Theism, magical thinking and CAM.

[Bruce Burleson]

Would you mind me asking what the objective part of the experience is?

In my understanding, it is the existence of an entity called "God" and his interaction, through revelatory experience, with me.

I don't state we should have empirical evidence of god, just as I wouldn't suggest we should have empirical evidence of ghosts - if a person has a whim to believe something by and large it is up to them. My own position is that it doesn't concern me until those beliefs are stated as factual and where religion does THAT, THEN I think there is a need for empirical evidence.

It doesn't concern you until you have had a revelatory experience with God. Then, you will determine for yourself if sufficient information exists to sustain belief. If you have some such experience, your requirements regarding empirical evidence might change somewhat. It doesn't really matter what religion states as being factual in a dogmatic sense. That is mainly for consumption by other believers, and should have no relevance to non-believers.

As you state here:

...this is the nature of revelation, which is personal. It's not much different than having multiple witnesses to an intersection collision or a crime. The accounts will vary, but there is a version that is closer to objective reality. By comparing and contrasting the various stories, the jury attempts to come closer to the truth. All revelation is subject to some subjectivity by it's various nature. But the believer accepts that this is how God has chosen to reveal himself. From Christianity's standpoint, there was a divine disclosure in Jesus. However, as we see, even that comes down to personal experience.

So how do you feel about revelation compared with empirical evidence? Initially I asked about anecdote as you gave anecdote, but if the real issue is what you feel has been revealed to you personally I'd still be interested to know how you feel it compares? Do you accept anyone's revelations as reported, or all those from the same faith, church, group of friends, or is it only your own? I know you argue it is about comparing it to others but on a global scale rather than a more intimate one that doesn't work due to the number of gods and truths. None of which supported by much in the way of observable reality.

Revelation leads to faith, not knowledge. Empirical evidence can lead to knowledge. I view others' revelations in light of my own, so, obviously, I relate more to those which are similar to mine, which usually means within some form of Christianity. But I can't disprove anyone's revelation at all. I agree that there is no empirical evidence that would settle the issue of the existence of God, so empirically, I don't think it is possible for anyone to say "I know God exists" or "I know God does not exist." This may change in the future, but I don't think we are there now. I think there is an empirical basis for accepting certain historical facts about Jesus, but it is not so conclusive as to demand a claim of knowledge.

[floppit]

Would you mind me asking what the objective part of the experience is?

In my understanding, it is the existence of an entity called "God" and his interaction, through revelatory experience, with me.

I don't state we should have empirical evidence of god, just as I wouldn't suggest we should have empirical evidence of ghosts - if a person has a whim to believe something by and large it is up to them. My own position is that it doesn't concern me until those beliefs are stated as factual and where religion does THAT, THEN I think there is a need for empirical evidence.

It doesn't concern you until you have had a revelatory experience with God. Then, you will determine for yourself if sufficient information exists to sustain belief. If you have some such experience, your requirements regarding empirical evidence might change somewhat. It doesn't really matter what religion states as being factual in a dogmatic sense. That is mainly for consumption by other believers, and should have no relevance to non-believers.

As you state here:

...this is the nature of revelation, which is personal. It's not much different than having multiple witnesses to an intersection collision or a crime. The accounts will vary, but there is a version that is closer to objective reality. By comparing and contrasting the various stories, the jury attempts to come closer to the truth. All revelation is subject to some subjectivity by it's various nature. But the believer accepts that this is how God has chosen to reveal himself. From Christianity's standpoint, there was a divine disclosure in Jesus. However, as we see, even that comes down to personal experience.

So how do you feel about revelation compared with empirical evidence? Initially I asked about anecdote as you gave anecdote, but if the real issue is what you feel has been revealed to you personally I'd still be interested to know how you feel it compares? Do you accept anyone's revelations as reported, or all those from the same faith, church, group of friends, or is it only your own? I know you argue it is about comparing it to others but on a global scale rather than a more intimate one that doesn't work due to the number of gods and truths. None of which supported by much in the way of observable reality.

Revelation leads to faith, not knowledge. Empirical evidence can lead to knowledge. I view others' revelations in light of my own, so, obviously, I relate more to those which are similar to mine, which usually means within some form of Christianity. But I can't disprove anyone's revelation at all. I agree that there is no empirical evidence that would settle the issue of the existence of God, so empirically, I don't think it is possible for anyone to say "I know God exists" or "I know God does not exist." This may change in the future, but I don't think we are there now. I think there is an empirical basis for accepting certain historical facts about Jesus, but it is not so conclusive as to demand a claim of knowledge.

Thanks for trying to give me some insight. It is circular by nature and I think the last post made it clear to me that I'm unlikely to ever really understand how believers avoid so tenaciously being aware that revelations from beings in another dimension isn't magical. It's quite rare for me to enter into these kinds of discussions as they always seem to have a somewhat pointless quality, one side convinced by faith and what was revealed to them (as long as it concurs with their current belief) the other looking at the material world - with no less wonder but a very different filter with regard to reality.

[MrFungus420]

Would you mind me asking what the objective part of the experience is?

In my understanding,

In other words, in your subjective experience.

it is the existence of an entity called "God" and his interaction, through revelatory experience, with me.

Which is still completely subjective.

So the question still stands unanswered.

[Bruce Burleson]

Thanks for trying to give me some insight. It is circular by nature and I think the last post made it clear to me that I'm unlikely to ever really understand how believers avoid so tenaciously being aware that revelations from beings in another dimension isn't magical. It's quite rare for me to enter into these kinds of discussions as they always seem to have a somewhat pointless quality, one side convinced by faith and what was revealed to them (as long as it concurs with their current belief) the other looking at the material world - with no less wonder but a very different filter with regard to reality.

