An Argument for Christianity from Prayer-Induced Experiences

Can you outline what you intend to be up for discussion?
I have thoughts, but your thread appears to sort of engineer its own success. Not much room to discuss here...

Quoting Hallucinogen

(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true.

How so?

We can meet people who have had direct experiences (during prayer) of Mohammad and Allah. Are they true too?

I have met people who have had experiences (during meditation) of Krishna and Brahma. Are they true too?

All religions contain people convinced they have had direct and personal experiences of gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc. All religions also have their miracle stories.

Now even more interesting. We can meet with and interview thousands of people right now who also claim to have been abducted by aliens and have been examined on alien ships before being put back on earth.

How exactly do we determine which of these stories, from such disparate and contradictory sources, are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications?

Reply to Tom Storm (aside) you may be interested in a book called DMT: The Soul of Prophecy. You can disregard the intention of the book, as its subtext - and simply read a psychiatrist's take on Jewish Patriarch's hallucinatory experiences ;)

Quoting Hallucinogen

(5) There are prayer-induced experiences of observations that correspond to Bible-specific propositions, therefore they are evidence Christianity is true.

Asylums are rife with such "true ... evidence".

Quoting Tom Storm

We can meet people who have had direct experiences (during prayer) of Mohammad and Allah. Are they true too?

It wouldn't contradict the argument if it were.

Quoting Tom Storm

All religions contain people convinced they have had direct and personal experiences of gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc. All religions also have their miracle stories.

Yes, so since religions have certain aspects in common, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping those personal experiences having subjective qualitiies specific to the experiencer, so long as universal features aren't contradicted.

Quoting Tom Storm

, from such disparate and contradictory sources

Where was the contradiction?

Quoting Tom Storm

How exactly do we determine which of these stories (...) are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications?

Using a model that establishes the criteria for each category.

Quoting Hallucinogen

(5) There are prayer-induced experiences of observations that correspond to Bible-specific propositions, therefore they are evidence Christianity is true.

I like the attempt, and I’m a believer in God, but this argument basically means “because I experienced God, I know God is true.” That argument only works for that one person.

That person certainly has a reasonable, logical, syllogistic basis to demonstrate the truth of Christianity (if I follow you at all), but for anyone else, aside from trusting the witness, there is no testable evidence for the truth of God there.

So it’s a good argument that the one who is praying can make to themselves, but without firsthand experience of this prayer induced evidence, the praying one is asking the other scientist/logicians to take his word on it.

Someone giving a specific account of a prayer leading to proof of a Christian proposition in themselves, that is evidence of faith at work. This faith can be inferred by others. We know what faith looks like now. But the link between Christianity and prayer-induced experiences is as invisible to the scientist as cause and effect are invisible to David Hume.

Quoting Fire Ologist

“because I experienced God, I know God is true.”

My argument is about gathering evidence for a religion, not proving God.

Quoting Fire Ologist

That argument only works for that one person.

Yes, it's just evidence. It provides that person with an individual basis to interpret the spiritual world.

Quoting Fire Ologist

but without firsthand experience of this prayer induced evidence, the praying one is asking the other scientist/logicians to take his word on it.

For those of us who haven't had such experiences, one could build a model from the internally-consistent religious experiences other people have had. All of them seem to involve a metaphysical basis of life, certain metaphysical operations such as prayer, a distinction between good and evil, and so on. This permits us to build a global model.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Someone giving a specific account of a prayer leading to proof of a Christian proposition in themselves, that is evidence of faith at work.

I'm not sure what you mean, do you mean to contradict the argument?

Quoting Fire Ologist

But the link between Christianity and prayer-induced experiences is as invisible to the scientist

Scientists have established methods for investigating subjective phenomena, such as hallucinations, out of body experiences, neuropathic pain and other private experiences that lack an adequate scientific model.

Quoting Hallucinogen

Yes, so since religions have certain aspects in common, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping those personal experiences having subjective qualitiies specific to the experiencer, so long as universal features aren't contradicted.

You are trying to prove Christianity is true by citing religious experince as evidence. You are aware, I suspect, that as far as Islam in concerned, Christianity is false, right? Jesus is not god and and the Crucifixion story is a myth. So an Islamic person who has the experience of Allah and Mohammad is confirming his/her belief that Christianity is not the true religion. That is certainly what Muslims I have met have told me. Conversely, the Christian vison confirms that Islam is not true and Jesus is God. How do you resolve this psycho-cultural conundrum?

I am wondering if you are arguing that all religions are equally proven true if followers have specific religious experiences?

Quoting Hallucinogen

How exactly do we determine which of these stories (...) are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications?
— Tom Storm

Using a model that establishes the criteria for each category.

Such as??

Quoting Hallucinogen

St Faustina Helen Kowalska saw apparitions of Jesus Christ in the 1930s, which have served as the basis for a popular devotion.

Marguerite-Marie Alacoque had visions of Jesus in which He showed her His Sacred Heart
Marie-Julie Jahenny had visions of Jesus' Heart.

So what? It would be far more convincing if those people had visons or experiences of a god outside of their cultural expectations, like Kali or an Australian Aboriginal creator spirit. The fact that someone in a Christian country sees Christian vision just taps into expectations. Hallucinations or psychological experiences tend to be tied to the culture you know.

