Does religious experience lead to belief in God?

[Swami]

I believe that religious and mystical experiences can lead people to believe in God. I also believe that experience can lead someone to convert from one religion to another.

A good example that involves conversion from non-belief (atheism) to belief, is Dr. Eben Alexander.

A good example that involves conversion from one belief to another belief is the Apostle Paul.

I tend to make the point that many atheists have not experienced and that's the reason why they have no belief in a transcendent reality (a reality beyond the physical body and Universe). DrNoGod, a member on the science forum, disagrees with me. He has admitted that he's studied various religions but has not experienced any their gods. Maybe he think that he's justified in remaining an atheist until he experiences. But here's my rebuttal to that.

The experiences of transcendent reality in Western religions often occur spontaneously or if or when God decides. The apostle Paul had an OBE, but he did not know how it occurred, why it occurred, had no control over it. The Eastern religions are drastically different in that they provide a way to induce spiritual experiences via meditation. This is a voluntary process and anyone, including scientists can engage in it. Under the Eastern approach, you can induce the OBE state that the apostle Paul was in.

After bringing this up to DrNoGod his reasons seemed to look more like excuses because he declined to look into meditation for himself. From this I concluded that not only was he an atheist because of lack of experience, but also because he does not want to experience. A person in this case is not truly interested in seeking God.


Topics...
Is my belief correct when I say that experience leads to belief in God or some transcendent reality? Therefore, atheists disbelieve because they have not experienced?

If someone does not want to experience, then is it reasonable to say that they are not really interested in God?

[alexxcJRO]

Gentlemen, let us get back on track here.

I offered evidence to support my claims. You both are refusing to accept it. Now you guys keep bringing up more objections and I feel it is bordering on harassment.

If you two are really looking for verification for my claims, then why not do as I suggested and explore meditation?

It makes no sense to expect others to convince you of the experiences when there's a way that you can verify it for yourself.

Firstly,

Sir you made the claim: “The correct understanding of the gift is the ability to speak actual foreign languages that you did not learn. Your study may have been evaluating those who have an incorrect understanding and practice of speaking in tongues. “

And I challenge you to support it with evidence as per forum rules.

Now your baking out. Pff.

Off course the evidence points to the contrary: Glossolalia is just gibberish, no real/foreign language.

“Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[16] He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organized, and – most importantly of all – there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts. Humans use language to communicate but glossolalia does not. Therefore, he concluded that glossolalia is not "a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives".[16] On the basis of his linguistic analysis, Samarin defined Pentecostal glossolalia as "meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead".�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia

“S. C. Todd of the Bible Missionary Society investigated eighteen Pentecostals who went to Japan, China, and India “expecting to preach to the natives in those countries in their own tongue,� and found that by their own admission “in no single instance have [they] been able to do so.� As these and other missionaries returned in disappointment and failure, Pentecostals were compelled to rethink their original view of speaking in tongues. (Robert M. Anderson, Vision of the Disinherited, 90–91)
It might be worth noting that these early Pentecostals not only spoke in tongues, they also wrote in tongues. And some of these early tongues writings were published by local newspapers. Agnes Ozman, one of Parham’s students, was the first to speak in tongues on January 1, 1901. She reportedly spoke in the Chinese language, thereby launching the Pentecostal Movement. Ozman also claimed to write in Chinese. The picture at the top of this article showcases her work.
When it became apparent that the Pentecostal understanding of tongues did not consist of human languages, the entire movement was faced with an interesting dilemma. They could uphold their exegetical understanding of tongues and deny their experience. Or, they could hold on to their experiential understanding of tongues and radically change their exegesis. They chose the latter. And thus, a new understanding of the nature of the gift of tongues emerged out of twentieth-century Pentecostal experience.
When professional linguists study modern glossolalia (tongues-speech), they come away convinced that contemporary tongues bear no resemblance to true human language. After years of extensive research, University of Toronto linguistics professor William Samarin concluded:
Glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly. The speaker controls the rhythm, volume, speed and inflection of his speech so that the sounds emerge as pseudolanguage—in the form of words and sentences. Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language. (cited from Joe Nickell, Looking for a Miracle, 108)�
http://thecripplegate.com/are-tongues-real-languages/


Secondly,

Complaining about the fact that people are engaging with you, challenge your claims/arguments on a debate forum on which you came voluntary looks rather pathetic, weak and embarrassing.

Thirdly,
Asking people to verify your claims for you is again rather pathetic, weak and embarrassing.

Forthly,
Sir you said: “DrNoGod, a member on the science forum, disagrees with me. He has admitted that he's studied various religions but has not experienced any their gods. Maybe he think that he's justified in remaining an atheist until he experiences. But here's my rebuttal to that.
…
Is my belief correct when I say that experience leads to belief in God or some transcendent reality? Therefore, atheists disbelieve because they have not experienced?
If someone does not want to experience, then is it reasonable to say that they are not really interested in God?�

And I gave my example(feeling God/Holly spirit after extensive prayer, “speaking in tongues�)which invalidates your “atheists don’t believe because they have not had religious experiences�.

