emotional

Real is what is, what exists. For most real things there is proof, but for some things there still aren't, or never can be.

I can imagine a teapot orbiting Pluto but that doesn't make it real; actually this isn't a good example because it can theoretically be proved that there is or isn't such a teapot.

For God and the afterlife there is no proof, nor, I think, can there ever be. Scientific proof for the supernatural? That's an oxymoron; science can only touch the natural. That doesn't mean there isn't really a supernatural realm that people pass into after they die. This unhappy position leaves me with no choice but faith.



Press the "quote" button in the lower-right corner of my post.



An SRE is a mystical vision, I think (perhaps Calzaer can elaborate, since he has had those, not I). A vision of God, as described in Ezekiel 1 and Isaiah 6, is an SRE. The main disadvantage of SREs is that they could be tricks of the brain, and that is indeed what sceptics take them to be. As for others knowing about your SRE, that's exactly why they're called Subjective Religious Experiences - only the subject can know he's had one.

I've never had an SRE, nor a Near-Death Experience, nor any paranormal vision that might convince me of the existence of the supernatural. I believe in life after death out of a sheer psychological need - the thought of death being the end of all just scares me out of my wits. It is a non-negotiable belief, and if there is no evidence for that belief, then I have no option but to believe without evidence. I thus take a voluntary fideistic position - I believe because I want to believe.

Calzaer

Charlie:
I'm just pushing emotional's buttons, actually. He believes it's so well hidden that neither he nor science will ever find it, but somehow it's gonna swoop in, deus-ex-machina style, and prevent him from the inconvient possibility of not existing after he dies. In the process, ignoring everything science says about the subject if he doesn't like the implications. Like anything it's ever said about Near Death Experiences, for example.

Since you asked, I will clearly eludicidate my beliefs. I would like to preface this, however, with a disclaimer: I can't prove anything. Therefore, I don't expect anyone to even take me seriously on the subject, much less believe me. If science directly contradicts me on any point (for instance if I said I believed in invisible pink unicorns, and science says that something can't possibly be both invisible and pink at the same time due to the nature of light and color), I will respectfully defer to science and modify my beliefs to fit into the new mold. This might mean I eventually end up as an atheist. I accept that possibility, although it would require closing a lot of gaps.

Again, I don't actually expect to convince anyone that my beliefs or experiences are in fact true. I don't even bring them up in this manner unless asked, or unless I have a question regarding the scientific validity of my experiences ("I thought I saw X. What could X have been?"). I would also like to state, again, that if my beliefs and scientific findings conflict, I believe that science is a more accurate descriptor of the natural world than I am.

***

1) There is no "supernatural". The "supernatural" is just the "natural" that hasn't been adequately researched, described, or studied (for any reason, including "it's just silly to research THAT!").

In regard to Deity:

2) There exists at least one powerful non-human entity hereby referred to as a "deity" or a "god".
a) If only one deity exists, it separates itself in human experiences into a male and female entity, for our convenience. Any implied gender attributes used when discussing this overarching deity should be ignored.
b) If more than one exists, the "male" and "female" are, in fact, two separate deities and therefore gender attributes are appropriate.
c) I personally feel there is only one overarching deity of a semi-pantheistic sort (see #4) which manifests itself with any number of human attributes as to make it palatable to the person or culture it is addressing at the time. However, at this time, either a) or b) is technically possible and would not conflict with my experiences.

3) This deity is omnipresent and omnipotent.
a) "Omnipotent" does not imply the ability to violate logical rules. Square circles are right out, as the definition of "square" and the definition of "circle" are contradictory. Zeno's paradox in regards to this deity is another discussion entirely.
b) Omniscience has yet to be determined. I personally feel this being is not omniscient, to allow for the existence of 'free will' rather than a single "fated" outcome to all of creation. However, either option is entirely possible.
c) Omnibenevolent is contraindicated.
d) This deity is perfect.
e) This deity is immortal.
i) for the purposes of this discussion, the term "perfect" is defined as "exactly balanced" rather than "morally good". Nature, for instance, could arguably be described as "perfect" in this model, even though it has no moral attributes. This neatly prevents the conundrum of a human able to be "more perfect" than god simply by being more compassionate or more kind.
ii) other components of the definition of the word "perfect" have yet to be determined. At the moment, "perfect" is actually a rhetorically meaningless term used only to frame this deity in such a way as to make it discussable with theists of different persuasions who describe their deity as "perfect".
f) This deity is interventionist for those who ask. Note that "asking" does not imply a code-phrase or ritual, nor does it imply this deity is compelled to grant any specific request.