Quoting Hallucinogen

Scientists have established methods for investigating subjective phenomena, such as hallucinations, out of body experiences, neuropathic pain and other private experiences that lack an adequate scientific model.

Can you cite reputable studies?

Quoting Hallucinogen

Someone giving a specific account of a prayer leading to proof of a Christian proposition in themselves, that is evidence of faith at work.
— Fire Ologist
I'm not sure what you mean, do you mean to contradict the argument?

Yes, because a logical argument has to show something multiple third parties can use to see the same thing, to see whatever is the conclusion of the argument. All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is a dead man someday. That is something a third party can demonstrate to fourth parties and so one getting the same result due to it being a sound, scientific/logical demonstration of a proof.

I’m saying to the third party scientists running tests on believers and taking as objects things like Christian propositions, and prayer-induced experiences, all the scientists are left with (if they believe in the honesty of the test subject) is someone who is demonstrating faith. They don’t see the reason that test subject sees a reason to connect the Christian proposition to the prayer. You don’t see the reasons as a third party, you just see their reasons (that the scientific observer didn’t directly access), and would be better to call this evidence of what faith is, namely, someone in the act of believing something) rather than any proof about Truth of the thing they believe (how the christian proposition relates to their own prayer.)

The believer trusts God. That can only look reasonable to someone else who trusts God.

Quoting Hallucinogen

That argument only works for that one person.
— Fire Ologist
Yes, it's just evidence. It provides that person with an individual basis to interpret the spiritual world.

If I read you correctly then we probably have nothing further to talk about. You are not saying any of this is about what's true, it's merely evidence for the person having the experience. But we already knew this. People believe all kinds of absurdities based on bad evidence. The knack here is to discern what constitutes good evidence.

Quoting Fire Ologist

The believer trusts God. That can only look reasonable to someone else who trusts God.

Yes. Although probably only reasonable to those who believe the same things about the same gods. Not the gods they don't trust in. Most religious people I have known disbelieve the spiritual experiences of other religions, even calling such visions lies or demonic.

Quoting Hallucinogen

(1) Evidence is a correspondence between some proposition and some observation of reality.

(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true.

(3) If praying induces experiences for a biological reason, then prayer-induced experiences are not observations of reality but hallucinations.

(4) Prayer induces experiences for a non-biological reason, therefore prayer-induced experiences are observations of reality.

(5) There are prayer-induced experiences of observations that correspond to Bible-specific propositions, therefore they are evidence Christianity is true.

Is this intended to be an argument?

Is (4) an assumption?

Granting (4), doesn't this apply to other religions as well? Are you as happy for this line of thinking to support other religions than Christianity? Perhaps you think that all religions are culture-specific approaches to one spiritual reality?

All of your premises are wrong except for number 1.

Quoting Hallucinogen

St Faustina Helen Kowalska saw apparitions of Jesus Christ in the 1930s, which have served as the basis for a popular devotion.

Meanwhile children dying from cancer:

Here's how prayer works, in my opinion:

When someone has a "moment" with prayer, this is an affirmation of one own existence that resonates internally. A passionate "yes" to their own needs. If you believe God gave you such an ability for a reason, then who needs to waste time even arguing in the first place? Faith goes where fact dare not, bridging many a void.

Quoting DifferentiatingEgg

Faith goes where fact dare not, bridging many a void.

How many of those bridges can be crossed safely? Why take that sick child to a hospital if you know that God can make him whole? And if He doesn't, well, God knows best why He chose to gather that child into heaven.

Quoting Vera Mont

Why take that sick child to a hospital if you know that God can make him whole?

Why did Kevin Kostner crawl away from his medical treatment in the beginning of Dances with Wolves?

Quoting Hallucinogen

There is an abundance of such testimonies in interview form, from people alive today who have prayed and had such visions

So "visions" are observations of reality, it seems.

Reply to Lionino

God reclaimed them.

Quoting Tom Storm

Conversely, the Christian vison confirms that Islam is not true and Jesus is God. How do you resolve this psycho-cultural conundrum?

The first thing to be determined would be whether Muslims do have visions of Muhammad, or that they have any that would contradict other religions. I've heard of several cases of Muslims having visions of Jesus and becoming Christian, but never Muslims having visions of Muhammad, although that may be due to language barriers.

In any such case, contradictions between observations are interpreted within a model. A model can establish the underlying explanation through having criteria for what kind of theology each observation is consistent with. It could be that a given observation is consistent with a theology that doesn't have certain moral characteristics established within the model. This would allocate any observation that would be Islam-specific to having a different explanation, for example, not coming from God but some other metaphysical source, but observations Muslims make that are consistent with the model at the global level would be accepted.

In other words, you need a model to interpret observations, and the most invariant features of that model are established first. Apparent contradictions at more specific levels are interpreted afterward.

Quoting Tom Storm

I am wondering if you are arguing that all religions are equally proven true if followers have specific religious experiences?

Those that are consistent with the model can be proven true. The model is necessary to interpret what they mean, be they in different languages as they may. Any that have a convergent meaning with other observations consistent with the model can be accepted.

Quoting Tom Storm

It would be far more convincing if those people had visons or experiences of a god outside of their cultural expectations

This happens to Muslims and Buddhists.

