Supernatural experiences with guest Jesse Cowell

[ScottBarger]

WaNO,

Thanks for the encouraging words. I understand what you are saying about being able to justify just about any theological position using the reasoning I mentioned above. The only response I have to offer at the moment is that Christianity makes the most sense to me and since I have rejected other faith traditions, I have no reason to wrestle with their ambiguities. Since I have accepted the truth claims of Christianity and the call to be a follower of Jesus, I am obligated to explore the dark corners of my own theological system.

NHB,

What your saying makes sense within an atheistic world view, but not within the world view of a Christian. If you were a Christian, I would respond by saying that love for God and love for people are inseparable, one begets the other, and that you can never really embrace the message of Jesus until you acknowledge the greatest commandment, the commandment to love.

Since you are an atheist, all I can say is that the conversation is just about futile unless one of undergoes a drastic paradigm shift. I do not allow for the non-existence of God, you do not allow for the existence of God, therefore any concept which is so wholly dependent on one's view of the divine will undoubtedly come to an impasse.

One thing I can respond to is your final comment about motives. I am not sure that "honest" human motives are the only necessary part of a person's moral compass. After all, many purely human motives are quite self serving and destructive.

[NH Baritone]

NHB,

What your saying makes sense within an atheistic world view, but not within the world view of a Christian. If you were a Christian, I would respond by saying that love for God and love for people are inseparable, one begets the other, and that you can never really embrace the message of Jesus until you acknowledge the greatest commandment, the commandment to love.

Since you are an atheist, all I can say is that the conversation is just about futile unless one of undergoes a drastic paradigm shift. I do not allow for the non-existence of God, you do not allow for the existence of God, therefore any concept which is so wholly dependent on one's view of the divine will undoubtedly come to an impasse.

I have allowed for the existence of god, and I became convinced that such belief made no sense. If you won't allow for the non-existence of god, then it seems you've sealed yourself off from the evidence. That's your choice, but I would hope you would acknowledge it. (Honestly, I think you put too much emphasis in your wording here. I've heard you allow for the possible non-existence of god on the podcast. But then again, people sometimes become more dogmatic.)

There are other ways to do be a believer and make a relationship more forthright: Many Buddhists believe in the existence of god(s), but do not allow such belief to interfere with the relationships they have. Even the gospel story doesn't describe the good Samaritan overtly imposing god between the himself and the recipient of the his largess.

One thing I can respond to is your final comment about motives. I am not sure that "honest" human motives are the only necessary part of a person's moral compass. After all, many purely human motives are quite self serving and destructive.

Of course people can be self-serving and destructive. I'm a psychotherapist who deals with violent people. I wasn't trying to suggest that people don't have hidden agendas. I'm only suggesting that your description of your faith doesn't allow you to avoid a hidden agenda. I don't trust your statements come from your core, and it's because of the way you describe how you make relationship decisions.

Insinuating some idea of god into every relationship prevents any honest one-on-one connections. Think about it: Your god instructs you to love. Another god instructs a believer to commit honor killings. The only difference is the content, i.e., how the believer interprets divine will. The process for both relationships is identical.

[ScottBarger]

NHB,

You said, "Insinuating some idea of god into every relationship prevents any honest one-on-one connections." I do not believe this is true any more than insinuating some idea of atheism into relationships prevents honest one-on-one connections. In fact, if I understand you correctly, then I think the exact OPPOSITE of what you have asserted is true. I believe in God, I pursue His truth and wisdom and interact with my fellow human beings in ways that are coherent with my faith in God. If I were to jettison this component from my relationships then I am pretending to be something I'm not and by doing so making it almost impossible to develop an honest, one-on-one connection with anybody.

