Emotions, God, and Atheism

[Fran65]

And I would never expect other people to simply take my word …and follow me based on them.

You are in no danger here!

Happyrevert was recounting her experience. She was not suggesting that you follow her, she simply stated that she had had some intense spiritual experiences. You make your choice. HappyRevert and other Catholics make ours.

I asked this in a slightly different form on another thread.

If you are not interested in others ‘following you’ then why are atheists so interested in evangelizing their beliefs and discounting other’s experiences?

 

[HappyRevert]

Are ALL thiests ahead? Are ALL non-believers the same?

The first question has two answers. In one sense, all theists are ahead because they have started down a path, that if it comes to fruition, will bring them to the Lord. The second side of that is how you define ahead. If you mean the likelihood of getting to heaven, then not necessarily. If I go out and curse someone out because I lose my temper, that is far more serious to me because I know better. I know each person is made in the image of Christ, I know that it is not ever acceptable to yell at another person like that, and I know that behaving that way pulls me off of the path I have chosen to follow. So a person who doesn’t know better (atheist or theist) would be judged less harshly than I, because I definitely know better, so does that make me ahead or behind? Depends on how you define “ahead”.

All non-believers are not the same. The Lord judges people on what they know. An aborigine living in a remote location will certainly not be held responsible for not believing in Jesus because s/he never heard of him. However, if due to a conscious choice (and here it is definitely up to the Lord and no human because no human can read another’s heart) a person turns his/her back on the Lord, then that is serious.

I also wanted to clarify in general, that my talking about my personal experience wasn’t to provide evidence for other people of God, but to point out that I can’t deny my own personal experiences. We explore our world through our bodies. To deny those experiences would be to deny who I am not only in a spiritual sense, but a rational sense as well. I can’t discount that “other sense” and accept my other 5 senses because it is more socially acceptable to do so. I either accept what my body (and soul because they are intertwined) tells me or I don’t. I accept what it tells me, and fortunately for me (by the grace of God) it has transformed me.

 

[utunumsint]

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the subjective emotions that arise in religious people, with emphasis on the mystics, and how their experiences differ from non religious people.

I want to avoid the tendency to dismiss all affective responses as “just your opinion” but analyze them as real points of data. The other tendency I want to avoid is taking these emotional states appart from the object that gives rise the emotions. If, for example, an atheist wants to claim that God for them equals truth, then do they have the same kind of emotional response to this God (ideal) of theirs? How do their experiences differ from the Christian response to God? Does the personalizing of truth allow for an elevation of certain affective responses into prominence that pure logic and reason cannot acheive (of an atheistic world view for that matter)?

To give an example from my own life: When my grandfather died, my mother told me the story of how he had a near death experience after being electrocuted and resusitated. His experience was like this: He was on a mountain and saw a beautiful light in the valley beneath. He longed to be there, then suddenly he was transported to that place. Beneath the light he saw flowers, which he new represented all of his children and his wife and loved ones. But what had his complete attention was the light. There was nothing more wonderful or comparable in his life to the beauty and the peace he felt as he gazed at it. Then he suddenly knew he had to return to life again, and he felt regret. I was seven years old, and this story is one of the building blocks of my faith. It implanted this one firm notion in my mind and heart: God is all good. Later on in university I read Plato, and Augustine, as well as Thomas Aquinas. I prefered Augustine’s take on it: “Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee God.” After a long journey I had found in philosophy what my grandfather had found in life (or near death).

What made this story so convincing for me is the affects this experience had on my grandfather. He left his job, bought a farm in a idealic part of eastern Canada. They spent eight years there, and my mother says, "They were the best of times (because of the wondeful sense of family love that prevaded everything they did), and the worst of times (because they had to embrase a certain amount of poverty). And my grandfather never lost his sense of wonder at what he witnessed, and his longing to return there.

When I have some more time, I’ll break down some of the emotional states that happened during these experiences, as well as their effects, their causes, their objects.

