Taffy Lewis

One model dealing with the grounds for theistic belief is a perceptual model. The claim is that belief in God is based on experience of God's presence in the same way that belief in the physical world is based on sensory experience. On this model, God's existence is not best compared to this or that physical object. Rather, God's existence is on a par with the entire physical world. This comparison is justified by the fact that sensory perception and perception of God are supposed to be our primary sources of information about their respective objects. Thus, on this model, belief in God is not based on any kind of inference from other things of which we are aware. Rather, belief in God is based on a ground that is more direct. Sensory perception is similar. I do not infer that a computer is in front of me. No inference is required. I simply perceive that it is here and this basis is much more direct than constructing an argument or recognizing some chain of reasoning in which I infer its existence from other things of which I am more directly aware.

It is often claimed that we cannot choose our beliefs. Most theistic philosophers recognize this and yet many continue to hold that theistic belief can be or is virtuous or meritorious or culpable in some way. How can this be?

The theist might point out that we are often held responsible for many nonreligious beliefs. For example, in college one's instructor will hold one responsible for having the correct set of beliefs dealing with most courses of study. This is because there are choices I can make that will make a difference to whether or not I hold a correct set of beliefs. Or consider an irresponsible parent. If a parent does not know where their child is most of the time, we might rightly say they ought to know and hold them responsible if they do not. So it's not necessarily true that we cannot hold people responsible for which beliefs they hold. This is because many of the beliefs we hold are dependent on certain choices we make. We can choose to put ourselves in a position in which our beliefs are caused and not chosen. But why believe theistic belief is similar to these examples?

Consider perception again. We do not perceive objects and form beliefs about them under just any set of conditions. For example, if I am to perceive a tree is present I must meet certain specific conditions. I must be within a certain distance, there must be enough light, there cannot be certain kinds of objects between myself and the tree, my eyes must be functioning properly, I must be attentive and facing the right direction, I must have the concept of a tree, etc. The conditions of perception are determined by the nature of the object perceived and the way we are related to it. All objects do not share the same conditions of perception. The conditions for perceiving a tree are not the same as those for perceiving a cold breeze. The conditions for perceiving God will be different than those for a tree as well.

Traditionally, the conditions for awareness of God deal with particular aspects of a person's attitude, character, dispositions, and purposes. For example, theists sometimes hold that a person must have a penitent and contrite heart, or they must be humble and willing to admit they are mere creatures (if God exists), or a person must honestly pursue religious truth, etc.

The philosopher William Alston says:

And the philosopher Robert McKim makes some interesting remarks:

The basic idea is that belief in God is a consequence of putting ourselves in the "right position" with regard to perceiving God. Putting ourselves in this position is a matter of the kinds of persons we come to be. We generally believe that we have some control over our character, attitudes, and purposes and we often hold people responsible for the kind of person they are. Rather than choosing to believe there is a god, the belief may be caused by perceiving God through our fulfilling the conditions of perception (ie. having a certain attitude and character). These things are within our control and thus dependent upon our choices.

Any comments or suggestions with regard to this model? Theistic or atheistic.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

There are one or two problems here that I can see.

One is the assertion that mystical experiences that suggest to the perciever the prescence of god are actual experiences of a real being. However, if we accept this, we must also accept the truth of the spiritual revelations delevered to believers in Allah, Shiva, and Rael (especially Rael, who reveals himself spiritually quite often). I don't see any way to separate 'real' perceptions of the spirit of god from perceptions that other religions claim. The christian theist has a problem: either the christian god really does exist, but everyone else misinterprets his perceptual form (suggesting a lack of omnipotence), or else the christian god reveals himself differently to various cultures, raising the further problem of how to reconcile contratictory perceptions. (or alternatively, everyone else is just wrong about their spiritual perceptions, and only christians are correct)

The problem with the views of the philosophers you quote, is that it is not just yahweh who will reveal himself to you if you are open to him,but also, if you are open to rael, you get mystical perceptions of rael. If you open your soul to Allah, a mystical perception of allah follows right on its heels.

