The Epistemology of the Divine

Post Reply New Topic

And mistakes like this are why you should avoid Bible exegesis.

I agreed that there were a lot of religious people, but disagreed that they had any insight into truth due to how confused their findings were. That has continually been my stance. If this were a sense, I would demand more of a response than "Oh, there is a divine" particularly given that a cognitive flaw could easily be just as one note. I've even already pointed out that religious feelings can be enhanced by brain damages of some sort, which is unlike most senses in many ways. (particularly given that the part damaged is the part that gives you a strong sense of self-awareness)

I do not know how the idea of an alleged "third eye" got in here, but I doubt there is a single answer to that question.

Overall, I see the so-called "herd instinct" or "peer pressure" come into play a lot: Going against "status quo" (even as I do here) can at times seem too costly.

That is not what was being discussed when you said "Ok". You had been confusing agreement and coherence, I had clarified that and you had agreed I had shown some coherence of observation evidencing "the sense of the divine".

I agreed that multiple people thought they felt something. I did not agree that what they felt was actually divine.

I understand ... and that leaves us with next needing to deal with something like this (once again):

"In our personal stories you will find a wide variation in the way each teller approaches and conceives of the Power which is greater than himself."

No religious constraint here.

"Whether we agree with a particular approach or conception seems to make little difference."

No requirement to become a sheeple!

"Experience has taught us that these are matters about which, for our purpose, we need not be worried. They are questions for each individual to settle for himself."

The issue there is about being willing to investigate openly and without contempt.

"On one proposition, however, these men and women are strikingly agreed. Every one of them has gained access to ... a Power greater than himself. This Power has in each case accomplished the miraculous, the humanly impossible."

If my permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism resulted from nothing more or other than a bit of nerological activity, then why did spiritual stuff need to be mentioned to me and considered by me before that could ever happen? I will not ask you to sit here and listen to a long story, but I will say I had already spent plenty of time both with and within my own thoughts and mind with no good results long beforehand.

I have no expertise in the matter beyond personal experience but I find indications that there is a lot more going on in the nervous system than the simple tripartite Freudian divisions of id, ego and superego. My general impression as a person who has discovered creative capabilities deeper than my conscious mind is that there is a governing intellect within each of us that employs what we presume to be the conscious mind for its own purposes and it has data capabilities not available to the consciousness with which it reasons independently from what we assume is the conscious controller of our perceptions. This is, of course, a manifestation of the nervous system but it acts with such independent intellect that some people presume it to be a supernatural intervention. It's only a theory, of course, but it fits many of my own internal experiences.

Once again, very few worship the "vague higher power". Even further, there is nothing else that suggests a sense.


Well, different parts of the brain result in different things. The fact that you recovered through spiritualism just means that there is a pathway to personal transformation through the spiritual parts of the brain. That is to say that your fact isn't incompatible with the idea that these feelings are not ways to find facts.

No "vague higher power" has been mentioned, but what difference would that even make at the moment? The questions presently on the table are whether "the sense of the divine" is real, and whether even so much as an ambiguous "the divine" is real.



I did not recover through spiritualism:

spiritualism
1 : the view that spirit is a prime element of reality
2 a : a belief that spirits of the dead communicate with the living
2 b : a movement comprising religious organizations emphasizing spiritualism

I recovered via a "complete psychic change" (Dr. Silkworth) as a result of willingly humility and action within the spiritual realm:

"... he must undergo a change of heart. To get over drinking will require a transformation of thought and attitude."



I do not know what you mean by "spiritual parts of the brain". There might be some part or parts of the brain best suited for doing whatever our brains do with spiritual matters, and it would make sense to me if "the sense of the divine" might be found/located there. However, I cannot imagine any part of my brain actually being spiritual.



... and I have not suggested it is. Feelings are almost never dependable for discerning facts ... yet most people are nevertheless inclined (ort even quite determined) to attempt to decide spiritual matters via mere feelings!

Been there -- done that -- nearly died.

Here's wikipedia's entry on Neurotheology, i'm sure there's better sources, but this gives a good basic overview.
There are a good number of links on it. Persinger is linked, temporal lobe epilepsy (ie Saul of Tarsus) and other useful links.
AG might even have some better info on this.

<<LINK>>

Now, the problem with your statement, is that this part of the brain is not actually spiritual or the "god part of the brain" as it is often called, it's the part of the brain that makes you THINK there is a spirit/god/divine.
I already explained to you why this portion of the brain evolved too, it was to give us "certainty" in times when we needed to be certain of things, even though we couldn't be... To prevent ourselves from being paralyzed in fear.
Problem is that we can also exploit this feature of our brain for other ends.. and those ends do not have to be in our best interest... In the case of you quitting drinking, it most certainly was good... but for Hitler convincing so many German's that the Jews were an abomination in god's eyes, it wasn't.

No, it really has been mentioned. Yes, this really does make a difference. If people point to particular divine things, and have particular senses about this, then this is relevant. Even further, a universal doesn't actually prove that this isn't a defect. There is no external source to check facts with, and in fact, given that we don't have any other base to check for reliability, what makes this reliable? Given that there are cognitive alterations that would have no impact on the senses that alter ones ability to detect the divine, how do we know that this is not a cognitive defect.



