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?

[William]

Razorsedge: 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?

William: It may be the case for some non-theists. Atheists lack belief in GODs, but never seem to have any clear example or explanation to offer as to what they would expect to be acceptable as evidence for a Creator GOD.
Some also claim that they have tried techniques to no avail, but again, what exactly are they looking for in the techniques which would amount to conclusive evidence of GODs in which they could then believe?
Also, while the claim they have tried is sometimes made, it is only their word in which one can believe them or not. Some theists would find it very difficult to believe a non-theist - about this - on their word, and would assume the more likely explanation is that they just say they have tried and nothing happened, in order to help them win their arguments. Other theists would simply assume that the non-theists were approaching technique in a manner which created natural blockages to genuine experiences.
It has also to be factored into the likely causes of this unwillingness/inability to experience the 'spiritual' because many non-theists have already decided that everything a human can experience of that nature is 'in the head' of the one experiencing it - a product of a diseased or malfunctioning brain.
As such, how would a non-theist with that kind of belief, be able to trust any experience which theists claim are 'spiritual' if they are already convinced otherwise?

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

William: Yes, I think that would be a reasonable conclusion to make. Given that the obstacles which they place in the way, they generally appear to want to make it impossible for them to know if GOD/afterlife/spiritual awareness etc are actual rather than fabrications of the human mind.
Also many non-theists spend great amounts of time blaming theism for all of the worlds major problems, and when they are told - for example - that most of the worlds current problems are the result of scientific processes, they are - in my experience - strangely silent, which leads me to think that their real motives for attacking theism are not because they are overly concerned about the worlds problems, or that - what I see as their 'priests' - secular scientists - are in any way 'in the wrong'.

Razorsedge:Does religious experience lead to belief in God?

William: Generally - although in most cases it leads to belief in different ideas of GOD, which seems reasonable given the different human cultures which have evolved over time.
Even so, it is entirely up to theists to sort out their differences and get on the same page in regard to ideas of GOD, and the clues are more understandable when the culturally and politically motivated aspects are placed aside. Those are evidently just as damaging to the world, as the problems scientific processes are.

[Danmark]

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...p

I think this is nonsense. Many atheists and non believers were once religious. At one time they thought they had 'transcendent' experiences. Then they realized how ridiculous the claims and 'scriptures' are and recognized the fallibility of their own minds and how suggestible is the human mind and unconscious. It is gallingly presumptuous to assume that because someone does not agree with you he or she has not had similar experiences.

Some recognize propaganda and cultural pressure and eventually rise above it. Some just dismiss others' beliefs as inferior or their experience as limited.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is my belief correct when I say that experience leads to belief in God or some transcendent reality?

People have described their ‘God experience’ as things that happen in their own head – perhaps hearing or feeling something. That suggests to me a psychological or emotional ‘experience’; that they may attribute to supernatural entities.

Some people are evidently more susceptible to having such experiences – or seeking out situations that encourage them (from meditation, to fervent prayer, to seances, to substances, to mental imbalance).

Therefore, atheists disbelieve because they have not experienced?

My position is that if any of the ‘gods’ wish to contact me, I am open to meeting with them – and they should know where to find me.

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

If ‘gods’ are not interested, neither am I.

[Danmark]

There is a long discussed relationship between mental illness and religious or 'transcendent' experience.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... experience

This is not to utterly dismiss reports from people like Saul/Paul, John of Patmos, or Joseph Smith as mere hallucinations/psychotic experience, but that's the way I'm betting. Some cultures or subcultures reward or revere those who claim to see and hear what others do not. Some who report are punished or ostracized.

Also, many people of faith report ZERO transcendent experiences. For many, faith is an intellectual exercise engendered by family or cultural tradition.

[Danmark]

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

This suggests a false assumption. What is it, specifically, you assume this 'someone' does not want to experience?

And what makes you conclude he or she does not WANT to experience it?

I am certainly not actively TRYING to experience ghosts, or goblins; neither am I purposely trying to avoid such experience. I simply have no reason to assume gods or monsters exist. Most of my 70 years of experience can be neatly fitted into naturalism, to scientific explanation. Why would I look for supernatural or 'transcendent' explanations for natural phenomena?

The 21st Century provides us with a powerful trend:
Of the tens of thousands of phenomena that were previously attributed to the intervention of gods, virtually all now have reasonable natural explanations. When scientific hypothesis has been proved, why look for ghosts and gods to explain?

[Overcomer]

Razorsedge wrote:

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?

It can lead someone to entertain the idea of God, but there has to be more than a personal experience to change one's beliefs. For example, many ex-Muslims who come to Christ initially encounter him in a dream or a vision. In Muslim countries where Christians are not allowed to evangelize, Jesus reaches people without going through missionaries, etc. However, that experience of the Lord isn't enough to convert them. They have to study and learn more. It merely opens the door for them.

