The Dilemma of the Believer

I believe the experience is real. We would disagree as to interpretation, so it depends how he lives with the experience. If it is important to the person to never be contradicted, said person would be wise to avoid gatherings where doubters and unbelievers discuss/argue such things. I for one can let him have his belief, uncontested, so long as it is not insisted upon that I must share the belief. Looking at it from my side, I have one sister, whom I love. But, on facebook, she constantly posts articles insulting to atheists. Not arguments or calls for dialog. Hateful put-downs. I try to ignore it, but occasionally have to speak up, merely to remind her who one of those hated atheists happens to be.

Does “believing in things” actually bring comfort? If so, I guess I could believe in something…although I am a lot more “comfortable” than many people who believe things--and I do not "believe" in things.



I don’t know how any agnostic could determine that some things are unknowable. They may think or suppose some things are unknowable--and some things do appear to be unknowable (as I will mention below), but to be secure that things other than the one item I mention below are unknowable is a bit of a stretch.



First of all, I think many atheists would disagree with your characterization of what atheists "believe." But beyond that, since a belief is really just a guess about something that is unknown…why would saying “I do not know” be considered “betwixt and between?” It simply is a statement of truth: I do not know.



That is a tough one, Snood. Someone else proposed that to me just last week in another forum. But that is a hypothetical so far out…it just doesn’t work. How on Earth could anyone ever KNOW they were not hallucinating? In fact your wording seems to acknowledge that. You say, "...you come away BELIEVING" was God." That, it seems to me, is all you can do...guess or believe it was a god.



I don't see this as a dilemma, because there really is no need to have a god “unmistakably present itself” to defend against anyone who actively denounces belief in GOD or gods to be fantasy. How does anyone know there are no gods? One MIGHT be able to find out if there IS a GOD (or are gods) but it is impossible for a human to find out there are no gods (that one thing I mentioned above). Anyone asserting that there are no gods…is asserting pure imagination.



The dilemma, as I see it, is how to determine the visitation is not a hallucination.

If there is a GOD...and IF the GOD wanted people to know IT exists...I think it could do that with no trouble. It would not take the form of a "visitation" as you suggested in your hypothetical. It would be pretty conclusive.

In a bit of whimsy, I used to suggest: Announce to every newspaper and media outlet on the planet that on a particular date IT would cause the planet Jupiter to disappear from our Solar System...and on a particular date after that, IT would cause it to reappear.

Not sure if a being would have to be GOD to do that...but close enough for my purposes.

There is an important distinction here which is missing from this exposition. I don't believe that there is a god, but i don't know and it is completely inaccurate to allege that i believe there is no god. Perhaps some people will miss the distinction--but this is not a case of me making an assertion, it's a case of me reacting to an assertion by saying "i don't believe that." Furthermore, i don't care.

There is also a subtle distinction missing from this exposition, and that is the distinction between informed belief and blind faith. I do in fact believe in several things, and if you include small matters such as that cross traffic will stop when they have a red light, i believe a great many things. I came literally within inches of being seriously injured or killed one night when an idiot not simply ran a red light, but did so at an excessive speed. I really think, in fact, that the high speed helped to save me, because i instinctively (i.e., without conscious thought) cranked the steering wheel to the left, and the idiot passed my vehicle on the right as i was sliding in that direction. Had he not been traveling at an excessive speed, there probably would have been a collision.

But i've approached intersections where i have the green light literally thousands of times, and no one has run the red light. My experience tells me that it is safe to proceed on the assumption that cross traffic will stop. That's informed belief--informed by a knowledge of human nature and by long experience. Without regard to what others may think, i have no evidence or experience to lead me to believe that there are any gods--so i don't believe it. I consider such a belief to be, in the absence of evidence, blind faith.

I believe that human nature is largely benign. That there are cruel and even murderous people in the world doesn't change that, because they are, in the example of the United Stats, a very small fraction of the population. So i am comfortable with saying that human nature is largely benign. That, too, is an informed belief. I could provide several other examples, but i think that makes my point.

Your hypothesis of " a visitation" (etc) does not take into account that perception is active rather than passive. Any religious interpretation an experiencer might have (even a previously sceptical one) has already been acquired socially, from the language of believers, and will be transmitted socially (even in internal conversations) in the same linguistic terms. It is an aspect of our active perceptual apparatus. In short "God lingo" is endemic to us, just as "gods lingo" was endemic to earlier cultures.( I am surprisingly grateful to Spendius for prompting that point ! )

If I was convinced I had experienced God, I would be happy to admit it and tell people and to describe it, I just wouldn't attempt to justify my belief with logic or empirical evidence (unless I had some). I would be content to hold my belief simply as a belief, unsupported by any evidence. And I wouldn't expect anyone else to believe me just because I was convinced.

I certainly can understand why people whose belief in a loving God has enriched their lives would want others to share the experience they have had. Personally, I tend to think that it's not possible to hector someone into a spiritual awakening and so while it may be possible to light a spark and guide them if they are open, constant preaching is unlikely to be of much use.

