God as self-evident via the senses?

[danielshrugged]

Is there a way to respond to the argument, such as the one Plotinus makes, that X exists because one directly experiences it. For instance, a person might claim knowledge of God and defend it by saying that he "sees" God just as self-evidently as he sees trees and houses. (I don't doubt that many people who use this argument do feel like they see God.) Such arguments don't seem able to be attacked by reason, since they are supposedly like perception and therefore prior to reason.

It seems to me this issue may ultimately be a psychological one, but I was interested in hearing what you all have to say.

[MinorityOfOne]

There are basically two factors involved in debate strategy: is your opponent open to argument or not, and do you have an audience or not? Depending on which sort of debate this particular argument comes up in, different approaches may be appropriate.

I don't think a person who brings up this argument can really be convinced out of it. Either they're lying, or they're delusional. Neither of those really permits much discussion. So if you don't have an audience, the best thing to do is just to end the conversation and find a better way to spend your time. If you do, though, you can just point out that even if their "experiences" were sufficient to convince them of their conclusion, they're not admissable as evidence to others. It's as if they were saying "I have access to this secret shrine where God shows up and performs miracles all the time. No, I won't take you there. Believe me yet?" Even if you grant them they assumption that it's not an arbitrary claim *for them*, it's still arbitrary for anybody else, because by the nature of the claim it's not something they can demonstrate.

There's one thing you could try, though, if you really think the person is having some weird experience that they're honestly trying to understand. Even in the case of perception, the identification of what one is seeing/hearing/etc. depends on its conceptualization. That one is experiencing something is given in any direct perception (which, as a form of introspection or whatever, their experience qualifies as); WHAT one is experiencing is something that isn't automatically determined. So you could point out some of the reasons to think that God doesn't exist, and suggest that they give further thought to rational explanations of their experiences. This might be more the answer you were looking for... I toss it in as more of an aside, though, because I think it'd be a rare case where this would actually work.

[Tom Rexton]

I think it's wrong to say that entity X exists because person A perceives it. It's tantamount to the proposition that existence exists because consciousness is conscious of it--i.e., it's the primacy of consciousness. The more proper way to say it is: "person A knows that entity X exists because A perceives X," or "person A perceives entity X because X exists." (I think these were what you meant, but just in case...)

In the case of perceiving God, the question becomes, how it is that person A, who claims to be able to perceive God, can do so while others who have essentially the exact same sense organs cannot?

The only answers I can think of for that is either person A is endowed with a special sense organ that permits him to perceive God, or that God selects those who will be able to perceive him with their ordinary senses. The first is indefensible, the second is on the same grounds as the faith/revelation claim. One can just as validly claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn who selects those who will be able to perceive her with their ordinary senses. As MinorityOfOne said, the claim is arbitrary.

[y_feldblum]

If object A exists because person P directly experiences it, what happens if person Q experiences the exact opposite, or non-A? The object exists and doesn't exist at the same time. If the definition of existence we are using here is valid for all observers - ie, if a thing exists for one person then it exists for all - then we have a contradiction and the claim is invalid. Otherwise, we cannot use the term exist, because that term implies objectively, without reference to any specific observer, and the claim is invalid.

[danielshrugged]

I made the original post in a hurry before a class, so let me clarify:

The claim goes something like this: I have direct experience of some spritual realm. I understand that not everyone has such experience, and I do not expect them to accept what I say about this realm without evidence. (The person who first gave me this argument even says that faith is "a load of crap") But I know what I have seen.

---------------------

"That one is experiencing something is given in any direct perception (which, as a form of introspection or whatever, their experience qualifies as); WHAT one is experiencing is something that isn't automatically determined. So you could point out some of the reasons to think that God doesn't exist, and suggest that they give further thought to rational explanations of their experiences. This might be more the answer you were looking for"

You're right, this is helpful to me.

[Guest Guest]

A lot of tricky arguments like that seem difficult because there is a subtle difference between two senses of a word. I would say that the reason the argument seems unassailable is because its partly true, given that you constrict the definition of existence. If I experience something, then automatically two things become true: I know that I am experiencing SOMETHING, and I know that it exists for me. I might have a dream with a unicorn in it, and say that the unicorn exists. Surely it did, but only as part of my dream. It is highly probable that people who have experiences of God actually experience a unique mental phenomenon- however they never seem to be able to explain why it is more than a possible mental phenomenon.

What I think is a more interesting question, is the idea of how we actually come to impart the quality of real existence to certain objects, or how we somehow move beyond the quality that an object is merely being perceived by us. Certainly it doesn't require more than one person to impart an object with this quality.

As infants, we are not preprogrammed to realize independent existence. At this stage, we only know sensation. Over time, and after many repeated experiments (with readily available subject matter) we come to rely on independent existence as a result of overwhelming coincidence.

my thought is that we cant ultimately prove such, but the trick is that we can be 99.9999% certain that these things are real, and also that it is probably (99.999%) beneficial for us to do so.

And if the issue is sharpening your tools to debate religious arguments, I also have an idea about that. If someone believes that what they really see god, chances are they have experienced a mental reflex that was actually designed by his brain to counterfeit reality (in order to assure the survival of the species). Furthermore they experience real effects, such as brotherly love for all mankind, and postulate that such an effect could only come from god. So your only means of argument is simply to show them reality- to show them an equivalent cause and reproduce the hallucination in their mind.

Consider: what if a small child believes that theres a monster under his bed, becuase he's heard strange noises? You can't use arguments like, "monsters cant possibly exist", or "could a monster make a stone he couldn't break?" to refute the child. The only effective way to assure the child is to actually turn on the light and show him the space under his bed is empty; and then show him the source of the noise.

[AshRyan]

Over time, and after many repeated experiments (with readily available subject matter) we come to rely on independent existence as a result of overwhelming coincidence.

