Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

No intelligent designer required. Just 'nature' doing its thing. ????

That was a funny story indeed.

So, is  "nature"  intelligent or not ?

[thaibeachlovers]

54 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

No intelligent designer required. Just 'nature' doing its thing. 

Only if one believes that the universe, life and nature just magically happened out of nothing.

Do you believe in magic?

[Sunmaster]

I was just reading (yet another) great research paper about altered states of consciousness and mystical/religious experiences, and thought it would be a perfect recap and a good conclusion for those topics. Houston and Masters describe their research in a very clear way, and I think both believers and atheists can benefit from it.
Since it is too long for a single post, I will divide it in several short posts over the next couple of days. 

 

THE EXPERIMENTAL INDUCTION OF RELIGIOUS-TYPE EXPERIENCES

JEAN HOUSTON AND ROBERT E. L. MASTERS

 

Of all the hard facts of science, I know of none more solid and fundamental than the fact that if you inhibit thought (and persevere) you come at length to a region of consciousness below or behind thought, and different from ordinary thought in its nature and character—a consciousness of quasi-universal quality, and a realization of an altogether vaster self than that to which we are accustomed. And since the ordinary consciousness, with which we are concerned in ordinary life, is before all things founded on the little local self, and is in fact self-conscious in the little local sense, it follows that to pass out of that is to die to the ordinary self and the ordinary world. It is to die in the ordinary sense, but in another sense, it is to wake up and find that the “I,” one’s real, most intimate self, pervades the universe and all other beings —that the mountains and the sea and the stars are a part of one’s body and that one’s soul is in touch with the souls of all creatures….

 

So great, so splendid is this experience, that it may be said that all minor questions and doubts fall away in face of it; and certain it is that in thousands and thousands of cases the fact of its having come even once to a man has completely revolutionized his subsequent life and outlook on the world.

 

The foregoing statement, made over half a century ago by the poet-scientist Edward Carpenter, seems very timely today —because, of course, it is timeless. It describes a reality of the human psyche that does not change with events and environments as do the forms of our madnesses and our lesser aberrations. The experience is real and essentially unchanging; and, as he observes, it can be psychotherapeutic, growth-promoting, radically transformative of human personality. What Carpenter intends by “inhibiting thought” is one, but not the only, means to achieve similar awarenesses with similar results.

In recent years, as everyone now knows, it has been discovered that psychedelic drugs can facilitate religious-type experiences which have a therapeutic effect; and, indeed, that psychedelic psychotherapy tends to be most effective precisely when religious-type experiences of some profundity do occur. This conclusion stems not just out of our research but out of the experience of a large number of investigators and psychotherapists who have worked with the LSD-type drugs throughout the world.

For example, Dr. Ruth Fox, the medical director of the National Council on Alcohol, stated with reference to LSD therapy of chronic alcoholics: “In this transcendental (drug-state) experience there may be a recognition of ‘cosmic consciousness.’ Not every patient experiences this complete feeling of ‘being at one with the universe.’ It seems that the closer one comes to it, however, the more effective and lasting is the change in personality.” To this it should be added that the therapeutic and transformative religious-type experiences take various forms, of which “being at one with the universe” is only one, but a frequent, example.

[end of part 1]

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Only if one believes that the universe, life and nature just magically happened out of nothing.

Do you believe in magic?

Where did you get the idea that the universe might have been created out of nothing. The current Big Bang theory states that the universe was created from a singularity, which is a very tiny point, but a tiny point of infinite mass.  Infinite mass is not nothing.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That was a funny story indeed.

So, is  "nature"  intelligent or not ?

The term 'intelligence' is a human construct. In nature there is either survival through propagation, or extinction due to an inability to successfully propagate, which in Darwinian terms is expressed as 'survival of the fittest', which means survival of those most able to adapt to the changing conditions.

 

If one defines 'intelligence' as the ability to adapt and survive, then the most intelligent life-form would be Cyanobacteria, which are the oldest existing species in the world, as far as we know. ????

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The term 'intelligence' is a human construct. In nature there is either survival through propagation, or extinction due to an inability to successfully propagate, which in Darwinian terms is expressed as 'survival of the fittest', which means survival of those most able to adapt to the changing conditions.

 

If one defines 'intelligence' as the ability to adapt and survive, then the most intelligent life-form would be Cyanobacteria, which are the oldest existing species in the world, as far as we know. ????

 

Every word can be defined as human construct, and one has to assume that there would be no bacteria without nature. 

But I asked you if you think that nature is intelligent or not. 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

singularity, which is a very tiny point, but a tiny point of infinite mass.  Infinite mass is not nothing.

