This is probably a bit late - I forgot to check up on this thread.
KFunk said:
Beautiful quote, but why should the elation that a person can feel necessarily be the granduer of god. You can replace such a phrase with the beauty of nature, the awe-inspiring nature of the universe or the blissful harmony of a peaceful mind. I believe that transcendence can be reached in a number of different ways, be it through philosophy, art, meditation or simply revelling in one's own existence. Why should such moments suggest that what you experience is the presence of god? More importantly, should it not be possible for a person to have such experiences in the absence of god?
Hm... Yes, it is possible to have such experiences in the absence of God. From the little that I have read about Zen Buddhism, I believe that this is their primary aim - to achieve an enlightened state of being, where you have transcended duality, etc etc... I'm sure you know what I mean. And they don't ackowledge a God (at least not in the way we do), as far as I know.
Even if I am wrong about the Buddhists, I am sure there are many others who can experience this without having any notion of God.
As for your first question. This has a lot to do with personal prejudice, due to my upbringing (my father being a Christian priest), and other experiences which have re-inforced this. I could easily assert that I simply use the concept of God as the most direct means of coming to terms with these experiences, though I won't, as this would basically relegate 'God' to a product of my mind, and that is saying that He doesn't exist. His actual existence is incomprehensible to me, though I know intuitively that He does exist, therefore I need that concept.
This is all leading in to this quote, which is excellent btw.
spadijer said:
...The primary basis for belief in God is to be found in experience, especially religious experience. There are many experiences in which people have become aware of Holy Being impinging on their lives - mystical experiences, conversion, a sense of presence, sometimes visions and locutions - which may come with the force of a revelation. Besides specifically religious experiences, there are others in which people become aware of a depth or an ultimacy that they call God - moral experiences, interpersonal relations, the sense of beauty, the search for truth, the awareness of finitude, even confrontation with suffering and death. These are sometimes called limit situations (a term used by the 20th-century German philosopher Karl Jaspers), because those who undergo such experiences seem to strike against the limits of their own being. In so doing, however, they become aware of a being that transcends their own, yet with which they sense both difference and affinity. They become aware of what the 20th-century German Protestant theologian Rudolf Otto, in a classic description, called mysterium tremendum et fascinans, the mystery that at once produces both awe and fascination.
To many people these experiences of Holy Being are self-authenticating, and they feel no need to inquire further. All human experience, however, is fallible. Mistakes of perception are everyday experiences, and false conceptions of the natural world, the Earth, the heavenly bodies, and so forth have prevailed for thousands of years. It is therefore possible that the experience of Holy Being is illusory, and this possibility has led some believers to look for a rational basis for belief in God that will confirm the experiential basis...
You couldn't have put it better. However, I am deeply afraid of the notion (most likely truth) that all experience is fallible, even though (through rationalism) I am tempted to believe it. When I think about all the implications of this, all life and reality quickly fades away into some distant realm, separated by "a chasm of oblivion", and there is literally nothing left. It undermines the validity of one's own existence. As Nietzsche said, "When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you".
After realising this I gave up the whole 'search for truth'. However, I still wouldn't say that it is a matter of survival to believe in the validity of trascendental (or normal) experience and God's existence, as this is basically saying that God doesn't exist, when intuitively I know otherwise. And now for the fallibility of intuition... Hm... looks like it's all circular from here on.
Well, despite proving myself wrong, I still believe that God exists.
Edit: Just noticed this about nihilism, which seems to be the same point I have reached.
EraserDust said:
Maybe I should state my position of belief too: using faith as a means to escape nihilism, the crazy coward that I am.
I believe in the Christian God construct because it is absurd (try doublethink). So I can honestly say that I personally experience God’s love, but since this feeling is indeed a mere delusion constructed by my own mind, I still hold that a life full of imaginary love is better than one consisting of logical apathy.
Even though I may be rationally convinced that this godly love I feel is only an illusion, I’d say that it has actually served to enrich my temporary earthbound life. Now if there is no God, then those who foolishly believe in Him will share the same fate as those who reasonably don’t. Simply ceasing to exist – an eternity of absolutely nothing.
Agreed. Just thinking, though... What if logic is also a delusion? The process occurs inside the mind and thereby suffers the same lack. I remember reading that reflection is the same sort of escapism as every other diversion... Anything to dodge the emptiness. Though, personally I value reflection for its poetic quality more than anything else.
Anyway, now it seems even more futile to try and prove that God exists through argument, than relying on experience.