However, (and this is the important part), if any religious person of a non christian upbringing is the perfect model of having a penitent and contrite heart, being humble and willing to admit they are mere creatures, and honestly pursuing religious truth, it is NEVER EVER the christian god that they get a perception of, it is ALWAYS whichever god they grew up with. This strongly suggests to me that, although spiritual feelings seem to be a natural consequence of piety, it is impossible to draw any conclusions whatsoever from them as to the true nature of god/s.

The agnostic interprets the spiritual sense as being some kind of holy thing that we cannot fully know, thus justifying agnosticism, while the atheist interprets the spiritual sense in naturalistic psychological terms.

Godless Sodomite

Reading Robert McKim's commentary put me in mind of an observation once made by Oscar Wilde. He said that alcohol consumed in sufficient quantities produces all the effects of drunkenness. At least with alcohol both the substance and the effect can be measured.

With regard to having a mind "open" to perceiving god, it has never yet been demonstrated that there is a god to be perceived. One may claim that they've had an experience of god, true, but outside of observing the brainwaves of the believer (which can be and have been measured) we have no way of knowing if their experiences are truly as claimed. And that leaves me in the same place where I started.

In my research of religions, I have come to the conclusion that christianity is false--the deity described does not exist in the fashion claimed. Nothing I've read about other religions leads me to believe any of those hold any more truth value--especially when the teachings are compared to my everyday observations.

If I am first to start with the dogma and then conform my perceptions to what's been proscribed, I'm not having my own experiences; I'm thinking the thoughts and perceiving the world of someone else. I think it imperative that I start with myself and what I observe and perceive. Then when information is brought forward that conflicts with my observations I can examine it and discard it or adapt my perceptions based on this new information to the best of my intelligence and understanding.

I'll be the first one to admit that I know far from everything about anything, but your post suggests that I start with unwarranted presuppositions. I can only start with the brute fact of my own existence and the realization that my senses reflect the world in which I live. Everything else comes afterward.

-Jerry

Ojuice5001

Doubting Didymus,

First of all, let me remind you that monotheism is not the only theology that can be true. I have had experiences that indicate the Roman goddess Postverta is ruling over my life. A number of other people have also had experiences with the Roman or Greek gods, and a larger number of people have had experiences with the Hindu gods. These theologies can be accepted with less question, because their proponents don't have to argue that experiences of other gods should necessarily be rejected. Also, to state the obvious, a lot of Romans and Hellenes, including myself, were raised Christian--no objecting to experiences of the Roman gods on those grounds.

I am perfectly aware that not all spiritual experiences should be accepted; I have an answer to this objection. There are three criteria or tests--an experience that passes all should be accepted, and one that fails all should be rejected.

The first test is congruency: Would the spiritual reality you experienced be likely to cause both the experience, and a lot of the other facts you see? The second is recurrence: Does the experience keep occurring for a long period of time? The third is inclusiveness: Does the experience require you to reject other experiences that pass tests one and two? For a true experience, the answer should be yes, yes, and no.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000271" target="_blank">A few months back,</a> I made this same argument. The link has a more detailed explanation of why tests one and two are valid ways to discriminate, and why Postverta passes the tests. Hans seems to agree that these are good tests, but be agnostic on the question of whether any spiritual experiences are valid. I try to argue that they are, but no one believes me (as always ); just pretend that I offer Taffy Lewis's argument after post three, and evaluate the case for my religion that way.

The thread I linked to doesn't address the issue of exclusiveness, so let me do it here. An exclusive, monotheistic theology is bad because it requires us to reject the experiences of others. Here's an analogy.