Quoting Tom Storm

like Kali or an Australian Aboriginal creator spirit.

These theologies may lack important qualities that God might want us to understand. They might have been adequate for guiding the destiny of their native populations before converging with the rest of humanity, but it could be the case that God uses visions to point a person in the direction of a more sophisticated religion when their free will can be relied on to get them to the correct destination.

Quoting Tom Storm

The fact that someone in a Christian country sees Christian vision just taps into expectations. Hallucinations or psychological experiences tend to be tied to the culture you know.

But this doesn't prove that they are a product of culture. Consequently, it doesn't prove point (4) false.

Quoting Tom Storm

Can you cite reputable studies?

Such scientific studies are not difficult to find. Examples; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31162335/ , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20472012/ , https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00070/full

Quoting bert1

Is this intended to be an argument?

Yes.

Quoting bert1

Is (4) an assumption?

No, there's no evolutionary or brain-physiological reason why praying would cause an immersive experience.

Quoting bert1

Granting (4), doesn't this apply to other religions as well?

Yes.

Quoting bert1

Are you as happy for this line of thinking to support other religions than Christianity?

Up to their degree of logical and model-theoretic consistency.

Quoting bert1

Perhaps you think that all religions are culture-specific approaches to one spiritual reality?

Yes.

Quoting Tom Storm

You are not saying any of this is about what's true, it's merely evidence for the person having the experience.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Quoting Tom Storm

People believe all kinds of absurdities based on bad evidence.

What an absurdity is and what bad evidence would be is what is under contention.

Quoting Lionino

All of your premises are wrong except for number 1.

Well, you're free to explain if you want to.

Quoting Lionino

Meanwhile children dying from cancer:

This doesn't seem to be relevant to the argument.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Someone giving a specific account of a prayer leading to proof of a Christian proposition in themselves, that is evidence of faith at work.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Yes, because a logical argument has to show something multiple third parties can use to see the same thing, to see whatever is the conclusion of the argument

That is what the argument does, it shows that an observation specific to Christianity is consistent with reality. Evidence as defined premise (1) is acceptable to multiple third parties.

Quoting Fire Ologist

I’m saying to the third party scientists running tests on believers and taking as objects things like Christian propositions, and prayer-induced experiences, all the scientists are left with (if they believe in the honesty of the test subject) is someone who is demonstrating faith.

I'm not seeing how this follows. Do you mean to contrast faith with evidence? If not, then OK.

Quoting Fire Ologist

They don’t see the reason that test subject sees a reason to connect the Christian proposition to the prayer. You don’t see the reasons as a third party, you just see their reasons (that the scientific observer didn’t directly access)

But this is to deny that scientists have reliable means of testing subjective self-reported phenomena. They do, and it produces replicable results. In the case of prayer-induced visions, that should even be clear to a non-scientist who merely looks at a significant number of cases. There are clear patterns in people's subjective experiences.

Quoting Fire Ologist

and would be better to call this evidence of what faith is, namely, someone in the act of believing something) rather than any proof about Truth of the thing they believe (how the christian proposition relates to their own prayer.)

This just insists that the claim isn't based on evidence without argument, but only by referring to it as faith and not truth. You cannot refute the argument by simply calling it faith, and faith in turn not constituting evidence by definition.

I’ll assume I am not understanding you and start over.

You are claiming to show that:

Quoting Hallucinogen

(5) There are prayer-induced experiences of observations that correspond to Bible-specific propositions, therefore they are evidence Christianity is true

I see 4 distinct things where I may be misunderstanding your usage. Can you clarify, maybe with some examples or rephrasings, what you mean by:

“Prayer induced experiences” - what is that to you?
That’s really two things - “prayer” (which I think we all understand) and “induced experiences”.

“Observations”. Maybe the above is attached to what I see as the second variable being “of observations”. I’d like to see how you distinguish “prayer induced experiences” from “experiences of observations”.

“Bible-specific propositions” - probably just need an example, one that cashes out with the other terms using an example would help. “Jesus brought sight to a man who was blind from birth” so “God can work miracles” might be an example.

“Christianity is true”. Do you mean objectively, verifiably true, like the earth revolves around the sun type truth?

I think I need to see an example that shows how a person’s prayers are answered so to speak in a way that verifies a connection between the prayer and the observable experiences of that person, with the Biblical proposition thereby showing objective truth of Christianity beyond that person.

I’m like Thomas. I need to put my hands in the wounds. But you aren’t asking me to trust you that Christianity is true, or even to trust God. You are asking me to follow your logic, and so Thomas in this case is asking for the right experience before agreeing to the conclusion.

Quoting Hallucinogen

Such scientific studies are not difficult to find. Examples;

1. Is inconclusive, and somewhat indicative that this cannot be done for self-reported pain. THe correlations are weak, or antithetical viz. :

"No correlations were observed between self-reported hot or cold pain quality and thermal hyperalgesia on QST. Self-reported abnormal skin sensitivity has a high sensitivity to identify patients with DMA, but its low specificity indicates that many patients mean something other than DMA when reporting this symptom."

2. This is specific to patients experiencing schizophrenic hallucinations. This is not apt for this thread at all.

3. "The present single-case study" - really my dude?
"There are a number of limitations to the present study. "
"Statistical power was obviously limited in this single-case study..."
"Clearly, replication is required..."

