Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
singhcity

Arguement Against Religous Experience

Recommended Posts

how can one reply to this arguement:

"If a mystic admits that the object of his vision is something which cannot be described, then he must also admit that he is bound to talk nonesense when he describes it." - Ayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he can draw it, use visual aids instead of words, mystical experiences are usually quite visual IMHO.

My personal opinion on this is a mystical experience is something unique to each person and a true mystic can only help a student by guiding them to their own expeience which will be different to his.

A mystic will know various techniques such as use of breath or where to centre the mind and these will aid the student but the experience has to be experienced by the student to be fully understood.

Just a few of my own thoughts, not sure if they are helpful though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he can draw it, use visual aids instead of words, mystical experiences are usually quite visual IMHO.

My personal opinion on this is a mystical experience is something unique to each person and a true mystic can only help a student by guiding them to their own expeience which will be different to his.

A mystic will know various techniques such as use of breath or where to centre the mind and these will aid the student but the experience has to be experienced by the student to be fully understood.

Just a few of my own thoughts, not sure if they are helpful though.

this question concerns why the student should believe the mystic in the first place, there are many people who say they have exprienced God or that God has spoken to them but not all of them can be right. And when a mystic also adds that he cannot desribe his expeience this makes the experience more unreliable. how would a sikh respond to this, as our doctrine is based on experiencing God and not just believing in him. The Guru is perfect and bani is pure bliss, but how can this be a counter arguememt when every other religion would say the same thing or roughly the same thing ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this question concerns why the student should believe the mystic in the first place, there are many people who say they have exprienced God or that God has spoken to them but not all of them can be right.

People experience God in different ways, God is unique to each person and the experience of God is also unique to each person.

A mystic just helps lead you down your own path because he is more experienced in the technique of getting there, the end result is your own.

That's really all I can say because that is all I know and it doesn't help you but I felt I had to comment as it was such an interesting question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok how about this?

How would you explain seeing something with own your eyes to someone who can't see?

It's a similar question.

Honestly, how would you do it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or another question along similar lines:

How would you explain the huge gravitational pull towards the Asian community if you have left it behind and are living alone and far from it?

If I have never had this feeling then how would you explain it to me?

I mean surely your words would make no sense.

I mean how do you explain a feeling?

It has to be experienced.

Or try explaining the feeling of joy to a miserable person who has had nothing but grief all their life.

Impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok how about this?

How would you explain seeing something with own your eyes to someone who can't see?

It's a similar question.

Honestly, how would you do it?

ahh i see where your going with this,a blind man cannot understand the notion of things like colour wothout experience, so it would be impossible to explain it to him. I think the philosopher in my question isnt denying the importance of experience, i think hes only trying to show that some experience claims may be false. Talk of colours and perception is meaningful because we all have them as part of our conceptual schemes, but religious experience is something rare which is why we he claims we should be doibtful of anyone who has claimed to have one. eeing things is objective, even if the blind man does not understand it he may appriciate it, but a religious experience in relation to your proposition is like the blind man telling us what he can see instead of the other way round, if that made sense lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what's the definition of a religious experience according to the questioner?

How does a real life ecstatic feeling differ to a religious experience?

We need definitions of the phrase, what exactly is a religious experience?

:smile2:

I mean what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what's the definition of a religious experience according to the questioner?

How does a real life ecstatic feeling differ to a religious experience?

We need definitions of the phrase, what exactly is a religious experience?

:smile2:

I mean what is it?

A reliious experiene is when someone is directly aware of God or Gods actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reliious experiene is when someone is directly aware of God or Gods actions.

Have you had a religious experience?

Has anyone else on this forum ever had a religious experience?

If you have could you describe it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had a religious experience?

Has anyone else on this forum ever had a religious experience?