Say four men get a glimpse of the same ten-square-foot area. One sees a pile of dry leaves, one sees a gasoline can, one sees a bird, and one sees a raging fire. You should believe all but the one who sees the fire, because the first three are compatible with each other, while if the fire-observer is right, no one else is. In the same way, Christians and Muslims are suspect in that their experiences are incompatible with everyone else's, while polytheistic experiences are compatible with each other. Christianity or Islam could be right, of course, but they should be held to a higher standard when making the argument from religious experiences.

rainbow walking

Hi Taffy,
Computers and trees, though directly percievable, do not define themselves as computers and trees. Definition of what it is you are percieving incorporates the intellect and conceptual thinking. The epistemology involves a complex process. Such definition requires one to be able to consistently study the object of perception for identification and classification purposes in orderto be able to communicate ones perceptions in a conceptual manner. Your model declares we must start with conceptualization and proceed to perception. This is just bass ackwards from the way the human mind normally functions when attempting to indulge a new experience. That ones perceptions of existent things are determined by ones identity and personality is also rather unsupportable. Ones conceptualizations can be determined by such things but perceptions...nah.

Doubting Didymus

I am very sorry, but I think your three criterion are completely bunk. You have not proposed any kind of reliable test for truth.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where I have a spiritual experience of Rael, who tells me that he created humans in the image that we see them in. This happens again a little later, and then again. If rael is real, it explains both the spiritual phenomena and the fact that humans exist the way they do. The experience does not require me to regect any previous experiences that pass rules one and two. Should I accept that Rael is real?

The rules you propose are no guarantee of accuracy. Why should I believe in a hallucination I had just because it explains a lot if it is real, happens often, and isn't contradictory?

As for your four men glimpsing a paddock, why the hell should I believe any one of them over the others? Why shouldn't I believe the man who sees the paddock ablaze, and regect the other three? because there are more of them? argument ad populum?

If the men had said: 'I see a pantheon of faeries', the next: 'I see a pantheon of elves' the third: 'I see a pantheon of norse gods' and the final: 'I see the one true god, who makes the others impossible' I should believe the first three men, but not the fourth, just because the first three beliefs do not contradict? Why shouldn't I conclude instead that none of the four men are seeing a real thing?

scumble

Taffy,

There is, in fact, a simple glaring hole in this "predisposition" idea to experiencing God. What it appears to say, is that God is experienced by people who are already willing to accept God's existence - there's an inherent assumption.

The "philosophers" quoted seem to be falling in to the usual practice of suggesting selfish and materialistic people are somehow shutting out God (poor souls) etc. It really annoys me, since there are plenty of selfish Christians out there who believe in God. It's this degrading of non-believers that leads to oppression and persecution.

HRG

I do not perceive any god. How do you know that what you think is your perception of God is not generated within your brain ?

IOW, there is just one word missing: "communal". I.e. the perception which is our primary source must be common to a majority. Which is true for chairs, tables and computers, but not for gods.

Oh yes you do, only subconsciously. The visual centers in you brain do it for you.

You infer from the fact that certain cones and rods in your retina have been excited that they have been hit by photons.
You infer from this photon absorption that the photons have originated somewhere.
You infer from their pattern that they originated from a computer, by comparing it with other photon patterns that your retina has absorbed in the past.

"You" of course refers to your visual centers - which are a part of you, aren't they ?

Note that each of these steps is amenable to study by science. Quite a contrast to the alleged perception of god.

Whether you do it subconsciously, or consciously (like an inference from a pattern of iron filings that there is a magnet under the table) doesn't change the least that it is an inference.

I could say that the only things of which you are directly aware are the nerve impulses impinging on your brain. The awareness of all other things (from chairs to neutrinos) is indirect; of course the length of the inference chain varies widely.

True. But in this case, there is an objective definition of what they should have done to inform themselves properly, so that an unbiased observed could have told in advance that they failed to do something.
However, the conditions for perceiving a tree can be stated objectively. IOW, an unbiased third party can check whether they are fulfilled and predict with assurance that you will actually perceive a tree.

Not so with the conditions for perceiving God. Theists always have the escape clause ´that you did not pray hard enough, or not with an open mind etc. Of course, these criteria can never be objectively checked.

But I've never heard of an objective experience which depended on whether the observer prayed hard enough.
See above. All those are conditions whose fulfillment cannot be objectively checked.