Btw, this is a very original definition of God,  i never heard it before !

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Every word can be defined as human construct, and one has to assume that there would be no bacteria without nature. 

But I asked you if you think that nature is intelligent or not. 

The term 'intelligent' is applied to a specific entity, such as an individual human or animal. Nature is an extremely broad term. You might as well ask if the Universe is intelligent.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

The term 'intelligent' is applied to a specific entity, such as an individual human or animal. Nature is an extremely broad term. You might as well ask if the Universe is intelligent.

By now it should be clear that, imho, the whole universe is intelligent, every single atom is intelligent, possibly even the space between atoms is intelligent. 

[Sunmaster]

PART 2
 

THE EXPERIMENTAL INDUCTION OF RELIGIOUS-TYPE EXPERIENCES

JEAN HOUSTON AND ROBERT E. L. MASTERS

 

In view of the foregoing, it should be evident why work with psychedelic drugs has had the following effects, among others: It has made viable once more a previously near-moribund psychology of religious experience; and it has excited great interest in the therapeutic and self-actualizing potentials of religious-type experiences and the states of consciousness in which they happen in their most potent forms….

 

Like many other LSD researchers, we did not set out to investigate religious or mystical experiences. But we very soon found ourselves obliged to undertake serious and extensive studies in the psychology of religious experience. We had to do this if we hoped to understand what was happening with subjects whose reports of profound mystical union with God did not seem to be adequately explained by such notions as somatopsychic depersonalization or ego dissolution, both labels that have within conventional psychiatry the function of describing severe psychopathology. Some of the claims of encounter with God, Ground of Being, Ultimate Reality, seemed to be accompanied by profound and beneficent personality changes. This does not usually occur as a product of a transient psychosis; but it has been reported throughout history in cases of religious experience.

 

In a possible LSD session that proceeds, in eight hours or so, through the principal drug-state levels of consciousness, the subject may experience, first of all, a great variety of sensory awarenesses unlike anything that he has known before.

This appears to have a deconditioning function, freeing the subject from the confines of his usual categories and contexts.

 

After that, the walls of the unconscious may be breached, psychodynamic processes magnified and revealed, and important insights be achieved.

Next, the life-historical materials might emerge in symbolic and allegorical terms, seen with the eyes closed as eidetic [relating to or denoting mental images having unusual vividness and detail, as if actually visible.] images. The same sequence of materials also may be experienced at the same time in other sensory-image modes with a total involvement in dramatic sequences leading to symbolic resolution of personal conflicts and other problems.

Finally, the person “descends” to that level of awareness apprehended as Essence, Noumenon, Ground of Being. It is on this level that there occur the profound and sometimes transformative experiences of encounter or mystical union with God—experiences adjudged by some leading authorities, such as the late W. T. Stace, to be phenomenologically indistinguishable from religious and mystical experiences traditionally accepted as authentic. When such experience results in a drastic and positive change in behavior, including an enrichment of the spiritual life, we have further evidence of a classical sort for authenticity.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Of all the hard facts of science, I know of none more solid and fundamental than the fact that if you inhibit thought (and persevere) you come at length to a region of consciousness below or behind thought, and different from ordinary thought in its nature and character—a consciousness of quasi-universal quality, and a realization of an altogether vaster self than that to which we are accustomed.

All animals have some degree of sensory perception, which varies according to the species. Humans have the unique capacity for language and abstract thought, but that capacity depends upon the more fundamental capacity of sensory perception.

 

We've heard of people who are born with a deficiency in one or more of these sensory preceptors, such as being blind, or deaf, and such people obviously have unusual difficulties in life. But imagine someone who was born with no sensory preceptors at all. In other words, they were not only blind and deaf, but had no sense of smell, taste or feeling. Could such people have any thoughts about anything?

 

If a person practices meditation in order to reduce and even eliminate all thoughts, temporarily, and are successful in doing that, then they are putting themselves in the situation of a species that has no capacity for abstract thought and language. I can understand that such an experience would be ineffable.

 

Language and abstract thought is all about effability. If you temporarily eliminate it, you are into the world of 'ineffability'. The experience might be interesting and beneficial for mental health, and provide some new insights, but does not necessarily have anything to do with a mysterious God or mystical spirit.

[VincentRJ]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

By now it should be clear that, imho, the whole universe is intelligent, every single atom is intelligent, possibly even the space between atoms is intelligent. 

This is known as projection. You see a leaf which you experience as 'green' in color, then you project your experience onto the leaf and claim that the leaf is green.