If you have could you describe it?

if i had i wouldnt be asking this question tbh, but idk, bhai jugraj singh ji has had one (basics of sikhi), he says its like pure bliss but even he would admit thats its an indescribable feelings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can one reply to this arguement:

"If a mystic admits that the object of his vision is something which cannot be described, then he must also admit that he is bound to talk nonesense when he describes it." - Ayer

...OR everything else describable is actually nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a book called The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James which might be of help. It's quite old and the frames of reference are mostly from the Abrahamic perspective, but the overall theories and opinions he ventures are quite sound IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a book called The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James which might be of help. It's quite old and the frames of reference are mostly from the Abrahamic perspective, but the overall theories and opinions he ventures are quite sound IMO.

ahahha i have the book lol, this arguement is an arguement against william james, i like william james but i think he is narrow enough with his beliwf of what constitues a religious experience

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The reason why if it is done by state is that if you start on a smaller scale with some flyover state like North Dakota or Arkansas and it is seen as successful and better than the current system, then other states will follow suit. The elites can probably handle one or two problems but if all the states to implement a comprehensive health system simultaneously then the elites will find it difficult to handle. Plus if it becomes a bottom up grass roots movement then you might stand a better chance. 
    • Divide and conquer, of course. Left-leaning coalitions are easy to defeat because they are made up of many different groups, and it is very easy to make it seem like one group is being favoured over another. Whatever issues Sikhs in the UK might have with another group, I think Corbyn (and even more so McDonnell) would have been great allies for the Sikhs. It's a shame. I get the impression that a majority of Sikhs vote Labour (although there are some who love the Tories ... they are the kind of odd people who feel proud that they can claim that their ancestors were from former British colonies). Do a majority of Hindus support the Tories? I don't understand why the British voters were not more receptive to Corbyn's proposals. They sounded pretty good to me: fund the NHS properly, nationalize the railways, etc. I agree that he was clearly a threat to the status quo. Note how it came out later that high-ranking Labour officials were relieved when Labour narrowly lost the 2017 election! I think something similar would have happened in the US if Bernie Sanders had gotten the Democratic party nomination to run for President. Most Dem politicians and most "progressive" business leaders (e.g. Bill Gates) would have privately (or even publicaly) preferred Trump to Sanders.
    • You won't get an argument from me defending insurance companies and the American healthcare model. As I said in my post, the wealthy and powerful (e.g. insurance companies) do everything they can to prevent social safety net programs from being established and/or expanding. They own most of the politicians, and they are very adept at scaring voters by spreading misinformation and framing things in misleading ways. For example, some more left-wing democrats proposed abolishing private health insurance and moving to a more efficient, universal healthcare system. The talking point became that these democrats were "trying to take away your health insurance." Technically it is true, they wanted to take it away and replace it with something better. You can see how misleading it is, but one-liners like that go a long way in politics. It's not the size of the America that makes an NHS-style system impossible. If such a thing were proposed at state levels, the same media campaign against it would take place in those states.
    • Wonderful replies here by the sangat 🙏🏾. A small point to note; if you walk side by side, one of you will stand closer to the Guru and have to walk a slightly shorter distance, while the other will have to stand a little further away from the Guru and walk a slightly longer distance. Who will it be? And how do you decide who gets to stand closer to the Guru? This is what happens when you start splitting hairs. As sangat have mentioned, if you don't like the Anand Karaj, you are more than welcome to get "married" in any other way you see fit...
    • From what I understand is that the insurance companies hold too much sway. In an average US salary, how much percentage of income goes into the medical insurance. What is the point of paying into insurance when it comes to using it, the insurance companies do everything they can not to pay.  In the UK, our NHS money is funded from our National Insurance contributions and I think we probably pay less into our healthcare than people do in the US, so what is your insurance contributions paying into? NI is a tax but at least it's an upfront tax, not this sly stealthy cr*p where it looks like you pay less tax but your money is taken elsewhere. The US maybe a vast place, but if it was done a state by state level where some states are between 5 million to 10 million people, I think it is quite do-able. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use