It is the same for me. I certainly have had personal experiences with the Lord, but my faith isn't based on them alone. It has been the rational study of God's Word and of history and of apologetics as well as philosophy and theology that have confirmed what the Holy Spirit showed me in the spiritual realm.

As for atheists not believing because they haven't had these experiences, I don't think their disbelief has anything to do with that. Look at the Pharisees. They saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. Did they respond with "Wow! Look at that! He truly is the Son of God!" No, they decided they had better hurry up and get rid of Jesus as soon as possible because people were starting to follow him instead of them and they just couldn't have that (John 11).

I think that, where a person's heart is hardened toward the Lord, it wouldn't matter if Jesus came to them and performed all kinds of miracles in front of them, they won't believe. They will find all kinds of ways to dismiss the miracles, no matter how illogical and far-fetched those explanations are because they don't want to believe God and they aren't going to let anything change them. Many people's rejection of the Lord has to do with emotion, not rationality, no matter what they say.

[William]

Overcomer: As for atheists not believing because they haven't had these experiences, I don't think their disbelief has anything to do with that. Look at the Pharisees. They saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. Did they respond with "Wow! Look at that! He truly is the Son of God!" No, they decided they had better hurry up and get rid of Jesus as soon as possible because people were starting to follow him instead of them and they just couldn't have that (John 11).

William: Your analogy above forgets that the Pharisees were theists. Their problem wasn't that they didn't believe GOD existed, but rather, they believed that Jesus was 'of the devil', and Jesus reflected their beliefs back to them with the mirror of truth. They were being theist hypocrites.
There may be similarities as to non-theist motives, but conflating hypocritical theists with atheists is not helpful...

[Mithrae]

Some recognize propaganda and cultural pressure and eventually rise above it. Some just dismiss others' beliefs as inferior or their education as limited.

Shorn of context, it would be difficult to tell which of these refers to spiritualists, and which to materialists in a cultural milieu wherein science has all the answers.


Granted I changed one of your words - experience to education - to make that point clearer, but even your original seems to cut both ways.

Some people are evidently more susceptible to having such experiences – or seeking out situations that encourage them (from meditation, to fervent prayer, to seances, to substances, to mental imbalance).

Some people are more susceptible to viewing reality as fundamentally distinct from themselves, understood and engaged with best or only through external means, and seek out situations that encourage that perspective (from natural sciences, to business and economics, to substances, to mental imbalance).

Seems to me that if some people are taller, some people are stronger, some people are smarter, some are more creative, some have better vision or hearing... it would not be at all surprising if some are more sensitive to an hypothetical 'spiritual' reality. The fact of unhinged geniuses doesn't make us deny the value of intelligence, and the existence of hallucinations doesn't make us doubt the value of vision, so it would seem spurious reasoning to suppose that the fact of obvious error or outright insanity among some spiritualists is a reason to deny the veracity of all the others' reported experience. It's not as if we're simply talking about an Indian anomaly or something; spiritualism is culturally universal, and while some details vary from culture to culture (as would be expected under any but the most dogmatic assumptions) I gather that there's also a lot of cross-cultural similarity, particularly feelings of great peace, love and oneness with the rest of creation.

I suspect that scientifically, the jury should still be very much out on this: There's almost certainly not enough evidence to conclude that such experiences are solely subjective, but likewise not enough breadth of systematic/controlled/longitudinal study of spiritualists' commonalities and differences in methods, reported experiences and psychology/physiology to conclude that they're experiencing something 'real.' Which I suppose would imply that individually, practitioners themselves are not unreasonable in either cautious scepticism or qualified affirmation of the significance of their experience.

[Zzyzx]

.

As for atheists not believing because they haven't had these experiences, I don't think their disbelief has anything to do with that.

OH? Do you know better why people do not believe than they do themselves?

Quite a feat – or, more accurately, quite a boast.

Look at the Pharisees. They saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead.

Did Pharisees actually witness the supposed rising from the dead? Says who?

Did they respond with "Wow! Look at that! He truly is the Son of God!" No, they decided they had better hurry up and get rid of Jesus as soon as possible because people were starting to follow him instead of them and they just couldn't have that (John 11).

It is not unlike religions (and other businesses) to attempt to wipe out competitors. However, the Lazarus incident and aftermath is reported by ONE gospel writer (whoever he may have been) apparently many decades or generations after the claimed event. NO substantiation of the tale has been presented.

Shall we generalize from ONE 2000 year old unsubstantiated tale dissing Jews to conclude why modern Non-Believers do not believe the tales?

This Non-Theist (Non-Believer) concluded in childhood that tall tales from the Bible were no more believable than fairy tales and nursery rhymes – and wondered why adults acted as though they believed that long-dead bodies came back to life (and donkeys and serpents conversed in human language, and someone lived for days inside a fish / whale, and that various characters performed magic tricks, etc).