These present no reliability at all. There are not functional ways to assess private phenomenal claims beyond structural awareness - whcih says nothing for their 'actuality'.

Quoting Hallucinogen

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

The arguments are each, more or less, are, though.

Quoting Hallucinogen

Well, you're free to explain if you want to.

The others have already done so. If you can't figure out what's wrong with #2, you are not thinking or engaging in good faith.

Quoting Hallucinogen

This doesn't seem to be relevant to the argument.

It is comical that God intentionally bothers to mysteriously appear to random people at random times and yet stays quiet when a little Nepali child is being ripped to shreds by a Bengali tiger. Curing children from cancer is somehow a violation of free will, but turning a little lump of blood into liquid like in the "miracle" of Saint January doesn't violate free will at all, does it?
Given God's utter silence, any talk of miracles is a stark contradiction of Christian theology.

Quoting Hallucinogen

Examples; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31162335/ , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20472012/ , https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00070/full

You are scurrying through abstracts like a politician to find convenient statements while ignoring the actual research and any other research that is inconsistent with your politics.

You first need to distinguish evidence of Christianity from interpretations of "Christianity", in order to clarify the extent to which your argument is grammatical and theological rather than inferential.

Do you really wish to argue that mystical visions are externally related to Christian concepts and present inferential evidence that those Christian concepts denote 'facts'? For how could such an argument ever get off the ground?

Quoting Fire Ologist

“Prayer induced experiences” - what is that to you?

A person sees an image, such as an apparition, or experiences their body in another location during prayer.

Quoting Fire Ologist

I’d like to see how you distinguish “prayer induced experiences” from “experiences of observations”.

For something to reach the status of an observation, the referent in the observation must have some degree of replicability across observers. Prayer induced experiences of certain descriptions can meet this.

Quoting Fire Ologist

“Bible-specific propositions” - probably just need an example, one that cashes out with the other terms using an example would help.

That Jesus was crucified/resurrected, that there are angels composed of a winged cow, lion, eagle and man.

Quoting Fire Ologist

“Christianity is true”. Do you mean objectively, verifiably true, like the earth revolves around the sun type truth?

I don't acknowledge any other type.

Quoting Fire Ologist

I think I need to see an example that shows how a person’s prayers are answered so to speak in a way that verifies a connection between the prayer and the observable experiences of that person

The experience and its correspondence to a proposition in the Bible itself is sufficient, we don't need to know what the prayer was "answering".

Quoting Lionino

If you can't figure out what's wrong with #2, you are not thinking or engaging in good faith.

You should state what's wrong with it.

Quoting Lionino

It is comical that God intentionally bothers to mysteriously appear to random people at random times

Well, you made this up. God is appearing to all people at all times. The universe He's thinking up is in your face; this can't be avoided.

Quoting Lionino

yet stays quiet when a little Nepali child is being ripped to shreds by a Bengali tiger.

This doesn't support anything you've said.

Quoting Lionino

Curing children from cancer is somehow a violation of free will

Another statement that wasn't agreed on -- God does this often.

Quoting Lionino

You are scurrying through abstracts like a politician to find convenient statements

What convenient statements?

Quoting sime

You first need to distinguish evidence of Christianity from interpretations of "Christianity"

Evidence is a true interpretation.

Quoting sime

Do you really wish to argue that mystical visions are externally related to Christian concepts and present inferential evidence that those Christian concepts denote 'facts'?

Yes, they're rare subjective occurrences for which religions propose models. They offer a means of true interpretation.

Reply to Hallucinogen @180 Proof

Quoting Hallucinogen

If you can't figure out what's wrong with #2, you are not thinking or engaging in good faith.
— Lionino

You should state what's wrong with it.

Reply to Lionino Quoting Hallucinogen

(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true.

:roll: Well, this is like saying

'If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.'

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/903808

Quoting Hallucinogen

Many people have had experiences of visiting Heaven or Hell, or seeing an angel during prayer. Others still, see visions of Christian-specific events or symbols. This is an argument that proceeds on this basis, that they serve as evidence for Christianity.

Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical.

Quoting 180 Proof

If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.

Do you think there is something wrong with that?

Reply to bert1 Jediism (Christianity) is not a collection of propositions, that is where the fallacy is. It is a collection of propositions, stories, commandments, and historical accounts. Within that collection there is a proposition X, we find evidence for X. It is evidence for X, not for the whole collection (the concept of evidence doesn't even apply to things such as stories and commandments anyway). The Bible says the Sun sets on the West. We see the sun sets on the West. Is that evidence of Christianity? Of course not.

Reply to Lionino Sure, I agree. That's a good point, but one @180 Proof didn't make. There were a number of things that @180 Proof could have meant, I was just wondering which one it was. I respond to 180's posts quite a lot because his style is ambiguous, and when people miss his point, he invariably blames the reader, something no good writer should ever do. And 180 is a very good writer some of the time.

Reply to Lionino :up: :up:

Quoting Sam26

Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical.

This would be the fact that many people have them, along with a logical model (theology) that provides rational support for any given claim.

Quoting 180 Proof

Well, this is like saying

'If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.'

I don't see a problem with this. If we observed midichlorions, it would indicate Jediism is true.