[NH Baritone]

NHB,

You said, "Insinuating some idea of god into every relationship prevents any honest one-on-one connections." I do not believe this is true any more than insinuating some idea of atheism into relationships prevents honest one-on-one connections. In fact, if I understand you correctly, then I think the exact OPPOSITE of what you have asserted is true. I believe in God, I pursue His truth and wisdom and interact with my fellow human beings in ways that are coherent with my faith in God. If I were to jettison this component from my relationships then I am pretending to be something I'm not and by doing so making it almost impossible to develop an honest, one-on-one connection with anybody.

I understand that this is the way you view the world, but your statement suggests that perhaps you do not fully understand the differences that are implied by theistic & non-theistic perspectives. Let me ask two questions. (Actually, one is turning an earlier observation into a question):

1. I wrote earlier, "Your god instructs you to love. Another god instructs a believer to commit honor killings. The only difference is the content, i.e., how the believer interprets [the content of] divine will. The process for both relationships is identical." Can you explain to me how this does NOT accurately describe believers' relationships, if indeed you think it doesn't?
   
2. My phrase "some idea of god" is admittedly clumsy, and as such, risks making me sound vague. I use it because I have yet to settle on a short-hand term that both (a) acknowledges that a believer HAS an idea of god, and (b) simultaneously takes into account that no two ideas of god are identical. ("Some idea of god" is the best I've come up with so far.)
   
   Now, since atheists don't believe any god exists, your atheism parallel really doesn't apply. For you, there is a 3rd party who has their own personality quirks and who has a specific agenda and unique desires that you perceive as separate from your own. And so you insinuate not just an idea of god, but an entire personality of god into the relationship that atheists do not bring to the table.
   
   Instead, non-theists believe simply that no divine 3rd party exists. There are only you and me (to personalize this). Any truth and wisdom we discover simply arise from our individual and shared experience in dealing with one another. At the risk drawing an offensive parallel from literature, your version of Christianity depicts you to us as a living Elwood Dowd who walks around with Harvey, the 6-foot-tall rabbit. And just like Elwood, you relate with the "rabbit" as much as or more than you relate with me.
   
   So here's the question: If you cannot "jettison this component from [your] relationships," is there some way that to more fully integrate the "divine perspective" with your own perspective? Can you see the benefits that would arise if you talked about serious matters without engaging in another conversation with someone else other than me, the real, breathing person who is sitting across the table from you? And if so, is there some way in which you could then take responsibility for your own positions without blaming the lines that supposedly you've been fed by your idea of god?

[TheFonz]

NHB,

You said, "Insinuating some idea of god into every relationship prevents any honest one-on-one connections." I do not believe this is true any more than insinuating some idea of atheism into relationships prevents honest one-on-one connections. In fact, if I understand you correctly, then I think the exact OPPOSITE of what you have asserted is true. I believe in God, I pursue His truth and wisdom and interact with my fellow human beings in ways that are coherent with my faith in God. If I were to jettison this component from my relationships then I am pretending to be something I'm not and by doing so making it almost impossible to develop an honest, one-on-one connection with anybody.

So here's the question: If you cannot "jettison this component from [your] relationships," is there some way that to more fully integrate the "divine perspective" with your own perspective? Can you see the benefits that would arise if you talked about serious matters without engaging in another conversation with someone else other than me, the real, breathing person who is sitting across the table from you? And if so, is there some way in which you could then take responsibility for your own positions without blaming the lines that supposedly you've been fed by your idea of god?[/list]

NHB,
I think you are misrepresenting Scott's point. I don't believe he is "blaming" his religion for his ideas or positions. Rather, he is using the paradigm of Christianity to state what he believes. Just as the Atheist frames his positions with the presupposition that the Christian God does not exist.
The Christian's interactions with people should reflect their faith, not replace their person to person relationships.
Obviously this is my opinion, Scott can speak for himself.