I did not recover through spiritualism:

spiritualism
1 : the view that spirit is a prime element of reality
2 a : a belief that spirits of the dead communicate with the living
2 b : a movement comprising religious organizations emphasizing spiritualism

I recovered via a "complete psychic change" (Dr. Silkworth) as a result of willingly humility and action within the spiritual realm:

"... he must undergo a change of heart. To get over drinking will require a transformation of thought and attitude." [/quote]
I don't think you've grappled a meaningful distinction. Even further, given how often you cite AA stuff, I should think it would be helpful to know that AA uses a number of cult techniques. http://www.webcitation.org/5lyBcw4EM The fact that you are quoting them extensively brings up some issues with this, particularly given that you are just pulling up this vague thing.

If AA uses cult techniques, which are techniques useful by cults to utterly hijack somebody's life, then why couldn't they stop your drinking using these tricks?


I mean, the parts of the brain that are responsible for spiritual sensations.

I don't think there is a real ability to discover divine things though, as it makes too much more sense to say that there is a cognitive defect.


Yes, yes you have suggested just that. That's why you were pointing to your own overcoming of alcoholism.

spiritual:
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>
2 b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
5 b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

Being "spiritual" and being "the god part of the brain" are synonyomous only in the minds of people reducing "spiritual" to something far less than the above.



It my own case, it only caused me to be curious and want to know.



My spiritual curiosity has never done that for me.



... and you would suggest that proves something beyond the fact it can be exploited?!

I definitely understand your concern there: If "the sense of the divine" is actually real and if "the divine" is also actually real, then you will have tremendous difficulty categorically dismissing The Almighty Sovereign One! Nevertheless, no such being or entity has yet been mentioned in any way at all.



... and neither would the lack of one prove it is.



Reliable in what way? Intellectually, it is almost useless. Scientifically, it cannot be measured or tested. So, I would say it is only "reliable" for spurring some curiosity ... and that leaves it quite vulnerable to all sorts of external influence.



I am unable to make sense of that question.



Today's AA is a filthy cult with which I am not in any way associated, and when I quote "A.A.", the book, I am talking about something completely different than today's AA.



Because I am a real alcoholic.



Or, maybe some kind of cognitive defect can cause people to call "the sense of the divine" a cognitive defect? My own actual experience would make that sound far more plausible.



No. I point to my permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism only as proof of the divine ... and I welcome any challenger who would attempt to show me any other explanation.

No, but it might very well be the most parsimonious hypothesis.


Well, right, if it is false, we don't actually love anything.


Basically, what is the hypothetical difference between "you think you sense God but you really don't" and "you think you sense God and you really do" in terms of how could we know about this?


I doubt it is completely different though. The 12 steps are likely the same.


That doesn't actually prove anything. There is some evidence actually suggesting that models of economic rationality work for drug addiction. http://www.slate.com/id/2171373 Which, if the case, really mean that even cult brainwashing might not be necessary.


No.... the kind of reasoning I am using here is the kind of reasoning that can exist across numerous ideas.


You are trying to get me to prove that your mental problem couldn't have a mental explanation? I've already suggested that feelings of divinity could easily be a matter of the brain, even showing how brain damage can alter feelings of transcendence. I've pointed out that AA currently is using cult techniques, which can dramatically alter how people behave. I've presented the economic model of addiction. Even further, AA with its spiritualistic techniques isn't the only alcohol recovery group.

I mean, why don't I ask you this question: which is more likely, that a supreme being considers as its only real task to heal recovering alcoholics, rather than starving children, and other people, or that your recovery from a mental problem was from another aspect of your brain? I think it is obviously the latter, because there is literally no problem with saying that the brain has parts, and that these parts have the power to overcome various problems if stimulated correctly.

In the case of the real alcoholic, whether or not s/he permanently recovers.



They *read* the same, but that is about all.



No ... and alcoholism is not a mental condition anyway ... and neither am I trying to get anyone to prove anything. I am simply saying someone will have to show me how else my permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism might have actually taken place if my "the sense of the divine" is but a cognitive defect and there actually is no "the divine" at all.



I do not find either of those options in any way likely at all.

Well, there are a few problems:
1) I don't see a problem with non-mystical recover, period.
2) I find it patently ridiculous that a God that allows all sorts of insanities just has a heart for alcoholics who use a certain program.


Yes, but it still ends up promoting a very religious-ish dogma.


Ok, what is alcoholism? It seems to me that a lot of addictive behaviors would be in fact quite mental.

That being said, do you really want a neuro-physiological explanation that you wouldn't necessarily understand, or what would you want? I certainly can do some research on alcoholism, but I would doubt that your holding out really makes some sense given that you wouldn't even know how your sense of the divine really WOULD explain the matter in the first place.


I find that those are our two options, and that the latter makes more sense.

How well do you think you might have done?!

As best I can tell, nothing or no one has been proved inferior, and nobody has offered any other explanation for my permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism.