Beliefs on God, the Universe, and Everything

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Ok, just for the sake of injecting it into the discussion....

How do you explain away the experiences some people have claimed to had when experiencing a "near death experience", as well as those who can claim to hear the whispers from beyond?

I don't see how people know enough about death to conclude they got close to it. I wouldn't try to explain a situation to anyone, because it would hold no weight. It shouldn't. Personal experiences are subjective. (which is why I would be reluctant to conclude it was anything supernatural in the first place.)

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

So we're on the same page.

So you believe humans are nothing more than their physical form, then, just as YMH contended?

We explain hallucinations in the same way we explain how people hear and see things (like ghosts or goblins) that aren't actually there. The brain can play tricks on people. I mean, I can certainly claim I see a unicorn lounging around in my room, but my claim doesn't mean anything.

[YomMamasHouse]

Ok, just for the sake of injecting it into the discussion....

How do you explain away the experiences some people have claimed to had when experiencing a "near death experience"

Likely to be chemical reactions occurring as a result of hypoxia in the brain. A lot of people think that the brain stops working altogether immediately, but that is not correct.

as well as those who can claim to hear the whispers from beyond?

Crazy, or whatever politically correct term you want to insert.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by YMH

suspect we exist in an entirely physical sense. The more than your body thing is without argument impossible to test at the moment.

I wouldn't state that I know with 100% certainty that we are purely physical in nature, but not being disproved in no way means proved.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy's actual post responding to YMH

So we're on the same page, I specifically am moving away from what can or can not be proved, because I see little point that discussion from either perspective. That's why I asked what people believe themselves.

Originally Posted by uBeR's modified version of Scuzzy's post

So we're on the same page.

Originally Posted by uBeR

So you believe humans are nothing more than their physical form, then, just as YMH contended?

You've modified my quote, I used a comma, not a period, which alters the meaning significantly. I'm clearly trying to make sure that YMH and I am on the same page that I was looking for personal beliefs, not what people believe they can prove. If you want to quote me, please quote the entire text within context, ok?

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

Sorry, yes, I actually see what you were saying now. The grammar was so horrible that it was hard for me to gather what you were trying to say, which is why I was inquiring. When I first read, "So we're on the same page," it appeared to me to mean, "OK, yes, we're on the same page." I see now that the comment was made as a clarification rather than an agreement. I'm glad that is now cleared up.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Sorry, yes, I actually see what you were saying now. The grammar was so horrible that it was hard for me to gather what you were trying to say, which is why I was inquiring. When I first read, "So we're on the same page," it appeared to me to mean, "OK, yes, we're on the same page." I see now that the comment was made as a clarification rather than an agreement. I'm glad that is now cleared up.

I have a tendency to "write" how I talk in a real business world sense. It's fairly often that people use the phrase, "Hey, so we're on the same page here's what I'm thinking...." Or, "So we're on the same page, (outline the summary of the situation here), correct?" It's probably a generational/age/experience thing. I'm glad we've cleared up your confusion, you learn something new every day.

Scuzzy

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by Iggy

How do you explain away the experiences some people have claimed to had when experiencing a "near death experience", as well as those who can claim to hear the whispers from beyond?

(Note, I actually count myself in the latter group.)

I understand that no "presentable" proof can be given to support these events, but were we, for an experiment, put one of you into that situation(no, I'm not suggesting we do that).... and then you claimed to have a change in beliefs.... how would you support your thinking to other non-believers?

I would assert that a LOT of both experiences consists of a lot of what the human brain does to provide comfort. The near-death experience lot is obviously comforted by a strong feeling that "this isn't the end, it's just unpleasant" and the "whispers from beyond" crowd is comforted by the fact that there is something beyond.

[FrenchToast]

Or you're just having auditory hallucinations, which are a fairly common thing. You might just have them more vividly, or perhaps you read something more into them. The brain is fantastically flawed and does all sorts of shit it shouldn't. It doesn't have meaning though.

[GenghisTron]

It's funny, but if you look at the history of various philosophies in time, you can judge the collective arrogance of the period (yes I'm talking about religion). For instance, you had the majority of the people at the time believing in geocentrism, and that changed to heliocentrism. People were SHOCKED that the Earth (and by extension, themselves) wasn't the center of everything. You can also see this with the traditional form of religion. Humans are merely organic beings, our genetic structure is over 90% similar to the most simple living beings. But according to theists we're more special. Sure, we're far more advanced and more intelligent than any other living being on our planet, but does that mean when we die we go to a special place? It's kind of ridiculous. The arrogance is self-evident. That's really the summation of my thoughts on traditional religion, it doesn't really need to go much further than that. However, that's not to say there isn't perhaps some divine creator, but just have a really hard time buying into typical judeo-christian theism, there's just so many conflictions, conflations and contradictions. To me, 'the creator' could be the force that supposedly sparked the big bang, or something like that. I don't think there's some magical guy in the sky like Santa.