Edited July 28, 2021 by VincentRJ

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This is known as projection. You see a leaf which you experience as 'green' in color, then you project your experience onto the leaf and claim that the leaf is green.

Yep, we've been there before. 

It's a way of interpretation but it's not the only way.

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

All animals have some degree of sensory perception, which varies according to the species. Humans have the unique capacity for language and abstract thought, but that capacity depends upon the more fundamental capacity of sensory perception.

 

We've heard of people who are born with a deficiency in one or more of these sensory preceptors, such as being blind, or deaf, and such people obviously have unusual difficulties in life. But imagine someone who was born with no sensory preceptors at all. In other words, they were not only blind and deaf, but had no sense of smell, taste or feeling. Could such people have any thoughts about anything?

 

If a person practices meditation in order to reduce and even eliminate all thoughts, temporarily, and are successful in doing that, then they are putting themselves in the situation of a species that has no capacity for abstract thought and language. I can understand that such an experience would be ineffable.

 

Language and abstract thought is all about effability. If you temporarily eliminate it, you are into the world of 'ineffability'. The experience might be interesting and beneficial for mental health, and provide some new insights, but does not necessarily have anything to do with a mysterious God or mystical spirit.

I think you're confusing pre-thought with trans-thought. (Pre-trans fallacy according to Ken Wilber)

Wilber has a concept called the “Pre/Trans Fallacy” which states that people often mistake what's pre-conventional (earlier phase of development) for being post-conventional (later stage of development) because neither is conventional. ... This concept can be applied in many areas of personal and social development.
https://markmanson.net/ken-wilber

I'm not sure if a person without any sensory perception would be able to think, but my guess is no. Maybe we don't need such an extreme example... even a baby lives in a world of pre-thought. The baby lives in a pre-rational world, while the meditator during his meditations lives in a trans-rational world. They are not the same.

 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

By now it should be clear that, imho, the whole universe is intelligent, every single atom is intelligent, possibly even the space between atoms is intelligent. 

You seem to have misunderstood the most basic principle of language. That is, everything, in descriptive terms, is relative. There can be no concept of 'good' without a concept of 'bad'. There can be no concept of 'hot' without a concept of 'cold'. There can be no concept of 'intelligence' without a concept of 'stupidity'.

 

If the entire universe is intelligent, then there can be no stupid people. In fact, the concepts of intelligence and stupidity could not even exist in a universe where everything was intelligent.

[mauGR1]

18 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You seem to have misunderstood the most basic principle of language. That is, everything, in descriptive terms, is relative. There can be no concept of 'good' without a concept of 'bad'. There can be no concept of 'hot' without a concept of 'cold'. There can be no concept of 'intelligence' without a concept of 'stupidity'.

 

If the entire universe is intelligent, then there can be no stupid people. In fact, the concepts of intelligence and stupidity could not even exist in a universe where everything was intelligent.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. 

Yes, everything is relative.

A criminal can be more intelligent than an insect, but less intelligent than a honest man.

The fact that life is intelligent doesn't preclude some people from behaving stupidly. 

 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I think you're confusing pre-thought with trans-thought. (Pre-trans fallacy according to Ken Wilber)

Wilber has a concept called the “Pre/Trans Fallacy” which states that people often mistake what's pre-conventional (earlier phase of development) for being post-conventional (later stage of development) because neither is conventional. ... This concept can be applied in many areas of personal and social development.
https://markmanson.net/ken-wilber

I'm not sure if a person without any sensory perception would be able to think, but my guess is no. Maybe we don't need such an extreme example... even a baby lives in a world of pre-thought. The baby lives in a pre-rational world, while the meditator during his meditations lives in a trans-rational world. They are not the same.

 

I never claimed they are the same thing.

 

Why are you quoting someone who, according to your linked article,

 

" Ten years on, despite developing some fans in academia (some in high places), Wilber’s work had yet to be tested or peer-reviewed in a serious journal. Much of his posting online devolved into bizarre spiritual claims (such as this one about an “enlightened teacher” who can make crops grow twice as fast by “blessing them”). ?? ????

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You seem to be contradicting yourself. 

Yes, everything is relative.

A criminal can be more intelligent than an insect, but less intelligent than a honest man.

The fact that life is intelligent doesn't preclude some people from behaving stupidly. 

 

I'm not contradicting myself. You wrote:  "the whole universe is intelligent, every single atom is intelligent, possibly even the space between atoms is intelligent." 

 

If that is true, then stupidity cannot exist. That's basic logic.

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I never claimed they are the same thing.