Quoting Lionino

The Bible says the Sun sets on the West. We see the sun sets on the West. Is that evidence of Christianity? Of course not.

This isn't a response to what bert1 was responding to, though.

Reply to Hallucinogen Really? So how come the person bert1 was responding to agreed with me?

Reply to Lionino The fact that you and 180proof are on the same side doesn't mean your reply to bert1 addresses bert1's reply to 180proof.

Reply to Hallucinogen You said address what bert1 was responding to (180proof's post), not bert1's reply to 180proof.
Anyhow, not only that but bert1 himself said he agreed, not just 180proof. And it is not like what I said has any room for disagreement, it is something obvious.
My suggestion is to read it over until you understand it.

Quoting Tom Storm

You are aware, I suspect, that as far as Islam in concerned, Christianity is false, right? Jesus is not god and and the Crucifixion story is a myth. So an Islamic person who has the experience of Allah and Mohammad is confirming his/her belief that Christianity is not the true religion. That is certainly what Muslims I have met have told me. Conversely, the Christian vison confirms that Islam is not true and Jesus is God. How do you resolve this psycho-cultural conundrum?

The existence of doctrinal differences does not mean that other religions are wholesale "false". There are also doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants, or even between Lutherans and Calvinists. Does a Lutheran consider Calvinism wholesale "false"? I don't think so.

Especially concerning Christology and Mariology, the Chalcedonian view has never been the only alternative in existence. Is Mary the theodokos ("mother of God") as the Chalcedonians want it or the christodokos ("mother of Christ") as the Nestorians insist? Are the religious persecutions over this by the Byzantine empire going to recommence again in all earnest? The number of people that were hunted down and put to death by the Byzantine secret police over just this doctrinal difference, is astonishing. Islam is compatible with the Ebionite-Nestorian Christology and Mariology. It was definitely not new.

In my opinion, people just have to learn to agree to disagree concerning doctrinal differences.

Reply to Hallucinogen

(3) If praying induces experiences for a biological reason, then prayer-induced experiences are not observations of reality but hallucinations.

I don't get this one. When I look outside my house I experience seeing my car for "biological reasons," but this doesn't undermine my claim that my car is "really there." Presumably when God makes people have visions God would interact with their biology (barring some sort of dualism, but the Bible doesn't lean in this direction).

Reply to Lionino

It is comical that God intentionally bothers to mysteriously appear to random people at random times and yet stays quiet when a little Nepali child is being ripped to shreds by a Bengali tiger. Curing children from cancer is somehow a violation of free will, but turning a little lump of blood into liquid like in the "miracle" of Saint January doesn't violate free will at all, does it?

If cancer and tigers didn't exist couldn't you still make this same argument? What ratio of ills would need to be eliminated from the world to make it "good enough?"

Anyhow, I am not sure what life looks like without suffering, what natural selection looks like without disease or negative mutations, or what the evolution of Earth looks like without earthquakes, volcanoes, or floods.

At any rate, I'm not sure if the disappearance of tiger attacks and cancer from the world would constitute good evidence for God. If they did, would a 50% reduction in cancer rates work as well? Only 10%? Providence seems to have taken care of the tigers since are tending towards extinction in the wild.

Quoting Hallucinogen

If we observed midichlorions, it would indicate Jediism is true.

:roll: These are not the droids you are looking for.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

If cancer and tigers didn't exist couldn't you still make this same argument?

They "didn't exist" in the Garden of Eden. The Roman Catholic Church will say we inherited from Adam the death of the soul, which causes misery — original sin. The Orthodox (Greek at least) will say we inherited the proclitivity for sinning that causes suffering. Everybody who has debated religion will have read both of these when explaining the suffering in the world. Did we not have free will in the Garden of Eden? At least when it comes to Christian theology, the ridiculous suffering we go through is not under question, but each Church justifies it in a different manner — the Greeks will say the Romans mistranslated the respective verse.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

What ratio of ills would need to be eliminated from the world to make it "good enough?"

You are right in what you insinuate. If there were less suffering, I would simply make the same point that we need even less suffering. Surely things could be way worse, your previous profile picture is an example of it, but it is undeniable for anyone who has seen things that would be better to live a whole life without seeing: there is an excruciating amount of pain in this world that makes the idea of a benevolent God suspicious. And that is not even to say that pain is not relative, and what is excruciating to us might not be so horrible to someone in a worse world, but the suffering of heart break and breaking bones and impostor syndrome is objectively and absolutely mild compared to how most prey dies in the wild. The fact that we don't have to go through equally horrible things is not the credit of a kind-hearted God.

I guess the rest of the post is well addressed above as well, but to drive the nail further.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

If they did, would a 50% reduction in cancer rates work as well? Only 10%?

It is not about the arbitrary level of suffering in this world, but about making so that the amount of pain in life isn't so horribly ridiculous — there is not a clear cut threshold but there doesn't need to be. My life hasn't been sheltered enough to stop me from seeing things that cannot escape the conclusion that we live in a horrible world. But if "you" are a pretty European chick living in Milan with a rich dad and a non-divorced mom, yeah, life is beautiful — at least if she lived in Brussels she would get to see some terrorism every now and then.

Reply to Lionino

Did we not have free will in the Garden of Eden?