[FrenchToast]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

Sure, we're far more advanced

In what sense?

I don't think there's some magical guy in the sky like Santa.

I highly doubt that most theists do either. In fact, I think most religious people have abandoned the idea of a literal white-bearded man living in the sky, but you'd know that if you stopped to listen to them.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

In what sense?

Our intellect, our instincts, etc.

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

I highly doubt that most theists do either. In fact, I think most religious people have abandoned the idea of a literal white-bearded man living in the sky, but you'd know that if you stopped to listen to them.

I do listen to them, I was making an obvious exaggeration. It was more of a reference to 'God's' purported omnipotence, and not literally a fat bearded man.

[GenghisTron]

However, that's also to not to say that man is entirely rational, because that's not the case either. There's still plenty of things that we rely completely on natural instincts for, and that we THINK we have control over.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

I highly doubt that most theists do either. In fact, I think most religious people have abandoned the idea of a literal white-bearded man living in the sky, but you'd know that if you stopped to listen to them.

You may be giving these people too much credit. I'd say there's still a lot of people believing in a male God in the human form sitting up in Heaven.

[FrenchToast]

Perhaps I'm an optimist.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Etzell

I would assert that a LOT of both experiences consists of a lot of what the human brain does to provide comfort. The near-death experience lot is obviously comforted by a strong feeling that "this isn't the end, it's just unpleasant" and the "whispers from beyond" crowd is comforted by the fact that there is something beyond.

Yes, but this is the point I was trying to make. As someone who hasn't had the experience, you naturally can make that arguement. Are you wrong? In some cases, perhapse. In my particular case, I assert and attest to it being more than that. I will attempt to explain:

I have had dreams of Rose(my late wife). Some have been contacts, while others were simply dreams. I can't prove that, but I will say that I can tell the difference between the two experiences. As Mr. Spock told Dr. McCoy, "You wish me to explain how it feels to be dead?"
"Well, yes, Spock, you truly have been where no man has gone before."
"I'm sorry Doctor, it would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame of reference."
"You mean that in order for us to discuss death, I would have to die first?"
"Yes."


It's a bit like saying, "Don't put your arm into that fire, it will hurt." A similar arguement can be said of that. Until you personally have the experience, how do you really know? Of course in this example, you can prove it without doing too much damage. Still, would you really want to?

[YomMamasHouse]

How does one distinguish a spiritual contact from an illusion? We know that the imperfect way in which memories are encoded combined with subconscious activities that go on allow for illusions without any leap of faith needed, but to say one has had a contact requires a lot of unexplained gaps to be filled by faith.

Which explanation do you regard as more parsimonious?

[Iggy]

Again, until you have the experience, you can't truly relate. Which is why I'm not saying that you should take mine, or anyone elses word for it. Simply agree to disagree.

I say it's true, because I've had it happen to me. You say it's false, because there is no tangible proof. I accept your disbelief. Can you accept the fact that I believe it is so, despite a lack of evidence?

[FrenchToast]

Yes, I don't think anyone is debating that you believe it is true.

[uBeR]

That's a fairly poor analogy. If someone tells me not to put hand over the fire because it will burn me if I do, I don't need to put my hand over the fire to actually realize that my hand will burn if I do. Philosophers of logic call that inductive reasoning.

More to point, though, as FrenchToast points out, basically no one believes that what you see or hear is not believed to be true by you. I'm sure the people who see ghosts, goblins, UFOs, or unicorns also believe quite strongly that their sensory perception is not deceiving them. Similarly, the person who thought he saw his friend from across the room quickly realizes he was mistaken upon moving closer, or the person who thought they heard the telephone quickly realizes it was the television. What this demonstrates is that perception can deceive us, even when we think we know what we're hearing or seeing. That's essentially an argument for epistemic skepticism.

To be sure, your arguments are in no way novel. As William James, the great psychologist of religious experiences, points out, those who have mystical experiences (like hearing whispers from dead people) say the experience "defies expression, that no adequate report of the contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others." Thus, the mystics claims his experience is ineffable, just as the person who claims to have seen the UFO or be abducted by aliens says we had to "see it to believe it." But do we simply accept all arguments of UFOs and alien abductions merely because someone else strongly believes they've experienced them? It would be absolutely absurd to do that.

We need not to assume any mystical experience ever happened to explain the experiences people claim they've had. Thus, we're left with no reason to accept the mystical, the supernatural, etc., and are left back exactly where we started--with no evidence to support belief.

Edit: see below.

[FrenchToast]

Originally Posted by uBeR

More to point, though, as FrenchToast points out, basically no one believes that what you see or hear is believed to be true by you.

Actually, the exact opposite.