am just saying that we ought to keep the most common belief systems under scrutiny. I'll save my other point for a moment.

2) "There can be only one." In the same breath that you declare common ground with religious/spiritual traditions, you assert in fundamentalist fashion that yours alone is the right and true Way.

And here it is. Let me clarify something for you;

I do not believe my belief system ought to be everyones; it already is.

I am a humanist. Every religious belief or ideal is already a form of humanism. If I were to argue anything, it would be to focus more upon that Humanist side of things. It ought to take priority as even the most religious zealot ought to know that they cannot be 100% certain of God.

Of course, that is arguable.. but that is my point. All people are quintessentially humanist regardless. I would say that we ought to prioritize, or only follow, Humanism.

Is that fundamentalism, or deconstruction?

This type of argument reduces your position to one more voice in an internecine fundamentalist squabble, with little relevance to religion/humanity as a whole. You can hardly make the case that fundamentalism's existence alone makes religion untenable, when you've acknowledged numerous times throughout this thread that fundamentalism is not confined to, much less identical with, religion.

Yeah this is not my point at all, this is digressive.

I ought to re-state that, as a Humanist and an implicit Atheist, I can still experience divine.

I do not mean by the very act of dying but by the idea.

When I go to the dentist, have to take medication, go to the bathroom, out of breath, etc. all these things remind me of how weak the body can be and how easy it is to die. That feeling of death is a divine feeling that encourages a fulfilling life.

~