Knowledge not the same as religious experience

Brianrrs37

your ignorance is showing...

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Our human race is known to feel that something is missing until we know an estranged mother or father. Most call such effort a desire to "know". When they finally meet, they don't conduct one of these fact-based studies many want so much. Many fall into each others arms KNOWING there is a quality or link which simply EXISTS, and neither has to quanitify it first.

Is this a gene response? Can you describe that kind of desire using scientific principles? I would be interested to hear a fact based description of why someone, not having any such predecessor connection with that person, would nevertheless intensely desire that connection, and will jump tall buildings to make it. Why not look for such connection somewhere ELSE? It would be far easier in many cases.

We could wipe off the many things a parent does by saying it is "self-interest". But can we wipe off the sacrifice may parents make without any return, a poor return, or with a hugely delayed return?

I would be interested in a fact and scientific based analysis as to how we measure this love of a parent? Is it the number of meals they cook? Or, is there another mysterious way in which we just Know that we are loved, and we don't need a fact based measure?

My point is we also fundamentally desire to know our spiritual parent, our Maker, but we might not have grown up with an experience of the quality of parental love which tells us something about the quality of this love between creator and created. One is a prototype of the other. Or, having blunted our sensitivities, we may have to actually SEEK such a connection.

Not having experienced this quality of love in our life, we do not so easily believe that the love of our Maker exits. If we have been taught to have to have a measuring stick or scientific study to back it up, we may well forever feel a divisive gap. Fortunately, God reaches out toward us as a parent; sometime, somewhere. Or, sometime, somewhere, we may decide to reach out.
Think about the missing link or inherent loss if we want a facts based experience or a measuring stick. We may reject the parental offer when it comes, by not letting down all those constructed defences and simply accept the experience.

Qantas Flight 72 from Singapore to Perth on 7 October 2008 nose-dived 650 feet (200 m) in about 20 seconds, and then 400 feet (120 m) in about 16 seconds Most passengers interviewed reported they had prayed. They did not ask for a professor's study first. They instinctively knew there is a concerned Maker. The only difficulty having such knowledge is that we have to behave accordingly, under scrutiny; and that takes courage and persistence. It is way easier to deny the existence of God. Then no-one cares.

JOEE2 writes: "I feel the same kind of "religous" transcendent emotions than I did when I was a born again christian"

And:

"I am atheist, humanist, and apostate after a lifetime of committed study and a love of Christianity.."

Am I the only one here wondering how, exactly, one becomes "unborn" again?

At age 14, they begin a four-year course known as seminary. In most places in the world this involves before-school classes
-----------------------------------

Except in the Mormon theocracy that is Utah.

There the Church made sweet deals with the local school boards to have a "seminary" adjacent to middle and high schools and "seminary" is one of the subject of the schools curriculum. The classes are throughout the day.

When my Utah History teacher checked the "seminary" rolls and found out I didn't attend, she gave me a B+ even though my test scores were above 96%. When confronted, her reply was that "gentile" children couldn't possibly know Church (Utah) history without attending "seminary"

QUOTE:"If there is something about scriptures you would like clarification on. Put it on the table."

The FACTS, you don't want to face are already on the table.

The earth was not made in 6 days. Human adults don't pop out of dirt. The sun and moon are separate sources of light. There is no such thing as a virgin birth. Human flesh does not survive three days of death.

Superman doesn't fly around NYC and Harry Potter does not fly around on a broom.

Thoughts require a material process. Thus there is no such thing as non-material brain with no brain, with no cerebellum, with no neurons, with magical super powers.

When you understand why you reject other people god claims, you will understand why I reject yours as well. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god claim than you do.

These so-called educated christians in American are dancing as fast as they can to limit the damage from this survey.

Ignorant people believe in the gods. This survey proves it. These people are ignorant, they believe in gods.

Is this correlation of ignorance and faith to tell us anything?

Keep dancing as fast as you can, christians, muslims, whatever ... the funny party is how much unbelief the intelligent believer has to maintain in order to believe this nonsense.

One day, religion will fade into our barbaric past, and future generations will wonder why we, who consider ourselves modern, could still believe in this nonsense, could still treat it as if it were true.

Brianrrs37

You're funny.
Misinformed, but funny.

If there is something about scriptures you would like clarification on. Put it on the table.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I have no issue with other people's religious or spiritual experiences, just as I have no issue with what sort of music moves them the most. As with any such internal experience, its value can only be judged by the one who experiences it.

The problem is when that experience becomes a means by which another person attempts to force his vision of reality on me or anyone else. That's when someone's inner experience morphs into "religion." Once religion enters the picture, I feel free to analyze, take apart, mock, etc. any aspect of that religion. Whatever is appropriate at the time.