Here a good article that thoroughly debunks religious/mystical experiences including those obtain through meditation/prayer.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539.php

[Swami]

Now I'm on the experience phase. So far, the ones who are disagreeing with me the most here are unwilling to experience.

And you are unwilling to experience our experience. That is why verifiable evidence takes priority in a debate setting. Experience and it's interpretation proves only that some have had an experience and interpret it the way they see fit. We all do that.

The topic here is about mystical and religious experiences. I can spend days explaining my experience to a skeptic and the skeptic could still not be satisfied. I've found that experience is the best teacher. If experience was not a way to verify or evidence of something, then why do so many convert from disbelief after having a religious or mystical experience?

I will move on to address the audience and others who are actually wanting to engage in honest discussion and debate.

Everyone here has engaged in honest debate. The fact that you don't like honest debate doesn't change the fact that it is honest debate.
Tcg

This is not my experience Tcg. Engaging in endless debates does not always mean that it's about the truth. You can see this in politics. A lot of times it's about power, agenda, ego, excuses.

You have to discern for yourself. Based on all my experience, I can tell when someone is engaging in honest debate and when someone just wants to argue just to argue.

I think this all gets down to debate style. I will not comment any more on my style. If you don't appreciate a different approach then you are free not to read my comments.

[Zzyzx]

.

I can spend days explaining my experience to a skeptic and the skeptic could still not be satisfied.

In other words, 'skeptics' won't take your word for what you claim happened to you (or follow your directive to prove your point by seeking similar experiences for themselves).

"Take my word for it" and "Do as I suggest" do not constitute supporting evidence in reasoned discourse or debate. They are typical recourse for those who have no verifiable substantiation to offer.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 40 by alexxcJRO]

I never claimed that any and every experience of a religious nature or context would count as a genuine experience. I could easily make up levitating a certain way as a religious experience and when that doesn't happen I can say it proves me wrong. This is not how it works, of course.

There are many different religious and mystical experiences someone can have. Just because one experience fails you doesn't mean you can't have another type of experience, like NDEs. In my view, you might have given up on religion too soon.

You also did not address my 2nd question and point in the introduction post. If there is a way to induce these experiences and you don't explore that, then your disbelief is a choice. You want to remain in it.

Imagine if God had a very specific instruction for reaching him. If you don't follow that instruction, is it his fault or yours? If you chose not to follow, then that in effect means you want to remain apart from him.

[Swami]

.

I can spend days explaining my experience to a skeptic and the skeptic could still not be satisfied.

In other words, 'skeptics' won't take your word for what you claim happened to you (or follow your directive to prove your point by seeking similar experiences for themselves).

"Take my word for it" and "Do as I suggest" do not constitute supporting evidence in reasoned discourse or debate. They are typical recourse for those who have no verifiable substantiation to offer.

So when someone objects to something because they have not experienced it, and then they keep objecting this also counts as a reasoned debate?

The same way that there is practical knowledge, I believe there's also practical debate. This type of debate is simply presenting evidence that has to be practiced or experienced. There is evidence that this is a way to convince people and I presented that here by showing that many atheists become convinced after having experienced. If they are convinced, then that would be support and verify for my claims, and this is all in addition to the evidence I already presented.

It seems you and I just have a difference of style.

Definitions:
Practical knowledge is knowledge that is acquired by day-to-day hands-on experiences. In other words, practical knowledge is gained through doing things; it is very much based on real-life endeavors and tasks. On the other hand, theoretical knowledge teaches the reasoning, techniques and theory of knowledge. While practical knowledge is gained by doing things, theoretical knowledge is gained, for example, by reading a manual.

[Zzyzx]

.

"Take my word for it" and "Do as I suggest" do not constitute supporting evidence in reasoned discourse or debate. They are typical recourse for those who have no verifiable substantiation to offer.

So when someone objects to something because they have not experienced it, and then they keep objecting this also counts as a reasoned debate?

In reasoned debate, challenging claims whenever they are made is to be expected. "Go find out for yourself by doing what I suggest" is NOT supporting evidence and is not reasoned debate.

[William]

Razorsedge: Very well articulated! Couldn't have said it better. I believe very few people are convinced through debate, but I know many who have been convinced through experience. Zzyzx doesn't realize that experience is a way of verifying. I would imagine this is one way that very spiritual wise men in ancient times were able to reach people; it's by showing them or getting them to see it for themselves. Rhetoric in debates is overrated.

William: My opinion of those who demand physical evidence for metaphysical reality is that "they know not what they do"...or if they do know, then they prefer willful ignorance. Continue to show them the error of their thinking and they will ignore you altogether.