[NH Baritone]

NHB,

You said, "Insinuating some idea of god into every relationship prevents any honest one-on-one connections." I do not believe this is true any more than insinuating some idea of atheism into relationships prevents honest one-on-one connections. In fact, if I understand you correctly, then I think the exact OPPOSITE of what you have asserted is true. I believe in God, I pursue His truth and wisdom and interact with my fellow human beings in ways that are coherent with my faith in God. If I were to jettison this component from my relationships then I am pretending to be something I'm not and by doing so making it almost impossible to develop an honest, one-on-one connection with anybody.

So here's the question: If you cannot "jettison this component from [your] relationships," is there some way that to more fully integrate the "divine perspective" with your own perspective? Can you see the benefits that would arise if you talked about serious matters without engaging in another conversation with someone else other than me, the real, breathing person who is sitting across the table from you? And if so, is there some way in which you could then take responsibility for your own positions without blaming the lines that supposedly you've been fed by your idea of god?[/list]

NHB,
I think you are misrepresenting Scott's point. I don't believe he is "blaming" his religion for his ideas or positions. Rather, he is using the paradigm of Christianity to state what he believes. Just as the Atheist frames his positions with the presupposition that the Christian God does not exist.
The Christian's interactions with people should reflect their faith, not replace their person to person relationships.
Obviously this is my opinion, Scott can speak for himself.

Hi, Arthur.

See? Here's an example of "NH Baritone's First Principle of Religious Thought": Among believers, no two ideas of god are identical.

You've described a theistic perspective, but not an all-pervasive one. Thus, your approach makes sense ... you are treating Christianity as a philosophy in which you are a separate individual, unadulterated, uncompromised, living life outside of a Panopticon. However, Scott's presentation of his relationship with god has consistently been different, and I think my characterization has been a fairly accurate depiction of what he has put forward. I'm open to correction, though. That's why I asked the questions.

Although you may not imagine god is watching you masturbate, eat two desserts, or talk with your neighbor about grubworms, Scott's description of his theology has been very different. He has to think in every moment whether he is living up to his god's commandment to love (yet also to live up to some oddly individualistic interpretation of the scriptures which is, as he has said, "contains the message that God wants us to have.")

In my conversations with Scott on these forums, he has written about loving people far less because such a desire comes from him as a manifestation of his own personality, but rather because he is commanded to do so. This makes dealing with him difficult at times. Here's an example: This week a 24-year-old woman (whom I knew peripherally from choir) died of an aneurysm. She was well known for her loving heart, generous spirit, and incredible kindness. (She paid for cancer treatment for her gerbil.) No one thinks that part of her sprang from some conversations she held with her idea of god; in fact, she wasn't at all religious. It was just who she was, and she brought joy to others' lives. I honestly think that, at his core, such kindness also is a characteristic of who Scott is, too, but when he muddies it up with the deity, it becomes difficult to trust his motives.

This harks back to an earlier thread after Scott appeared on the podcast. When I asked him about his response to homosexuality, he could never bring himself to say he hoped gay couples would find as much happiness in their relationship as he found in his own marriage, and he would endorse same-sex marriage as a social support for building their lives together. His entire conversation with me was couched in his struggles in reading the Bible, his insistence that the couple has to deal with what they thought god would want, etc. The bottom line was, because he wasn't sure what god wanted, he didn't know what he wanted. To me, that meant he was paying more attention to Harvey than he was to me.

Fonz, you've described the kind of mainline social-Christian thinking. You're not looking over your shoulder, but speaking from your core. I think you're presenting yourself more honestly than Scott, perhaps because you're not a pastor.

But don't get me started on pastors...

[TheFonz]

In my conversations with Scott on these forums, he has written about loving people far less because such a desire comes from him as a manifestation of his own personality, but rather because he is commanded to do so. This makes dealing with him difficult at times. Here's an example: This week a 24-year-old woman (whom I knew peripherally from choir) died of an aneurysm. She was well known for her loving heart, generous spirit, and incredible kindness. (She paid for cancer treatment for her gerbil.) No one thinks that part of her sprang from some conversations she held with her idea of god; in fact, she wasn't at all religious. It was just who she was, and she brought joy to others' lives. I honestly think that, at his core, such kindness also is a characteristic of who Scott is, too, but when he muddies it up with the deity, it becomes difficult to trust his motives.