Anyone who has had anything like a spiritual experience should be able to respect the right of every other individual to have their own spiritual experience or none. To do otherwise is to disrespect one's own experience. In other words, it's hypocritical.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of hypocrites out there, and a lot of them are religious. Many of them feel no need to know much about their supposed religion. Their only "experience" is one of feeling like they have been given the Answers (or salvation or whatever) and that everyone who doesn't have the exact same answers is pitiful, wrong, evil or foolish.

As should be obvious by now, I don't have much respect for such people.

One could say the same thing about smoking crack.

"Conclusion: just knowing about something isn't the same thing as experiencing it"

So what did u experience? u didnt say? Have u seen god? Heard him, spoken to him? what did he sound like, look like? what is this experience? Did u actaully see/hear him or did u think u did?

These "facts" u seemingly deride, are the basis of reasonaned knowledge.

The "fact" is Joseph Smith was a womanizing charlatan and your religion is nothing but Chrisianity parsed for stupid Americans who couldn't care less about "facts".

The knowledge is superfluous to the religious experience. As has been shown across nations, peoples, and times: people have religious experiences and then religions form around them. The forms, the rituals, the community would not exist without the religious experience happening first. In fact, the religious forms exist merely to propagate the religious experience - to induce it. Any study of comparative religion will show you the remarkable similarities between the religious experience across different cultures. And yes, some substances can help induce (something like) it. That does not mean that it is not real, valid, or useful as an experience.

Think about the Zen Masters. They purposefully avoided stating knowledge about their experiences - as soon as they did they recognized it as illusion and not the experience itself. Part of the reason for zen was to avoid the sectarian bickering amongst the various schools of buddhism at the time. They saw the uselessness of that bickering, and saw how it hindered them in their ultimate goal: the experience. But they still were able to set up a way to induce that experience, and were able to induce this experience repeatably, and were pretty successful at it. Other religions have been successful at it, too. As long as the desire for this experience is present, religions will remain.

The knowledge comes after it - after being overtaken by this experience, one struggles to understand it. Attempts are made to see what caused it, and what can cause it again. What was it? What did it mean? What caused it? This is where the differentiation into various religions occurs.

Therefore it is not a false argument. The argument is about what weight and perspective we should give these results, not about the results themselves. Who cares about the knowledge when the knowledge is only a tool to the goal of religious experience? The practice and experience of religion is what is important, not what we know about it.

Uh, sorry for the rambling, but I hope you get my point.

QUOTE:"Hence, the difference between knowledge of the bible, and understanding it."

How much of a comic book do you have to read before you know it is a comic book?

I understand the bible for what it is. A spin off of an older religion, nothing more.

I also know that the moon reflects the sunlight. I also know that the bible depicts the sun and moon as separate sources of light, which is not true.

When you say "understand" what you really mean is, just see it my way and everything will be ok.

I can't "see it your way" because there are too many logical and scientific and even moral inconsistencies in that book.

I'd suggest you place a copy of Harry Potter next you your bible and swap reading page for page. Every time you get to a fantastic claim in either book highlight it in yellow Sharpe.

I assure you if you do this you will eventually see that there is no difference between the books other than one being accepted as the fiction it is while the other is not accepted for the fiction it is.

Knowledge is not obtained by assuming a naked assertion as a starting point. Knowledge is obtained by the very mundane and gritty act of kicking the tires and repeating the process and being unafraid of what the outcome is.

Any unwillingness to open a claim up to scrutiny is a sure sign of insecurity.

I can appreciate the illusions of Penn and Teller without literally believing the woman was sawed in half.

I can also find morals in Harry Potter and Star Wars without literally believing that little boys can fly around on brooms or "the force".

Placebos can often feel appealing and real but still does not constitute reality.

Just like the placebo belief that drinking rum in cold weather will make you warm. Science says drinking any kind of alcohol in cold weather can be and often is very dangerous.

"religious experience" is nothing more than a person saying they like what they believe. It is nothing more than the excuse used to socialize. "Others believe it and it sounds good and I have a good time believing it, so therefor it is true."

People once believed that sacrificing other humans was a "religious experience", but all that false belief did was get people killed.

If I told you jumping off a building without a bungie or parachute is a good experience would you do it? Just because one can believe something doesn't constitute evidence.

A history of claims only makes a history of claims, otherwise the earth would really be flat merely because humans once had a history of claiming it was flat.

QUOTE:""Conclusion: just knowing about something isn't the same thing as experiencing it."

Agreed. I know the rules of the NFL but I don't know what it is like to play.

HOWEVER, just because I cant build a car engine, and only know how to drive a car, does not mean my car is run by invisible pixies.

You know that claims of the Egyptian sun god Ra, but you have never experienced their "religious experiences". I am quite sure they believed that the sun was a thinking being just as much as anyone today "experiences" their god or gods. That still doesn't constitute evidence of an invisible brain with no body or brain or neurons or cerebellum.