Some folks, however think that if they don't convert others to their belief, the non-believer is damned. If I was of this mind,I can imagine that I might risk being seen as obnoxious in my efforts to convert people for who I cared.

Not to bring politics into this discussion, but I suspect that there are quite a few people who believe abortion is essentially murder of an innocent human life, face the believers dilemma when faced with considering abortion in the case of rape.

Perhaps more significant is Society's Dilemma: How do we balance a respect for an individual's beliefs with protecting others from the imposition of them.

Let's up the ante on this hypothetical. Rather than experience God, one actually had a Mount Sinai experience, and talked to God, and he answered. At that point I would ask what was the deal with having Jesus be Jewish, since it was a bad joke for the Jews that lived past his time (from many a Jew's perspective).

At that point, regardless of the answer, I would ask God directly why he has allowed mankind to believe that there is some sort of Salvation. A joke?

Finally, I would bid God adieu, and have a snack. Mortals get hungy now and then. I would tell no one, since it is no one's business if I had a personal audience with God, plus like the game telephone, my version of the meeting would likely change before the second person told my "secret."

But, the meeting would confirm my heartfelt belief that I'm "special," in the greater scheme of things. A holdover likely from early accolades from my mother when I got good grades.

Let's up the ante on this hypothetical. Rather than experience God, one actually had a Mount Sinai experience, and talked to God, and he answered. At that point I would ask what was the deal with having Jesus be Jewish, since it was to the detriment for the Jews that lived past his time (from many a Jew's perspective).

At that point, regardless of the answer, I would ask God directly why he has allowed mankind to believe that there is some sort of Salvation. A joke?

Finally, I would bid God adieu, and have a snack. Mortals get hungy now and then. I would tell no one, since it is no one's business if I had a personal audience with God, plus like the game telephone, my version of the meeting would likely change before the second person told my "secret."

But, the meeting would confirm my heartfelt belief that I'm "special," in the greater scheme of things. A holdover likely from early accolades from my mother when I got good grades.

I was bypassing this as the matter of what atheists think has been covered on a2k ad infinitum, but Snood, whom I like, by the way, has missed it or read over it.

I'm an atheist. I fail to believe. I've void of belief in a god or gods. A-theism, without theism, get it? (I know you do, Set). I have no opinion such as "there are no gods". That's a step further, which is not interesting to me.

Many of us atheists think this way, and, I gather others are in the second category.

I also am not actually against religion. Having been religious in youth, with a set of parents who supported missionary types, I was raised about good deeds. I'm sardonic on that now, but I also think much good happens under the banner of doing good deeds for salvation. I think even some of those people do the good deed for plain old wanting to help, and not primarily for salvation.
Religion happens, and will happen.

On Snood's premise, with a presence - he is welcome to his view on that.

Thank you rosborne for answering the question I asked.

You mean for answering the question as how you'd answer it?
JK

Not at all. Rosborne and I are not in the habit of people-pleasing each other. I simply asked what they would do with the information if they themselves were convinced they'd met God. It was a hypothetical admittedly, but a fairly straightforward and unambiguous question nonetheless.

Your question assumes that "belief " is merely a psychological issue. From a functional point of view, the essence of religion is primarily social (about relationships), and secondly psychological (justifying one's existence and destiny).You have not taken on board the fact that perception is active not passive and has already been socially programmed. Since the conditioned norm for reporting the experience of "visitations" has been culturally limited to (a) "divine" (b) "alien" or (c)"hallucination",the dilemma of the potential convert is whether to seek mutual reinforcement of selection (a) in order to reinforce rejection of (b) or (c). Note that reporting includes "to oneself" (another social acquisition).

You will not accept any of the above if you start from the position that "the existence of God" is axiomatic.

Why should anyone answer your hypothetical when it's obvious that you don't understand the terms in which you atempt to frame it? For example, what you are attempting to construct would be the dilemma of the unbeliever. Your thesis is a mess.

Would I go around telling people I ran into God, so to speak? Um, no. God doesn't appear to people like that anymore and He doesn't talk audibly (though He does talk to us in our hearts and sometimes that sure seems audible) to us anymore either. I know I'd get a lot of flack for saying that with certain "sects" of Christians, but I'm telling you my understanding of it. God won't go against what the bible says so................if I had some kind face to face with God, I'd be worrying about who it really was if you know what I mean.

A first class, intelligent response.

You're welcome. I try to get to the heart of questions and avoid the peripheral issues.

It is certainly not a peripheral issue to point out that someone's response to an experience will be conditioned by their cultural and social milieu. In short, assuming one had "met" god can only happen if one believes god is possible. AM, who is a believer, understands that part of it.

I didn't limit my interpretation of his question to the strict meaning of the words he chose because I was more interested in addressing what I believed to be the hypothetical condition rather than the assumptions.

There are a whole range of reasons why the hypothetical situation he implies could never happen to someone who thinks like I do. But if for some reason all those personal and cultural perspectives within me were breached, and I somehow became convinced of a personal experience, then I believe I would have answered his question the way I did.