4) This deity is semi-pantheistic.
a) It is pantheistic in that everything existent contains within it some part of this divinity. "God is everything", as my grandad used to say.
i) as a result, this deity does not "reside" in a specific place, i.e. Heaven, Nirvana, etc.
ii) some existent "things" may or may not have a greater concentration of divinity than others, or all may be equally (or entirely) divine. I've come to no hard conclusions one way or the other on this topic.
b) It is NOT pantheistic in its interventionistic nature (see #3f). See also #5.

5) This deity can and does communicate with humans, through the manifestations described in #2. These may appear in meditative vision, dreams, or other alpha-state activities. Could also be the source of "intuition" and "instinct", but no hard conclusions have been made on this topic.
a) These communications are entirely subjective and generally unverifiable to anyone outside the subject's head. They are proof of this deity?s existence to the person who experiences the communication, but should not be expected to count as evidence to anyone else.
b) These communications make up a significant part of the entire body of Subjective Religious Experiences (SREs).
c) Claiming to have received a communication of this sort does not negate any personal culpability for actions which are inconsistent with cultural/societal normality or which are inconsistent with the ethical system (see #6) attributed to this deity.

In regard to Ethics:

6) This deity provided humans with an ethical system consisting of the following base premise: "As you harm none, do what you will."
a) "Harm" is defined as lasting detrimental physical, emotional, or material damage, with the intent of the perpetrator as the deciding factor (rather than after-the-fact justifications). Harm is differentiated from "hurt", that is non-lasting damage which can lead to greater personal achievement or growth in the future. For instance, refusing to loan money to a friend who has in the past proven very unreliable with employment can be seen as hurting them. Loaning them money, however, contributes to a lasting material damage (that is, never having to develop good employment habits conducive to keeping a job) and would therefore constitute "harm". The subject of "harm" is entirely too complex to discuss fully in this short synopsis.
b) "None" is defined to include oneself as well as people/things outside oneself.
c) It is impossible to live one's entire life without causing harm. The object is not to cease to eat, breathe, or step on roaches, but to prevent the gratuitous nature of harmful acts. Again, the subject is far too complex for a full discussion in this synopsis.
d) The penalties for causing gratuitous harm are inflicted by "karma". "Karma" is a gross oversimplification of a concept, defined by the interrelationships between actions and reactions. There is no cosmic "SMITE!" button; rather your actions will return to you through perfectly natural mechanisms. Also, see #7. "Karma" is not meant to be taken as a supernatural (see #1) law-enforcement officer.

In regards to Death:

7) I believe in reincarnation. This belief stems from #4a and #3e. If we are all part of this deity, and this deity is immortal, then some part of us must also be immortal in some sense or another. This immortal/deity part is hereby referred to as a "soul".
a) Reincarnation does not exclude non-human life forms, although I have reached no hard conclusions on just how far down the tree this extends. Could we be reincarnated as bacteria? Or a bush? Or an alien species in some distant galaxy? I'm uncertain. These ideas are not necessarily appealing or credibility-inducing, but restricting them would require a mechanism I have yet to hear described.
b) Reincarnation is not necessarily tied to the "karma" system above, but could be.

In regard to the Occult:

8) See #1.

9) There is a force, hereby called "energy" (in spite of the scientific inaccuracy of that label), that exists outside our perceptional range.
a) This force can be manipulated to serve a specific purpose. The process of manipulating this force is hereby referred to as "magic".
b) This force is perfectly natural and detectable by impartial observers (most likely by some mechanism not yet developed/discovered, with regard to impartial observers who do not deign to participate in a ritual manipulating this energy).
i) This is the weakest link of the entire belief system: it requires that impartial people not affiliated with this belief system should be able to experience magic under the right conditions (which probably shouldn't involve hallucinogens).
ii) A person's individual magical experience should also be considered subjective, and as a result makes up another large segment of SREs (see #5b). These SREs are constrained by the same rules with regard to evidence as perceived by a third party that Communication SREs are constrained by. IOW: Nobody will believe you. It's not evidence.
iii) Individual magical acts or experiences will only be considered evidence at such time as I use them to take Randi's million dollars. Until that point, however, see above.
c) "Energy" is related to the divine quality of all things (see #4a), although I have yet to determine the exact relationship.
d) The nature of "energy" and "magic" is, again, far too complex to be adequately covered in this outline.

***
Whew. There. I think that just about covers it. Happy now?

[edited for spelling and other typos. If you find any I missed, let me know.]

Calzaer

I would also like to take this opportunity to extend a formal and sincere apology to Emotional.

Emotional, I've come to realize that I've done you a grave disservice in my treatment of you and your beliefs. I honestly apologize for anything and everything I've said which offended you, either intentionally or not. I was being a childish prick, and I hope you can forgive me.

andy_d

Er, not exactly. To think that science is a method for divining truth is a mistake. Science is only concerned with ideas that are useful

Example: In physics you can think of things in either a Newtonian or a Quantum fashion. The two worldviews are incompatable and contradictory, neither is exactly true. However, in various situations either one or the other is very useful.

