Hello

[Theophilus]

What are the non-materialistic elements that you believe in, and why do you believe in them?

Some things I would consider non-materialistic elements are: logic, conscience, maths, beauty, love, music, poetry, justice, mercy, goodness, evil, compassion, faith, and .....God.

Why do I believe in them? Mostly (perhaps even totally) because they provide a constructive framework for how I have personally experienced the world around me. Some of those non-materialistic experiences we can all share (few people have never loved or felt compassion), but some experiences are possibly outside the experience of others. Perhaps not all have a sense of the numinous (which for many is the foundation of their faith), which may explain why some have faith and some don't?

[Faithfree]

Welcome Theophilus!

[Theophilus]

Welcome Theophilus!

Well, thank you kindly.

[FBM]

What are the non-materialistic elements that you believe in, and why do you believe in them?

Some things I would consider non-materialistic elements are: logic, conscience, maths, beauty, love, music, poetry, justice, mercy, goodness, evil, compassion, faith, and...

Yes, all of those are clearly phenomena. They can be pointed to and presented pretty much on demand.

.....God.

Can you see how this one isn't like the others? You can't point at this one or present it on demand. You can't present any instance of it that isn't adequately explained by a simpler, more commonsense thesis. Or, rather, if you can, please do. I've been waiting a long time for someone to come along and do that.

Why do I believe in them? Mostly (perhaps even totally) because they provide a constructive framework for how I have personally experienced the world around me.

I know from experience that the belief in a god can be used to structure one's experience; I used to do so. But that doesn't say anything about whether or not it's true. People have structured their lives around numerous gods, traditions and ideologies throughout history, but that fact has no truth-bearing content wrt the existence of a supernatural power.

Let me clarify something here, though: It doesn't bother me that you believe in this. I used to. I'm hoping that our dialog will lead to greater mutual understanding, not conversion.

Some of those non-materialistic experiences we can all share (few people have never loved or felt compassion), but some experiences are possibly outside the experience of others.

As far as I know, all humans have 5 sense organs and a brain that makes sense of them. All of those things you mention are available through the senses except the last one. That's why belief/faith is required; there's no evidence for it. I can experience all the others for myself.

Perhaps not all have a sense of the numinous (which for many is the foundation of their faith), which may explain why some have faith and some don't?

Are you proposing an extra sense organ for the faithful? Isn't a simpler explanation that some people are better at processing experience more consistently and coherently without multiplying entities beyond what is required to explain the experience? Scientists have recently devised a way to stimulate the brain in such a way to create a 'numinous' experience in test subjects. No need for a god, just a few electrodes (or whatever).

Speaking for myself, I'm not willing to assert something is true just because a respected elder or tradition tells me it is. Neither am I willing to assert something is true just because it makes me feel loved or because I just really, really wish it were true. I need evidence. I went looking for evidence of God within and without. Didn't come up with anything.

[Theophilus]

I went looking for evidence of God within and without. Didn't come up with anything

Yes, and therein lies a fascinating, and rather mysterious, difference between the theist and the atheist. As the 9th century Irish theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena wrote "Every visible or invisible creature is a theophany or appearance of God", or to use the words of the 20th century Orthodox theologian Father Alexander Schmemann "The Christian is the one who, wherever he looks, sees God everywhere and rejoices in him".

That is when I come back to the sense of numinous. You reasonably ask whether I am proposing an extra sense organ for the faithful. I would have to say that I know of no anatomy or physiology that would necessarily point us in that direction. But perhaps, in the broadest sense, I would say there appears to be another sense (one that we cannot easily ascribe to the existing five senses).

[FBM]

I went looking for evidence of God within and without. Didn't come up with anything

Yes, and therein lies a fascinating, and rather mysterious, difference between the theist and the atheist. As the 9th century Irish theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena wrote "Every visible or invisible creature is a theophany or appearance of God", or to use the words of the 20th century Orthodox theologian Father Alexander Schmemann "The Christian is the one who, wherever he looks, sees God everywhere and rejoices in him".

I was a devout Christian at the time. An undergraduate student with plans to continue on to seminary. I used to see 'God' wherever I looked, but eventually I realized that it was simply because I wanted to, not because of any quality of the experience. I had a filter over my senses, placed there by family and society, through which everything that disagreed with my desired version of reality was altered to fit into what I wanted to be true. I used to also be mesmerized by such metaphorical, emotion-laden rhetoric as you quoted above. Later, during a class in the History of the Bible (taught by a Baptist minister), I realized that it was all made up and the filter fell off. I was left with what was most obviously reality. Facepalm!

...But perhaps, in the broadest sense, I would say there appears to be another sense (one that we cannot easily ascribe to the existing five senses).

In Buddhist philosophy, the mind is the 6th sense (not like telepathy or anything). When I mistake a garden hose for a snake, my eyes have been fooled. When I mistake a mental event such as a numinous experience for a supernatural deity, my mind has been fooled. I don't see any need to propose an extra, as-yet-undiscovered sense, metaphorical or otherwise.

I couldn't help but notice that you chose not to respond to the majority of my previous post. Any reason for that?

[Theophilus]

I couldn't help but notice that you chose not to respond to the majority of my previous post. Any reason for that?