I've always found it interesting that in the past, when life was a great deal more violent, brutish, and short when compared to prevailing conditions today in much of the world, and where slavery, hunger, and disease were endemic, this—not the question of suffering—was the big question that kept people up at night.

The problem of prominent early views like that of Origen of Alexandria is that, if man can fall away from the divine once (resulting in a "fall into materiality"), then it can presumably happen again. But then how can there be any [I]final[/I] beatific return, apokatastasis, the accomplishment of exitus and reditus in salvation history? Won't people always just turn away again eventually?

The problem of the Fall and prelapsarian sin is: how can anyone truly "freely" choose evil? Wouldn't choosing evil imply either ignorance of the fact that it is evil or else "weakness of will/incontinence?" There is no rational reason to choose the worse over the better. Therefore, if someone chooses it they are either unable to choose the Good, mistake the worse for the better, or else their actions are arbitrary and determined by no rationality at all. And this would seem to imply that the Fall must be explained in terms of some sort of fundemental weakness of will or ignorance, in which case the question is "why was this imperfection included?"

This was still a live issue when St. Anselm was writing De Casu Diaboli, which focuses on how Satan and his demons could fall (essentially the same question). In that work, the student asks the teacher what benefit the angles who stayed loyal to God gain. He replies: “I do not know what it was. But whatever it was, it suffices to know that it was something toward which they could grow and which they did not receive when they were created, so that they might attain it by their own merit." The idea here is that a higher good (and for man full conformity to the image of God) requires a sort of self-transcedence and not merely the fulfillment of what is desired by nature. Thus, while Plato differentiates between relative and absolute good, Anselm looks to the good we are drawn to by nature and the super abundant good sought only in the transcendence of our nature.

The "man fell at creation," of St. Maximus makes more sense in this light. A created being, a "moving image of eternity," cannot transcend itself in a fixed moment.

Here it's worth noting that what Eve and Adam are tempted by originally is the promise to "become like God," which is itself the promise offered up by Christ: illumination, theosis, union, and deification.

I think this is an interesting solution/analysis of the problem at the least.

Anyhow, many of the Church Fathers looked at Adam as "all of mankind," (e.g., St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus, etc.). A simple reading of a man eating a piece of fruit and then being punished does bring up many issues, but then "the Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing" (John 6:63) The Patristics weren't so much opposed to "fleshly" literal readings as "false," as much as they think they miss the point. The material itself is but a sign of its cause and so of the higher reality. Likewise, they tended to think of salvation in corporate terms, whereas today it is almost always framed in anglophone contexts as primarily about the individual (Calvin vs Arminias just assumed this must be true).

Then in De Concordia, Anselm gives us the idea of perfected freedom as the soul "willing to will what God wills for it to will." This is a conception of freedom as only recognized interpersonally long before Hegel, and I think there is a sense in which Anselm's version includes as well "the free will willing itself," of Hegel in that the free will wills its own freedom to acquiesce to God (beyond natural desire) as its own content (and this can be taken at both the individual level and at the level of Global spirit).

At the very least, I don't think such a view is straightforwardly contradicted by suffering. Modern views tend to flatten out the role of man. But if the Church is truly the immanent "body of God" in history, man is (eventually) supposed to be relevant in his own right, mankind a finite moving image of infinite eternity, continually transcending its own finitude (St. Gregory). I.e., John 15:15 "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

But then how can there be any final beatific return, apokatastasis, the accomplishment of exitus and reditus in salvation history? Won't people always just turn away again eventually?

It is clear how that is troublesome for Christian eschatology.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The idea here is that a higher good (and for man full conformity to the image of God) requires a sort of self-transcedence and not merely the fulfillment of what is desired by nature.

Though this might work as the basis of a useful fiction to solve the above trouble for Christian eschatology, is self-transcedence permanent? Can't one fall back into imperfection?
At the same time, given apokatastasis is not orthodox, I don't give it much merit.

But let's say it is permanent. That still doesn't go past the point here:

Quoting Lionino

It is not about the arbitrary level of suffering in this world, but about making so that the amount of pain in life isn't so horribly ridiculous

Is this much suffering really needed for self-transcendence? Couldn't our tribulations be less gruesome, and more like a journey of the hero? Sometimes it feels like life is in a dark fantasy setting, but without the fantasy.

Reply to Lionino

Is this much suffering really needed for self-transcendence?

I don't know. The same sort of question would seem to crop up elsewhere. How absurd does the world need to be for us to become existentialist overcomers? How meaningless does it need to be for us to become self-generating overmen?

My inclination would be to say it requires the maximal absurdity and meaninglessness that still allows one to overcome.

Though this might work as the basis of a useful fiction to solve the above trouble for Christian eschatology, is self-transcedence permanent? Can't one fall back into imperfection?

On most theologians views, no, definitely not. Because the goal is deification and once deification has occured the will is not corruptible. As St. Augustine puts it, the soul facing the beatific vision has become fully free and is thus incapable of sin. Sin requires some sort of deficit. The question then is explaining this initial deficit.

At the same time, given apokatastasis is not orthodox, I don't give it much merit.

Well, universalism was at its most popular in the first five centuries of the church, and was most popular where people were more literate and could read the Bible in their native language. Several Church Fathers affirm it or heavily imply it.