 

Why are you quoting someone who, according to your linked article,

 

" Ten years on, despite developing some fans in academia (some in high places), Wilber’s work had yet to be tested or peer-reviewed in a serious journal. Much of his posting online devolved into bizarre spiritual claims (such as this one about an “enlightened teacher” who can make crops grow twice as fast by “blessing them”). ?? ????

Maybe not the best source, I agree ???? , but that doesn't change the relevance of the pre/trans fallacy.

 

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If a person practices meditation in order to reduce and even eliminate all thoughts, temporarily, and are successful in doing that, then they are putting themselves in the situation of a species that has no capacity for abstract thought and language. I can understand that such an experience would be ineffable.

I was referring to this paragraph, that was comparing someone unable to think (man without perceptions) to the meditative state. Do you think someone who meditates and is able to witness his thoughts as they pass by, would have no capacity for abstract thought and language? Or do you mean, while in the meditative state, abstract thought and language would be suspended? I hope the second. ???? 
The suspension of abstract thought (any thought really) and language won't kill you, you know. You should try it. ????

If I misunderstood your meaning though, I apologize.

 

[Sunmaster]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm not contradicting myself. You wrote:  "the whole universe is intelligent, every single atom is intelligent, possibly even the space between atoms is intelligent." 

 

If that is true, then stupidity cannot exist. That's basic logic.

I think there are 2 interpretations of "intelligent". MauGR1 uses it as "having consciousness", while you use it as a synonym of clever and smart. 
In that case your logic doesn't work...

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm not contradicting myself. You wrote:  "the whole universe is intelligent, every single atom is intelligent, possibly even the space between atoms is intelligent." 

 

If that is true, then stupidity cannot exist. That's basic logic.

I tried to explain it to you, but i can't understand it for you.

The fact that one has been given a wonderful brain is not a guarantee that one can use it properly.

 

[VincentRJ]

13 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Do you think someone who meditates and is able to witness his thoughts as they pass by, would have no capacity for abstract thought and language? Or do you mean, while in the meditative state, abstract thought and language would be suspended? I hope the second. ???? 

 

You've misunderstood what I wrote. Why on earth would you think that I am under the impression that a person in a deep state of meditation, who is in a sense awake without thought, has completely lost his capacity for abstract thought and language, like a baby who has not yet learned a language? That's ridiculous!

 

Obviously the second point applies.
 

[VincentRJ]

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I tried to explain it to you, but i can't understand it for you.

The fact that one has been given a wonderful brain is not a guarantee that one can use it properly.

 

If the entire universe is intelligent then it is a guarantee that all brains, which are a part of the universe, will be used intelligently, unless you think that a human brain is outside of the universe.  ????

[VincentRJ]

21 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I think there are 2 interpretations of "intelligent". MauGR1 uses it as "having consciousness", while you use it as a synonym of clever and smart. 
In that case your logic doesn't work...

Check the dictionary. Intelligence and consciousness have different meanings. They are not synonyms.

Edited July 28, 2021 by VincentRJ

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

If the entire universe is intelligent then it is a guarantee that all brains, which are a part of the universe, will be used intelligently, unless you think that a human brain is outside of the universe.  ????

Your logic is a bit strange today,  and that's probably an understatement. 

No, the fact that life is intelligent obviously is not a guarantee that everyone is behaving intelligently ????

[Sparktrader]

44 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You seem to be contradicting yourself. 

Yes, everything is relative.

A criminal can be more intelligent than an insect, but less intelligent than a honest man.

The fact that life is intelligent doesn't preclude some people from behaving stupidly. 

 

Being honest has nothing to do with intelligence. The richest people are the biggest liars.

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Your logic is a bit strange today,  and that's probably an understatement. 

No, the fact that life is intelligent obviously is not a guarantee that everyone is behaving intelligently ????

Of course not. Some believe in sky spirits for no reason.

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Check the dictionary. Intelligence and consciousness have different meanings. They are not synonyms.

I didn't say they are synonymous. I said he uses the word "intelligent", but means "having consciousness". 
Or do you think "Intelligent Design" means "Clever Design"?? ???? 

[mauGR1]

Just now, Sparktrader said:

Being honest has nothing to do with intelligence. The richest people are the biggest liars.

Everything is relative, pls try to understand the concept instead of nitpicking. 

Otherwise we could spend days just trying to define the meaning of honesty. 

[Sparktrader]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Only if one believes that the universe, life and nature just magically happened out of nothing.

Do you believe in magic?

Belief in god = belief in magic. Only a magician could create himself out of atoms.

 

The only mob just believe in science. Chemical processes, not magic.