Sorry, I just picked what I thought was the summarizing statement of the rest. That and I prefer to tackle one thing at a time.

But let's pick up on your past Christian experience. Would you have said at that time that you did have a sense of the numinous that you now have no longer have at all? Or do you have the same sense now but attribute it to innate biology (presumably for some evolutionary advantage)?

After we've done that we'll pick up on your view (if I interpreted your reply correctly) that goodness and evil are obvious phenomena that are seen by all.

[FBM]

But let's pick up on your past Christian experience. Would you have said at that time that you did have a sense of the numinous that you now have no longer have at all?

That's skipping time time frames. If I understand you correctly, I would have at the time said that I had numinous experiences of God, but now I would say that those experiences were mental events that are better explained through biology. I still have such experiences. I can experience them through meditation pretty much at will. The difference is that I no longer posit a supernatural deity to explain them.

Or do you have the same sense now but attribute it to innate biology

Ooops. I jumped the gun a little there, didn't I? Yes, biology accounts nicely for those experiences. Would you say that God gives you those experiences, or that you will them to happen, or something else? Any details? Evidence? Biology has reams of it.

(presumably for some evolutionary advantage)?

A careful thinker is careful not to presume.

After we've done that we'll pick up on your view (if I interpreted your reply correctly) that goodness and evil are obvious phenomena that are seen by all.

Ooops again. When I read your list, I skimmed over some of the words. Those things are obviously interpretations (preferred descriptions) of experiences, not things that can be experienced. My bad.

[Theophilus]

Yes, biology accounts nicely for those experiences.

Well, I guess I look through the other end of the telescope; I view biology as sensing notions such as love, justice, mercy, etc., rather than defining them.

Would you say that God gives you those experiences, or that you will them to happen, or something else? Any details? Evidence? Biology has reams of it.

Actually I would say God "gives" me those experiences only in the same way that fire gives me a sense of warmth. Evidence? Yes, my communicating to you that I have those experiences. Of course you may interpret that evidence in different ways - you may interpret it as me lying (though I hope not), or as me sensing something that really exists, or me having a warm fuzzy feeling and mistaking it for God.

My bad

Darn, I thought that could get interesting. But I imagine you have some framework for "right" and "wrong"?

[Kristie]

Welcome!

[FBM]

Yes, biology accounts nicely for those experiences.

Well, I guess I look through the other end of the telescope; I view biology as sensing notions such as love, justice, mercy, etc., rather than defining them.

We may be running into terminology problems. Biology is a science, not an organism, so it can't sense anything. Do you mean to say that you don't think organisms define those abstract concepts? If so, that's a very interesting statement.

Actually I would say God "gives" me those experiences only in the same way that fire gives me a sense of warmth. Evidence? Yes, my communicating to you that I have those experiences.

In what way is that evidence? Our experience of communication can just as well be explained by secular means. If a phenomenon can be used to support both of two conflicting positions, it's not evidence for either.

Of course you may interpret that evidence in different ways - you may interpret it as me lying (though I hope not),

Certainly not! I've been there; I'm completely convinced of your sincerity.

...or as me sensing something that really exists,

Yes, but I would say that that 'something' is neural activity in your brain, which explains the experience satisfactorily and without positing anything supernatural. I know it's not very satisfying for someonw who wants to believe, but well, there ya go.

...or me having a warm fuzzy feeling and mistaking it for God.

Yep. Just like I used to.

My bad

Darn, I thought that could get interesting. But I imagine you have some framework for "right" and "wrong"?

No, not really. Sorry. I'm just winging it.

[Theophilus]

Do you mean to say that you don't think organisms define those abstract concepts? If so, that's a very interesting statement.

That's right; those concepts (love, justice, mercy) are not purely subjective; they may (IMO) exist in the absence of any specific action.

No, not really. Sorry. I'm just winging it.

[FBM]

That's right; those concepts (love, justice, mercy) are not purely subjective; they may (IMO) exist in the absence of any specific action.

Action? The question wrt to subjective/objective is whether or not they exist in the absence of any specific entity. Do they?

No, not really. Sorry. I'm just winging it.

I'm being honest, anyway.

[Theophilus]

The question wrt to subjective/objective is whether or not they exist in the absence of any specific entity. Do they?

I don't believe they exist in the absence of any specific entity. But I believe that they exist because God exists; so they exist outside of a material universe. I could go all Christian on us and say that, for example, I believe love exists within and between the three persons of the trinity (and I'm not talking Rod, Jane & Freddy).

[FBM]

The question wrt to subjective/objective is whether or not they exist in the absence of any specific entity. Do they?

I don't believe they exist in the absence of any specific entity. But I believe that they exist because God exists; so they exist outside of a material universe. I could go all Christian on us and say that, for example, I believe love exists within and between the three persons of the trinity (and I'm not talking Rod, Jane & Freddy).

Now I think we're closer to the crux of the matter. What is your reason for holding that belief in the absence of clear evidence? Let me speed up the discussion a tad. If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith. So, why have faith in something that you can never, by the tenets of the belief system itself, have clear evidence for? If your subjective experiences were proof, or even evidence, then you wouldn't need faith. Yet, faith is indispensible, is it not?