I would say people merely like what they believe so they believe it, just like the Egyptians like believing the sun was a god, even though we now know it isn't.

Mt Otterson misses the point; deliberately I suspect. The power of this survey is that it exposes the oft cited theist's defence of superior knowledge. It runs along the lines of, "You atheists do not have the right to critique our faith since you do not have sufficient knowledge of it." Au contraire mon frere. Otterson's shifting of the goalposts to, "You don't have the right _kind_ of knowledge" is mere weasel words and typical theological contortionism. Oh well, yet another baseless, religious lie bites the dust in the face of the remorseless march of cold, hard, unforgiving evidence. No wonder it's called 'faith'.

Knowledge most certainly is not the same as "religious experience". I agree.

Ever been to a Halloween party? Ever set up the olive bowl covered so people couldn't see what was in it, and then you told them they were eyeballs?

Our senses can often be fooled. Much like a phantom pain an amputee may feel after losing a leg and they swear they can still feel their foot.

The "experience" may feel real but does not mean it is real. Knowledge is not based on assuming before testing, but should be based on testing.

People high on acid and pot can also have "experiences" that feel real, but are nothing more than a product of twisted brain activity because of the drug.

Our brains far too often fill in gaps with superstitious answers when something feels good rather than test to be sure what we "experience" is real.

Knowledge without testing is not knowledge, but wishful thinking.

"Religious experience" is subjective and its disingenuous to claim atheists have no knowledge or experience of this.

I feel the same kind of "religous" transcendent emotions than I did when I was a born again christian
motivated to "Be like Christ"... the emotions of beauty, gratitude, compassion, humanity I still feel when I study the Universe, or when I study Humanity or Natural History... or when I just sit and think about my place in the Universe.

Why is it if somebody disagrees with the divine origins of the bible, then it is assumed they only have " superficial knowledge" of the bible? Is it possible that this person may have a deeper understanding of the bible than most people? I am atheist, humanist, and apostate after a lifetime of committed study and a love of Christianity. But I value truth above all else, and was forced to change my mind as I found objective evidence multiple times over that Christianity is no more valid than any other faith

Human beings are attracted to organized religions like moths are attracted to lightbulbs. I would assume that atheists score higher on math tests, history tests, English tests, biology tests and any other test when compared to Evangelical Christians. Smart people study. When you study ancient and modern religions, you see that they are all pretty much the same - just with different lightbulbs. People who are smart become atheists; atheists don't necessarily become smart.

The surge of Evangelicals since 9-11 and the election of President Obama is extremely disconcerting. Keep your uneducated beliefs in the churches and leave the real world alone. I don't want your self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon to destroy the world. The difference between salvation as a Christian and the existence of Santa Claus is that Santa is disproved every December 25th.

"Conclusion: just knowing about something isn't the same thing as experiencing it."
Of course not, this is a false argument. This wasn't a survey to find out how religious people were, or how fervent they were in those beliefs.
Much like those TV-talkshow Mall interviews where they ask random people geography/history questions to show how little common, everday, non-academic Americans actually know/remember about those subjects. It's not a patriotism test, how American are you, it's a survey of how much specific knowledge one has about the country they live in... Same here. We have no doubt sir, that people with less than a full understanding of their religion still fervently believe in it, we (atheists, etc.) knew that. What it does say, if nothing else, is that even though 75-80% of Americans claim to be 'Christian' that not very many have bothered to devote a lot of study time to the matter.

cianwn

anyone who thinks like you have described in your 3rd paragraph has not truely read and understood scriptures.

Hence, the difference between knowledge of the bible, and understanding it.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

That is, with regards to brother Otterson's afticle...

Mark
Always seek the truth.

My thoughts exactly.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I don't buy this distinction between "superficial knowledge" and "experience of religion." The knowledge is the basis for all the rest of the religion, the community, the rituals, the stories that are supposed to have religious significance. They shape what the believer experiences and how he gives it context.

Without the knowledge, all you have is a mess of self-indulgent fantasies and magical thinking. An interesting example of this is the ritual use of drugs like peyote or other hallucinogens used in Native American spirituality. Without the training and context of religious instruction, the user simply experiences a high that can get out of control and has the potential to be very damaging. But if the user has been trained by people who know the mythology and cultural context surrounding the drug's use, the experience can be meaningful.

This lack of knowledge puts Americans in a position where many Protestants behave as though Jesus is their personal, magical, wish-granting friend. Jesus wants you to be rich. Jesus wants you to be Republican. Jesus can cure your stomachache if only you pray. Jesus is there to make sure that you survived a horrific car accident. In other words, lack of knowledge and context have made Jesus into a blank slate for whatever believers want him to be. That is how religion loses its context, not through too much "superficial knowledge". The knowledge is the beginning, not the ornament.