This harks back to an earlier thread after Scott appeared on the podcast. When I asked him about his response to homosexuality, he could never bring himself to say he hoped gay couples would find as much happiness in their relationship as he found in his own marriage, and he would endorse same-sex marriage as a social support for building their lives together. His entire conversation with me was couched in his struggles in reading the Bible, his insistence that the couple has to deal with what they thought god would want, etc. The bottom line was, because he wasn't sure what god wanted, he didn't know what he wanted. To me, that meant he was paying more attention to Harvey than he was to me.

Fonz, you've described the kind of mainline social-Christian thinking. You're not looking over your shoulder, but speaking from your core. I think you're presenting yourself more honestly than Scott, perhaps because you're not a pastor.

But don't get me started on pastors...

Thanks for the response NH, I think I understand your position.
Question: If kindness and goodness are characteristic of some people (like your friend from choir), and not a characteristic of others, where does the characteristic of goodness come from? Moreover, why do some people lack that characteristic?
You claim that that involving a deity in interpersonal relationships damages them (or at least "muddles" them). I would say that a Christian who lives out what he believes has better interpersonal relationships due to his Christ centered world view. The problem, of course, is Christians. We are all imperfect and have imperfect relationships. However, we have a "base" or a staring point of Christ. We have the gold standard on how we should act.
Where is the standard for the Atheist? (kind f off thread topic, I know)
Maybe the "supernatural" experience of faith in an unseen God shapes Christian behavior. There are varying levels of faith, and therefore varying levels of "good" behavior.
Honestly, I am still fleshing this out for myself. There are definitely some holes in my perspective. I don't think I will ever be totally "correctumundo"

[NH Baritone]

Question: If kindness and goodness are characteristic of some people (like your friend from choir), and not a characteristic of others, where does the characteristic of goodness come from? Moreover, why do some people lack that characteristic?

A word of warning (about my personal pet peeve): Avoid "reifying a process." Although not unique in this, Christian theology commits this philosophical error repeatedly. "Reifying" is discussing something that is NOT a thing as if it were a thing. Therefore, "goodness" and "kindness" do not exist on their own, and they cannot "come from" somewhere the way an oak rises from an acorn. Instead the words "goodness" & "kindness" describe processes of interaction, and that process includes our own interpretation.

And to directly answer your question, all personality patterns arise as a result of genetic inheritance, learning, and the ongoing feedback loop that results from living in a dynamic system. People don't "lack a characteristic" so much as it they may not have learned it, inherited the tendency toward it, or had the reinforcement for showing such a personality pattern.

You claim that that involving a deity in interpersonal relationships damages them (or at least "muddles" them).

I said MUDDIES, not MUDDLES. (The font on this page is not always our friend. Increase the size if you have similar misunderstandings.)

I would say that a Christian who lives out what he believes has better interpersonal relationships due to his Christ centered world view. The problem, of course, is Christians. We are all imperfect and have imperfect relationships. However, we have a "base" or a staring point of Christ. We have the gold standard on how we should act.

Do you see the inconsistency that you've boxed yourself into?

To paraphrase, a Christian who lives out his/her beliefs has better interpersonal relationships. But they don't, because we're imperfect.

In other words, the evidence for your premise amounts to zero. It's a theoretical guess, at best. But you can't even test the hypothesis because it's impossible. You say it's impossible because Christians are imperfect. I say it's impossible because it's all based on a fantasy.

And honestly, I think you hear certain things from the pulpit that sound like the match today's life, but there's lots of Jesus' teachings that are just kooky:

• Would you sell all you had to run off and preach?
• Does it make sense to put up with needless suffering here in hopes of an afterlife?
• Do you really think being angry and committing murder are morally equivalent?
• Are people who divorce & remarry committing adultery?
• If someone sued you for $10,000, would you give him your house, too?
• Would you recommend to your children that they make no plans for the future because God will provide?