Whoa! The ghost of David Hume is haunting our message board!

[Guest Ghost of David Hume]

David Hume! try JEAN PIAGET.

[AshRyan]

All right, then, Meade--the "ghost of Jean Piaget." Whichever you prefer

[Guest andrew]

I might have a dream with a unicorn in it, and say that the unicorn exists. Surely it did, but only as part of my dream.

Since any thought (whether dreamed or otherwise) must involve physical/chemical activity within the brain, are we not justified in saying that there is physical evidence for all thoughts / dreams / visions / hallucinations etc.

[isaac]

If you see things that violate the law of identity, see a qualified psychotherapist right away.

The proper response when someone says, "But I SEE God!" is to call the men in the white coats.

[danielshrugged]

The proper response when someone says, "But I SEE God!" is to call the men in the white coats.

I don't think this is a constructive thing to say. A lot of otherwise rational people have what seem to be mystical experiences.

[Jason W]

I could be off, but doesn't this come back to the question of "If a tree falls and no one is around to experience it, does it make a noise?"

[RadCap]

Daniel,

Let me see if I understand your question. You want to know by what rational means you can convince someone who believes they have had a mystical experience or insight, that what they had was not, in fact, such an experience?

[danielshrugged]

Let me see if I understand your question.  You want to know by what rational means you can convince someone who believes they have had a mystical experience or insight, that what they had was not, in fact, such an experience?

Yes, that's basically the question.

[isaac]

I don't think this is a constructive thing to say. A lot of otherwise rational people have what seem to be mystical experiences.

QUOTE (RadCap @ Feb 24 2004, 03:15 AM)

Let me see if I understand your question. You want to know by what rational means you can convince someone who believes they have had a mystical experience or insight, that what they had was not, in fact, such an experience?

Yes, that's basically the question.

You're right, my response was a joke, not any sort of attempt at a "constructive" comment. Because, honestly, I don't think that there is much that one can do that is constructive in this situation.

I know, of course, that plenty of people are mostly rational, and yet still believe in god, or believe that they've had "mystical" experiences, or whatever. Some of them are generally good people. In fact, I've got a few friends that are mildly religious.

But if someone is really adamant, well, there's nothing constructive that you can really say or do. I've found that the best way to approach that is to just not care. I ask myself, "Is it worth it to me to be friends with this person, even though they're an avowed mystic?" Generally, someone who lives a life consistent with christianity is not someone I can stand to be around, whether they believe in god or not. But plenty of people who (believe that they) believe in god do not live that kind of life, and some of those are wonderful folks.

But my point with the White Coats comment is this:

If they can't talk about it rationally, then why are you talking to them?

[WWJGD?]

I thought you might enjoy Thomas Paine's insight on this subject:

"As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him." --The Age of Reason Pt. 1 Chap. 2

(Link to above siting)

Paine was so cool.

[danielshrugged]

Yes, the Paine quote makes a good point. However, the person who prompted my question--who claims mystical insight--has already said that it would be wrong for me to believe him without experiencing the insight myself.

[Trey Givens]

I think you should agree that you don't believe him.

[Guest heusdens]

A materialistic response would be that some sorts of hallucinating drugs are the causes for similar experiences, and that thus the experience of something 'spiritual' in itself is not a proof for the existence of that.

As far as I know, some parts of the brain are known to cause - when stimulated- all kind of religious feelings.

[Richard_Halley]

this question is much more simple than you all make it out to be. what it comes down to is faith... if someone has it there is no point in talking to them about it. that is what faith is... beleif beyond reason.

however, when someone says they see god, it is because they dont have any faith and are trying to justify their belief. the answer to this is a resounding BS. odds are the person will come knocking in a few days time to ask about their other options.

[Tom]

If you can get them to identify what exactly is going on within their consciousness, then it may be possible for them to consider alternative explanations. That is, if you do something which results in them identifying their states of consciousness and the things in reality which gave rise to those states of consciousness, then that person might reconsider his/her concept of "sacred".

But what caused them to have the experience? Some possibilities come to mind:

A. The individual perceives a connection between things that they hadn't perceived before, a connection impinging on their deepest values. That "click" subsequently sets off a series of "clicks" whose sum constitutes a "spiritual experience". In that case, you wouldn't want to dismiss the integrated whole they perceive. Rather, you would want to get them to analyze the things which led them to that integration.

B. The individual has been cut off from an aspect of themselves for a very long time. Then something happens which reconnects them to that aspect. In that case, you wouldn't want to deny that the "conversation" took place. Rather, you would want to lead that individual to see that feelings exist within his or her own consciousness and to separate the content from the imagined source.

C. Some traumatic experience has trigged a coping mechanism which subsequently gets interpreted as a "religious experience". At this point, you wouldn't want to tell them that it's a misinterpretation because the experience is very, very important to them. Rather, you would want them to realize that they helped themselves and they can rely on that same power whenever they need it.

D. They misinterpret coincidence as meaningful pattern. This is one of the keys to the mystical psycho-epistemology. Here, the person needs epistemological retraining. They should learn to be on the look-out for inductive errors, especially conceptual errors.

One common denominator in these cases (among others) is that integrating data into patterns is fallible. We should habituate ourselves to come up more than one possible explanation for what we are perceiving.

I am reminded of something an old mathematician in the movie Pi said to his young protege (the main character of the film)

If you want to find the number two sixteen in the world, you'll be able to pull it out of anywhere. Two hundred and sixteen steps from your street comer to your front door. Two hundred and sixteen seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, it will filter everything else out and find examples of that thing everywhere. Three hundred and twenty, four hundred and fifty, twenty-three. Whatever! You've chosen two sixteen and you'll find it everywhere in nature.