It was not the majority opinion, which was annihilationism, the destruction of unrepentant souls. Infernalism, the belief that the "second death," in Revelation actually means "eternal life, just really unpleasant" is virtually absent from the earliest centuries and only gains ground later. Straightforwardly universalist phrases are everywhere in the New Testament, in all four Gospels, in almost all of St. Paul's letters, in St. John, and in St. Peter. Annihilationst language is also common, but less so. Infernalism has Matthew 25:46 and that's about it.

Universalists don't deny Hell of course, just that it is everlasting and purely punitive instead of corrective. Early views had essentially all souls headed for purgation (generally justified using the same Scripture used to justify Purgatory today).

I'm not sure exactly what is "orthodox" here. The Eastern and Oriental view of Hell differs dramatically, and you can find Oriental sources proclaiming apokatastasis as matter of fact well into the Middle Ages.

Plus, Catholic theologians dance around this issue quite often. Just off the top of my head, Von Balthasar, Pope Benedict (hardly a radical), Thomas Merton, and Pope Francis. They never decidedly go this way, but they leave the door open for "hope" as Von Balthasar puts it.

Quoting Lionino

All of your premises are wrong except for number 1.

And even if they were right, the conclusion does not obviously follow - indeed, it is very unclear what the structure of the argument is.

SO I supose one question is, can such an argument be constructed?

Reply to Hallucinogen

In general today we understand evidence as scientific evidence. Scientific evidence depends entirely on repetition in controlled environments where particular experiences composed of beliefs, desires, motivations and various subjective phenomena are neutralized.

Subjective experiences and scientific evidence are not the same thing. In subjective experience that which validates a belief does not escape the particular subjective experience. In scientific evidence that which validates theory necessarily escapes particular subjective experience. At least scientific evidence is intersubjective. And to say "intersubjective" is an understatement.

When we compare both types of validation we realize how poor is the validation of beliefs on the religious plane, since their "evidence" is nothing more than testimonies and inscrutable subjective experiences.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not sure exactly what is "orthodox" here.

Whatever is given as doctrine by the Catholic Churches.

Quoting Catholic Encyclopaedia

In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.

.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Because the goal is deification and once deification has occured the will is not corruptible.

Alright. Don't Mormons too believe they will become godlike themselves — leaving aside the whole planet thing?

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

Catholic theologians dance around this issue quite often

Though I was raised Roman Catholic, if I were today to choose between Churches, it would be Orthodox. The issue with filioque and Augustine's insufficient Greek skills don't please me. On the other hand, the matter is far from settled, and I personally feel the Eastern Orthodox feel some historical resentment towards Roman Catholics.

Quoting Banno

SO I supose one question is, can such an argument be constructed?

Keeping in mind that an argument broadly understood is not the same as a proof or syllogism, such an argument could be constructed, as whether a sound argument is persuasive is up to the receiver; the issue is that the argument(s) presented here is(/are) not sound.

Reply to Lionino

The Catholic Church also declared giving the Blood to the laity—utriquism—anathema and launched a crusade over it in Bohemia. And yet now Catholics take the blood at Mass every week. Which is orthodox?

Alright. Don't Mormons too believe they will become godlike themselves — leaving aside the whole planet thing?

I believe so, but I am not super familiar with Mormonism. In some ways this seems more like a return to traditional orthodoxy than the flight from tradition that some Protestants make it out to be. Theosis is a Catholic and Orthodox doctrine and is front and center in parts of the Catholic catechism. Certainly the Orthodox put a greater focus on deification, but it is core Catholic doctrine too.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

And yet now Catholics take the blood at Mass every week.

It seems it is up to the father if the blood is given. At least in my eucharisty, we, and all other 12 year olds, had wine. But in every other occasion the father only gave bread to the attendees.

Regardless. The crusade had political motivations too. If utraquism is orthodox or heterodox, I would give up the question to a priest instead, if the matter can even be categorised in either. Not all doctrines are equally essential after all.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

How absurd does the world need to be for us to become existentialist overcomers? How meaningless does it need to be for us to become self-generating overmen?

Let's say the world is just the right amount. How does the Ethiopian child trapped in quicksand being eaten alive by vultures get to self-transcend? After the suffering, it just dies right away. Does it get to self-transcend in the afterlife?

Reply to Hallucinogen There is a phenomenon referred to as Christianity.

Are you saying anything else other than this? I cannot see that you are.

The problem of the Fall and prelapsarian sin is: how can anyone truly "freely" choose evil? Wouldn't choosing evil imply either ignorance of the fact that it is evil or else "weakness of will/incontinence?" There is no rational reason to choose the worse over the better. Therefore, if someone chooses it they are either unable to choose the Good, mistake the worse for the better, or else their actions are arbitrary and determined by no rationality at all. And this would seem to imply that the Fall must be explained in terms of some sort of fundemental weakness of will or ignorance, in which case the question is "why was this imperfection included?"

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

This reminds me of the biblical idea of God hardening hearts. But yes, man can willingly and deliberately choose the worse over the better. And a choice may not be rational but that doesn't necessarily make it arbitrary. I'm reminded of the Doesyoevsky quote that men are not piano keys, but I don't want to romanticize man's capacity for these types of destructive choices. Man can lose sight of himself/his place in this world/his role in this world. Sever man's divine understanding and see what fills its place.