"You did not perceive God ? Obviously your heart was not contrite". How can we tell in advance whether a heart is sufficiently contrite ?
The only way to check whether those conditions were fulfilled seems to be "If you perceived God, you were in the right condition; if not, you weren't"
Which is rather tautological, isn't it ?
How shall I control it if neither Mr. Alston nor you can tell me what the condition is ?

In effect, he is telling me "If you are in the right state of mind, Hermes will appear to you and give you a billion Euros. You haven't received a billion Euros yet ? You have only yourself to blame".

Regards,
HRG

P.S. Your quotes claim that certain ideas, predispositions etc. can decrease the awareness of God. The other side of the coin is of course that certain other ideas, predispositions etc. may increase the probability of mistaking an endogenous experience as a perception of the supernatural.

When A sees something that B doesn't, there are always two possibilities:

1. B is (partly) blind.
2. A is (partly) hallucinating.

Neither should be dismissed a priori.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Traditionally, the conditions for awareness of God deal with particular aspects of a person's attitude, character, dispositions, and purposes. For example, theists sometimes hold that a person must have a penitent and contrite heart, or they must be humble and willing to admit they are mere creatures (if God exists), or a person must honestly pursue religious truth, etc.

Of course, this does not account for the millions who sincerely pursue religious truth, and find nothing, and the millions who find it and then realize it is a sham.

Rather, God's existence is on a par with the entire physical world. This comparison is justified by the fact that sensory perception and perception of God are supposed to be our primary sources of information about their respective objects. Thus, on this model, belief in God is not based on any kind of inference from other things of which we are aware. Rather, belief in God is based on a ground that is more direct. Sensory perception is similar. I do not infer that a computer is in front of me. No inference is required. I simply perceive that it is here and this basis is much more direct than constructing an argument or recognizing some chain of reasoning in which I infer its existence from other things of which I am more directly aware.

I think there are many problems with this. First, the fact that an inference takes place below the conscious level, or the processing is so fast that one is not aware of it, does not mean that an inference has not taken place. All perceptions must be processed by the brain's machinery, so some kinds of inferences take place where one cannot access the process, while others do not.

Further, all thought processes are beyond conscious reach; one does not access one's thought processes directly. Therefore, by your definition, there are no inferences possible.

Clearly, this whole idea you've laid out here of "direct perception vs inference" is severely flawed.

Rather, you are distinguishing between differing types of object-perception-process interactions. In the first case of the computer, you have such a rich variety of data inputs that your ID of it as a computer is rapid and sure and you have no awareness of yourself making the identification. But now consider yourself in a completely darkened room. Suddenly you hear a whirr. It might take you a minute to "infer" the presence of a computer, and you might be aware of the processing lag.

Thus, the way I see it, there is no cognitive basis for your claim.

Another serious problem I see with it is evolutionary. Humans are evolved to deal with the world; human perceptual mechanisms may even be selected (see Bright Air, Brilliant Fire) to deal with their inputs. There is no known physical mechanism or organ associated with the perception of god, and there is arguably nothing in the world for it to process.

In my own view the feeling of "god" is cognitive fallout from various processing biases humans require in order to have social interactions. The most important among them is the feeling that things in the world have intentions, since we could never discover that by deduction; it has to be built in. The feeling that the universe has a purpose, or intention, lies at the heart of the religious impulse, but it is merely a feeling that humans and other complex social animals have evolved in order to business with each other.

Vorkosigan

PS: HRG, I just got Curse of Chalion and Dip Immunity from Amazon. The former is wonderful of course. The latter is good....but I'd get it from the library.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

S.A.TAN

Dearest Taffy, I think you just dropped yourself in a pool full of piranhas.

To exarcebate the situation, you have just narrowed the ground upon which Theists can use to claim their beliefs in God.

If No inference is needed and the God must be experienced for people to believe in, then I think you will put most of the theologians out of work.

I for one think that possibly the most compelling argument theists can use is the Intelligent design argument.

To stake your claim in God based on sense perception is foolhardy because you have to show God to every person you want to convince. that means you have to put God in front of my computer to make me believe.