(And that's just from my quick re-read of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7.)

Where is the standard for the Atheist? (kind f off thread topic, I know)

Non-theists focus on the things they value, just like Christians do. We live in society, and most of us who think about it want that society to run as freely and efficiently as possible. But the characteristics of a culture are also fluid and based on feedback loops, so things evolve over time. It's my experience that Christians dislike that kind of evolution as much as they dislike natural selection.

[Jimminy]

So what do you guys think about supernatural experiences in episode 45? If God used burning bushes and angels to convince some of his followers, must he do the same for everyone if He is to remain fair? What are skeptics to make of personal supernatural experiences that Christians find utterly convincing?

BTW, this is our first show using a higher bit rate. A larger file download, but should be better sound quality. What do you think?

I finally had a chance to listen to this show. Jessie had some decent things to say but I think he failed to adequately describe his experience within a Christian context. I agree with him when he says that the religous experiences of other faiths cannot be proven, because I believe a true revelation of God could not be proven logically to anyone, not even to oneself. It must come as self-evident truth, I believe; and that jibes well with what Jessie said about any experience of God needing to be accepted in faith. The reason being is that self-evident truth has no basis for belief beyond its own axiomatic declaration. So, then, any revelation of God as self-evident truth must be accepted in faith, because that self-evident truth cannot be "proven" only accepted or not accepted. I also agree with Jessie when He says that God may use different forms and mediums to reveal Himself. This is to be expected, as different people and cultures would reasonably call for different forms and mediums, in my opinion. Also, it made sense to me when Jessie said that the still small voice [of God or Christ, I presume] he heard was not from his own mind. Jessie realized his experience as being caused by something external to himself, Just what I would expect to hear from someone that had had a true experience of God.

However, I think that Emery really made some outstanding points and, frankly, very effectively kept poor Jessie rather tongue tied. I believe that Emery more effectively argued against Christian revelation as fitting coherently within the Christian paradigm. If I had not had my own experience of God I would declare Emery the unqualified victor in the debate. But I choose to see a larger truth in Divine revelation; and that truth is that God will respond to the knock in accordance with His supreme intellect and according to each individual's needs. Any intent by God to reveal Himself could not be hampered by the religious views of the experiencer, because God revealed as self-evident truth would supercede any religious misconceptions.~Jimminy

[JustJim]

Jimminy,

I think you've answered this to some extent before, but I want to make sure I understand as fully as I can, since, as you believe, "a true revelation of God could not be proven logically to anyone, not even to oneself". Am I correct to say, then, that there is no way to distinguish actual, genuine, "real" self-evident truths revealed from God from bio-chemically induced forms of self-delusion/hallucination, other than that recipients of the "real thing" in some indeterminable way "know" that they're real? On faith, so to speak? And if that is correct, doesn't that render discussion of such experiences moot? That is, since neither the experiencers nor their doubters have any way, other than the experiencers' "faith", to tell the difference, an endless loop in the discussion would result?

I'm not saying your experience(s) of self-evident truths from God are not genuine, mind you; I just want to be sure I understand how I might evaluate them from my own perspective, having never received any such revelations -- yet. (But I guess I'll know it when I do, huh?)

Jim

[Jimminy]

I think you've answered this to some extent before, but I want to make sure I understand as fully as I can, since, as you believe, "a true revelation of God could not be proven logically to anyone, not even to oneself".~Jim

That's correct, that's what I'm saying. The revelation would not come in the form of an argument for God, but as instant knowledge of God.