Enjoyed the conversation. Personal experiences have a lot to do with those filters. That may be the main difference. Cheers.

[Bruce Burleson]

Would you mind me asking what the objective part of the experience is?

In my understanding,

In other words, in your subjective experience.

it is the existence of an entity called "God" and his interaction, through revelatory experience, with me.

Which is still completely subjective.

So the question still stands unanswered.

Here is the original question: "How do theists avoid becoming aware that their beliefs are magical?" First, please observe that the question itself assumes a priori that theist beliefs are, in fact, magical. That is an assumption that you cannot prove, and which I do not make. So, the answer to the question is: "In my opinion, my beliefs are not magical, so I do not become aware that they are magical."

The question is a species of the old "when did you stop beating your wife" type of question. If I don't beat my wife, I never stop beating my wife. If my beliefs are not magic, I never become aware that they are magic.

I have a different epistemological category in my thinking than you have - I do not automatically exclude the possibility of revelation. My experience leads me to make a place in my thinking for such revelations.

[Animavore]

How can you tell the difference between experiencing God and experiencing something in your head?

[Bruce Burleson]

How can you tell the difference between experiencing God and experiencing something in your head?

Strictly speaking, all experience is in the head, since it occurs in the brain, whatever the stimulus. The experience of God is, therefore, a particular form of experience in the head. For me, the thing that sets it apart from other experiences is the sense of divine presence, the idea that someone else is there. Try to imagine the differences between looking a photo of a loved one, looking at a video of a loved one, and actually being in the loved one's presence. Focusing on the experience itself, you have a progressively fuller sense of personal presence in these cases, even if you remove the sense of smell from the experience of the physical presence of the loved one. There is a more tangible quality to the actual experience. That approximates what I personally experience, a sense that God is actually there, as opposed to just thinking about God or hearing someone else talk about God.

[floppit]

Personal experiences have a lot to do with those filters. That may be the main difference. Cheers.

No - I think the main difference is this (bold added):

Would you mind me asking what the objective part of the experience is?

In my understanding, it is the existence of an entity called "God" and his interaction, through revelatory experience, with me.

I couldn't, I don't think even as a child I did for long but as an adult I could not think of that as objective - the object bit is missing, the material link, the something that ties an idea to more than just itself. The bit outside of me.

[Bruce Burleson]

I couldn't, I don't think even as a child I did for long but as an adult I could not think of that as objective - the object bit is missing, the material link, the something that ties an idea to more than just itself. The bit outside of me.

In dismissing the concept of revelation, you are closing yourself off from the experience of an objective reality, which is God.

[FBM]

...the experience of an objective reality, which is God.

Which one is god? The experience or the objective reality? How can one experience anything objective? Experience is subjective.

[colubridae]

I couldn't, I don't think even as a child I did for long but as an adult I could not think of that as objective - the object bit is missing, the material link, the something that ties an idea to more than just itself. The bit outside of me.

In dismissing the concept of revelation, you are closing yourself off from the experience of an objective reality, which is God.

How can you tell the difference between experiencing god and schizophrenia (or any other mental illness)?

[floppit]

I couldn't, I don't think even as a child I did for long but as an adult I could not think of that as objective - the object bit is missing, the material link, the something that ties an idea to more than just itself. The bit outside of me.

In dismissing the concept of revelation, you are closing yourself off from the experience of an objective reality, which is God.

Is that biblical? I mean that my knowing such an experience is subjective would disbar me from having the experience? Or does it mean that because I don't think a 'god experience' is an objective reality then I won't experience a god as objective reality? (I'm inclined to agree with the latter!).

[Mysturji]

Hm, this last bit is lacking. I do not doubt your experience, but can you see God the same way you see the Paraguayan cheerleaders (or the wine, or the stake)? I doubt God will materialize the same way!

Materialization is more complex when God is the issue.

That's just an evasion. You can see that, can't you?

Certainly I can't eat, drink or fuck him, nor would I want to (well, perhaps the Eucharist is an exception, in a way, sort of, kinda).

How about just SEEING him?
Can you take a picture to show others that he really exists and isn't just a figment of your imagination?

But things have a way of working out for me that seems to suggest some aspect of material presence. Opportunities, prospects, clients, resources all seem to come out of thin air just when I need them. My entire life has seemed like one big answered prayer in a way...

That's just luck. Your interpretation of it is biased, and more than likely selective.

[MrFungus420]

Would you mind me asking what the objective part of the experience is?

In my understanding,

In other words, in your subjective experience.

it is the existence of an entity called "God" and his interaction, through revelatory experience, with me.

Which is still completely subjective.

So the question still stands unanswered.

Here is the original question: "How do theists avoid becoming aware that their beliefs are magical?"

That's nice.

This part of the conversation was about your claim that your experiences were...let's be specific:

My experience of God appears to me to come from external stimuli, just as my happiness in seeing my grandchildren. In other words, I relate it to an objective reality, not simply something that is happening in my head.

To which Floppit asked the above question at the beginning of the quote.

So the question as to the objective part of the experience still is unanswered.

[MrFungus420]

I couldn't, I don't think even as a child I did for long but as an adult I could not think of that as objective - the object bit is missing, the material link, the something that ties an idea to more than just itself. The bit outside of me.

In dismissing the concept of revelation, you are closing yourself off from the experience of an objective reality, which is God.

If it's objective, it can be demonstrated in some fashion.

What you are describing is indistinguishable from Sam Berkowitz believing that dogs were possessed by demons telling him to kill people.