This in itself does not matter to me, because it is to the readers my words are directed - rather than most of the non-theists on this board. Those non-theists who ignore the points I make in argument for the metaphysical - in that, simply are conceding - and it is left to the astute reader to make what they will of that.


Razorsedge: Trying to pressure me to engage in some endless debate with many different people is nothing more but intimidation. It's also harassment if it continues.

Tcg: Debating on a site dedicated to debate is neither intimidation nor is it harassment. This is true of the debate you continue to present and of the debate others present.

William: Debate requires logical thinking. From my perspective Razorsedge has made his point...and in that there is nothing more to debate.
The problem is in coming to the realization that some of the logical points Razorsedge has been making, are being ignored by those responding, so the 'debate' isn't really going anywhere productive because the respondents are attempting to lead the debate the way they want it to go, which requires ignoring any pertinent points Razorsedge has made, in order to avoid those points.
The antidote to this tactic is to utilize the Members Notes section, where one can expand upon ones view on the metaphysical in relation to the physical and after a while one has enough material to be able to link the interested reader back to, with the extra bonus that one does not have to continue repeating ones self.
One can also acknowledge that most folk who interact on this forum are not interested in debating things outside of the general Christian belief systems. Meditation of the kind that Razorsedge advises is, for most Christians, an 'invitation to evil spirits' and is avoided on those grounds.
For the non-theist, the invitation is regarded as pointless as it is 'all in the brain' and is avoided on those grounds.
In both cases, this type of 'religious experience' does not 'lead to GOD' as one 'leads to the devil' and the other 'leads to the brain did it.'
In both case, there is not much interest in learning that it isn't 'the devil' or 'the brain' and thus no interest in 'debating'.
Importantly, one can learn from both, 'how to proceed'.

[Tcg]

If experience was not a way to verify or evidence of something, then why do so many convert from disbelief after having a religious or mystical experience?

Conversion proves one thing and one thing only, that one converted. It proves nothing about the truth or falsity of the interpretation of the experience that lead the individual to convert.

Based on all my experience, I can tell when someone is engaging in honest debate and when someone just wants to argue just to argue.

How did you obtain this magical ability and how can it be used to show that you aren't arguing just to argue?



Tcg

[John Human]

Gentlemen, let us get back on track here.

I offered evidence to support my claims. You both are refusing to accept it. Now you guys keep bringing up more objections and I feel it is bordering on harassment.

If you two are really looking for verification for my claims, then why not do as I suggested and explore meditation?

It makes no sense to expect others to convince you of the experiences when there's a way that you can verify it for yourself.

Firstly,

Sir you made the claim: “The correct understanding of the gift is the ability to speak actual foreign languages that you did not learn. Your study may have been evaluating those who have an incorrect understanding and practice of speaking in tongues. “

And I challenge you to support it with evidence as per forum rules.

Now your baking out. Pff.

Off course the evidence points to the contrary: Glossolalia is just gibberish, no real/foreign language.

You are making a false argument, by misrepresenting or misunderstanding Razorsedge's position.

The account of Pentacost in the Acts of the Apostles clearly states (whether we can believe it or not) that the Apostles spoke and the hearers from far-away countries heard the words of the Apostles as if in their own mother tongue:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!� 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?�

This is very different from the so-called "glossolalia" of modern-day Pentacostals which you describe as "just gibberish, no real/foreign language."

I am inclined to agree with that characterization. Once, while attending a Pentacostal church service, I felt this glossolalia "gibberish" (?) rising in my throat, about to burst out into open blathering. I choked it back, but I could 'hear' in my mind what almost poured out of my mouth, without my conscious volition. So, from personal experience, I am aware that the phenomenon exists, and I have no reason to associate it with actual communication. That is very different from the account of Pentacost in the Acts of the Apostles.
_________________

[John Human]

I'll suggest that there is a significant difference. Meditation, as opposed to any system of religious belief, involves practice without the doctrinal baggage. Of course there are those who attach particular brands of doctrinal baggage to meditation as they present it, but at the root it can be described as "spiritual technology."

Here is a list of the doctrinal baggage Razorsedge has attached to his view of religious experience:

• "I believe that religious and mystical experiences can lead people to believe in God."
  
  "I also believe that experience can lead someone to convert from one religion to another."
  
  "I tend to make the point that many atheists have not experienced and that's the reason why they have no belief in a transcendent reality (a reality beyond the physical body and Universe)."
  
  "Under the Eastern approach, you can induce the OBE state that the apostle Paul was in."
  
  "From this I concluded that not only was he an atheist because of lack of experience, but also because he does not want to experience."
  
  "A person in this case is not truly interested in seeking God."

Tcg

I think you're missing my point about "doctrinal baggage." Imagine a meditation session where the students/practitioners were instructed to face south and chant "Aum hari hari" three times before beginning -- bringing a religious element into the practice.

That is different from what you're getting at.
_________________