Am I correct to say, then, that there is no way to distinguish actual, genuine, "real" self-evident truths revealed from God from bio-chemically induced forms of self-delusion/hallucination, other than that recipients of the "real thing" in some indeterminable way "know" that they're real? On faith, so to speak? And if that is correct, doesn't that render discussion of such experiences moot? That is, since neither the experiencers nor their doubters have any way, other than the experiencers' "faith", to tell the difference, an endless loop in the discussion would result?~Jim

A quick interjection, the discussion would not be moot for the experiencer because they would have received sure knowledge of God via revelation. Now, more importantly, how do I think that one can tell the difference between a bio-chemically induced experience and a true revelation? I work from the premise that for us to know with complete certainty that a sumpreme being exists would be nothing less than a miracle in consciousness. That is the only miracle that can prove God to anyone, I believe. This is my point: It's the very fact that the experiencer does overcome any "bio" objections that makes the experience a miracle. Get it? Jim, I'm agreeing with the great difficulty of being able to differentiate between self-delusion and a true revelation, that's why it's a miracle. It would require a miracle to overcome those valid and very reasonable objections and to realize God's existence. Now do you understand what I'm saying?

Because the revelation is a miracle it can't be proven and must be accepted in faith. The experiencer cannot intellectually exceed in any way God as self-evident truth. The only recourse is to accept the experience in faith or deny the rational mind something it knows to be self-evidently true.

I'm not saying your experience(s) of self-evident truths from God are not genuine, mind you; I just want to be sure I understand how I might evaluate them from my own perspective, having never received any such revelations -- yet. (But I guess I'll know it when I do, huh?)~Jim

Yeah, I boldly claim that you would know, Jim, if you had a true revelation of God. I think it's reasonable that a God of the universe would know how to impress an atheist, even the intelligent ones. ~Jimminy

[whoosanightowl]

Jimminy said: (to Just Jim)

A quick interjection, the discussion would not be moot for the experiencer because they would have received sure knowledge of God via revelation. Now, more importantly, how do I think that one can tell the difference between a bio-chemically induced experience and a true revelation? I work from the premise that for us to know with complete certainty that a sumpreme being exists would be nothing less than a miracle in consciousness. That is the only miracle that can prove God to anyone, I believe. This is my point: It's the very fact that the experiencer does overcome any "bio" objections that makes the experience a miracle. Get it? Jim, I'm agreeing with the great difficulty of being able to differentiate between self-delusion and a true revelation, that's why it's a miracle. It would require a miracle to overcome those valid and very reasonable objections and to realize God's existence. Now do you understand what I'm saying?

Because the revelation is a miracle it can't be proven and must be accepted in faith. The experiencer cannot intellectually exceed in any way God as self-evident truth. The only recourse is to accept the experience in faith or deny the rational mind something it knows to be self-evidently true.

Hi Jimminy,
I hope you don't mind my input here, but it seems to me that you are using circular reasoning in this statement. If you can't know a biochemically induced revelation from a true one, then why is it reasonable to accept it in on faith? After all, it could just be self delusion, so why trust the experience in your mind without evidence to support it?

Sue

[dunc289]

If people all around the world, and from all religions claim supernatural experiences, does it follow that either

A. Supernatural experiences are a by product of faulty cognition.

B. Supernatural experiences are a product of people lying.

C. Supernatural experiences are real, but god doesn't care who you are, or which religion you belong to.

D. Supernatural experiences are real, but only for Christians, everybody else has faulty cognition, or is lying.

[yjoeyh]

If people all around the world, and from all religions claim supernatural experiences, does it follow that either

A. Supernatural experiences are a by product of faulty cognition.

B. Supernatural experiences are a product of people lying.

C. Supernatural experiences are real, but god doesn't care who you are, or which religion you belong to.

D. Supernatural experiences are real, but only for Christians, everybody else has faulty cognition, or is lying.

I vote for "C" as the "best" answer from a theological perspective, citing Peter's discussion with Cornelius in Acts chapter 10.
"I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."

[Pseudonym]

If people all around the world, and from all religions claim supernatural experiences, does it follow that either [...]

You can't answer this question without comparing and contrasting the claimed "supernatural" experiences to see if there are any common themes which turn up.