Subtle but important difference.

emotional

Apology accepted.

My apologies for: 1) debating a subject which I state to be undebatable, and 2) giving other believers a bad name. Obviously most believers base their beliefs on [what they deem to be] evidence and reason, not on wishful thinking as I do. I am an aberration, not the rule.

Charlie

I can accept that! A nice honest explanation! I would say that you are the first religious person I've met that I would perhaps not call delusional. I'm sure there are many others, but I have not had anyone give such a nice explanation. It appears that you know where you stand, you understand the difference between science and faith. You respect science, but at the same time you choose to have faith knowing that it conflicts with science. And that's ok, everyone is entitled to have the freedom to believe or not.

May I ask how you came to believe? (Were you raised in a religious family? Was there a life changing event? . . . )
Sincerely,
Charlie

Charlie

Wow! I'm impressed with how complex your belief is and it having such detail. It's almost as if you have written your own personal belief manual. Is this all specific to you, or are there others who believe exactly the same?
I, of course, like the disclaimer especially the part where you say you "..might eventually end up as an atheist"!
Also, I of course think that if you truly do "..respectfully defer to science and modify your beliefs to fit into the new mold.", then you will end up an atheist.
I must also admit that I have a hard time understanding exactly where you stand.. I see a lot of your words being contradictory (perhaps you are just, as you say, having a little fun pushing peoples 'buttons'). Example: Saying that 'emotional' may someday realize that there is no afterlife (yet you are a believer?) and your statement of respectfully deferring to science and modifying your beliefs to fit.. (if this is true then shouldn't you be an atheist right now?)
May I ask how you came to your beliefs? (Were you raised with this belief? Life changing event?...)
Thanks for sharing your belief system!
Charlie

Charlie

I think I see your point!? Perhaps "truth" is nothing more than a human concept. This is why truth is often debatable. I still see science as being concerned with what is real/reality vs. what is not real/supernatural. I'm not sure I can agree with your statement that science is concerned with ideas that are useful? I don't think science cares whether something is useful or not. Science is science, it merely explains what is real and how things work/fit in our world. Right?

emotional

My philosophical life has always been restless. I was born into an atheist family and educated on the regular tenets: nature all there is, no gods, no spirits, no miracles, and no life after death. It was that last tenet that I was never able to accept: the thought that one day my consciousness or "self" would be switched off caused me sleepless nights and spontaneous screaming. I underwent treatment to try to solve the problem, but they (the various professionals I went to) couldn't help.

I tried to find my solace in traditional theism - I was an Orthodox Jewish fundamentalist for two years. After that, I left theism out of sheer incapability to believe - I couldn't accept young-earth creationism (which Orthodox Judaism demands), and I couldn't believe that a God who doesn't answer the millions of starving in Africa would answer my petty prayers. So I went back to atheism for a while, until my fear of final death resurfaced, and I was plunged back into the nightmare. So I decided to do something about it: find a religion which isn't so irrational and unbelievable as traditional theism, but which provides for life after death. I tried various pagan paths (including Wicca), but I left those because I couldn't believe in magick, spells and multiple deities. In the end, where it stands today, I have blended Deism (belief in a God who does not intervene) with spiritualism (belief in afterlife in astral planes) and humanism (the moral code of conduct which I think is most logical and desirable) in a satisfactory framework; so that I do not have to believe ten impossible things before breakfast, and so that there might be a chance that what I believe is true.

Were it not for my fear of death I would be an atheist. But it is not a little thing, and it has plagued my life ever since I learned about the fact of death, at the age of eight. For a brief time, I thought I could master that fear; but when I heard about the SARS outbreak, I thought my death was imminent, so I quickly built up the wall of faith.

dangin

You were dead for billions of years before you were alive. It didn't hurt a bit. And just one second ago, infact each milisecond that passes as you, Emotional, read this, something is dying, and passing into eternal death. And here we are typing, and reading, and breathing away. It's kind of beautiful really. This irreconciable faith you have is too fragile. You could be in a restaurant and someone could turn up the TV and there's sally jane news reporter

This just in, Life after death has been conclusively disproved, this life is all you got folks . . .

Then it will be on the cover of every newspaper, and every magazine for the next month. Dateline will do a special on it. Everyone will be shocked to know that once the brain ceases to function, awareness ceases to function.

I really think you need to get a hold of this fear, not find an imminently failable method of insulating yourself from it.

Each morning when you look in the mirror remind yourself you're going to be gone some day. Eventually you will bore yourself and won't care anymore.