Quoting Lionino

You said address what bert1 was responding to (180proof's post), not bert1's reply to 180proof.

Yes, your comment would have to support what 180proof was arguing, for it to be an effective reply to bert1. Like I said, agreeing with 180proof isn't enough for this. What I'm trying to draw your attention to is that the comments by 180proof and bert1 copied the pattern of argument I presented, while yours deviated from it. So it failed to either support what 180proof was saying or to address my side of the argument.

Quoting Lionino

Anyhow, not only that but bert1 himself said he agreed, not just 180proof.

This doesn't mean that what you said addresses the argument, even though theirs did. Simply agreeing with them doesn't add up to that.

Quoting Lionino

And it is not like what I said has any room for disagreement, it is something obvious.

You could point out a wide range of obvious things that don't address the argument.

Quoting I like sushi

There is a phenomenon referred to as Christianity.
Are you saying anything else other than this?

I can't answer that question without knowing how broadly you mean "phenomenon".
The argument discerns between observations and hallucinations, and concludes there is evidence for Christianity consisting of the former.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

When I look outside my house I experience seeing my car for "biological reasons," but this doesn't undermine my claim that my car is "really there."

The inference is meant to be about prayer specifically, it's not meant to hold under generalization. It's intended to clarify where prayer-induced experiences might come from. A critic of prayer-induced experiences isn't going to think I'm disputing that cars have a non-hallucinatory reality.

Reply to Hallucinogen It is your job to say what you are talking about.

There is no argument. Just some mundane statements.

Reply to Lionino

That's certainly not an uncommon view in history. Consider I Peter 4:6

"For to this end it was announced-as-good-news even to the dead: that they might be judged according-to people in the flesh, but be living according to God in the spirit."

This has variously been interpreted as its straightforward meaning—"the Gospel is preached after death"— as being consistent with Ephesians 4:9 where St. Paul refers to Christ's descent into the Earth. It is also interpreted as referring to those who heard the Gospel and later died, which is a bit of a tortured reading, or as "dead" here being metaphorical (i.e."dead in sin), which seems at least more plausible.

Since [I]every knee will bow,[/I] it is generally accepted that all of the dead will know the truth at some point anyhow.

But IMO, it is the highly individualistic and legalistic combination of readings that really transform the "Good News," into something quite the opposite, a desperate race for man to save man [I]from[/I]God via a "loophole" of sorts. And this is also what transforms finite bad fortune into infinite bad fortune.

Quoting I like sushi

It is your job to say what you are talking about.

And the OP does this. I can't answer your question unless I know how broadly you're using the term phenomena -- are you using it the same way I did in some of my replies later in the thread? Those should answer your question.
What I claim to have presented is an argument for Christianity.

Quoting I like sushi

There is no argument.

The OP fits the definition of an argument.

Quoting Hallucinogen

What I claim to have presented is an argument for Christianity.

For? For the existence of some supernatural realm? It is really unclear.

Obviously many different forms of altered states of consciousness exist. Many of the biological mechanisms needed to induce them are present in religious traditions. Prayer is one of them.

People have experiences of aliens abducting them, yet prior to ideas of UFOs there were no reports of alien abductions but plenty of instances of demons and angels. What this seems to point to is something is going on in the human psyche and people represent this in different ways based on mythos they are familiar with.

Note: Instances of people taking DMT show this more vividly too.

Quoting JuanZu

Scientific evidence depends entirely on repetition in controlled environments where particular experiences composed of beliefs, desires, motivations and various subjective phenomena are neutralized.

When science is used to study something other than those subjective phenomena, but not when it is studying the subjective phenomena themselves. And by “neutralized” I assume you mean “controlled”. Science cannot remove such confounding factors from the picture entirely.

Quoting JuanZu

Subjective experiences and scientific evidence are not the same thing.

Of course they aren't, but the two are intertwined.

Quoting JuanZu

In subjective experience that which validates a belief does not escape the particular subjective experience.

It does, validation is a part of logic and logic is the very system that provides any invariant relationship between subjective experience and an external referent.

Quoting JuanZu

In scientific evidence that which validates theory necessarily escapes particular subjective experience.

The method of validation does, but scientific evidence itself doesn't, because scientific evidence always consists of subjectively experienced data. All observations involve subjective experience.

Quoting JuanZu

When we compare both types of validation we realize how poor is the validation of beliefs on the religious plane

There's only one means of validation. The difference between validating religious and scientific claims is the rarity and predictability of the data types.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus If self-transcendence can happen in the afterlife, why bother keeping us down on Earth to live horrors?

Reply to Lionino

I don't know how historical progression would work if people never died. Death seems as important to the development of the race as the death of individual cells is to the development of a single person. If Man, as a corporate entity, is the focus of salvation history, then death seems to play a crucial role.

Is the assumption here that suffering only exists "down here?" This is generally not an assumption for universalists or for the early Church in general. There is still Hell and purgation (purgation for [I]all[/I], even the saints on some accounts). Presumably what is required on Earth may be required in some form after death.

Purgation is not the final destination though, but rather the requisite precondition for deification.

About the earthly body and God, section 2.1 of this article by Doctor of Systematic Theology from PUG Roma: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/culturateo/article/view/63415/44228