God bless,
Ut

God bless,
Ut

 

[Fran65]

As Catholics we see God as a person and with whom we can have a personal relationship. This means that we (may?) have qualitatively different affective experiences as we are relating to a person and not an ‘ideal’.

For example, my affective experience of my husband is very different to the affective experience that I have if I think about love as an abstract ideal.

 

[utunumsint]

As Catholics we see God as a person and with whom we can have a personal relationship. This means that we (may?) have qualitatively different affective experiences as we are relating to a person and not an ‘ideal’.

For example, my affective experience of my husband is very different to the affective experience that I have if I think about love as an abstract ideal.

This is a good point. Atheists cannot really transform their ideal worship into personal worship. So in this sense, a relationship to another being (God) and the affective experiences that derive from that relationship are bared to them. And, as you say, God relates to each person in a different way…in fact different for each person.

But there are some commonalities as well by the very fact that we share a common human nature. We all have a need for love, for stability, for truth, etc…

God bless,
Ut

 

[crowonsnow]

If you are not interested in others ‘following you’ then why are atheists so interested in evangelizing their beliefs and discounting other’s experiences?

I suppose one could hold that science and math teachers and educators generally are “evangelizing,” and that anyone who discovers what he or she considers knowledge is evangelizing when they feel a need to share that knowledge. So are these folks all “evangelizing” when they discuss something they find interesting? At a very basic level I would say yes.

I find theistic behavior fascinating, not so much in children and young adults, but in those older. But I do think the source of that behavior is the same in all three groups.

 

[crowonsnow]

As Catholics we see God as a person and with whom we can have a personal relationship. This means that we (may?) have qualitatively different affective experiences as we are relating to a person and not an ‘ideal’.

For example, my affective experience of my husband is very different to the affective experience that I have if I think about love as an abstract ideal.

Love has never been some abstract ideal to me. Love has always been a behavior, and something that feels good to experience. I have never disassociated love from personal emotion. I wouldn’t even know how to begin thinking about that.

That’s humanism become theism, or theism become humanism. It kinda makes sense when you think about it like that, except for the theism.

utunumsint:

Atheists cannot really transform their ideal worship into personal worship.

I’ve never met an atheist that worshipped anything. Do you mean just being thankful?

 

[Fran65]

So, Crow, you are here to educate us. So you are going to bring us out into the full glory of - what? - rationalism? materialism? humanism? You may believe that these are ‘better’, we do not!

Here you betray that you regard ‘theists’ - or Catholics as ignorant and needing ‘education’.

Teachers, whatever your opinion, are not seeking to convert (the strict meaning of evangelise), rather they seek to provide knowledge, understanding and experiences that were not previously available.

Do you really believe that most of us here have not thought through our Catholic beliefs, have not wrestled with and won (to our personal satisfaction if not yours) the arguments that you and those like you present over and over again? Do not have the knowledge that you have? and have arrived at a different understanding of the world through a long education and personal experience? Breathtaking that you should think so…

You are not educating - you are evangelising.

Two different things.

 

[junvir]

Not quite. Henry the VIII was never claimed to be anything other than a human. Since I witness there are humans today, it is not difficult for me to believe there were humans back then.

Since there are royalty today, then it is not difficult to assume there was royalty back then.

If he was claimed to have been supernatural, since I see none of that today, and all it is is a claim, then I will be rather suspicious of that claim.

 

[junvir]

Not really… since atheists believe on what is observable or can be proven by science…let us reverse your logic. When Copernicus and Galileo, then at their time, believed that the Earth was revolving around the sun, people thought they were crazy… in fact the Roman Catholic church persecuted them. In the early 17th century, people believed that no object heavier than air can fly, etc. etc.,

Put those timelines in the present time, atheists do not believe that theists can communicate with God through prayers and meditation and God communicated back to man through discernment. At this time, science and natural laws cannot prove this and so atheist might think the theists are crazy like Copernicus and Galileo.

If during the time of Jesus you have a cel phone and called somebody in Rome, then people would have been amazed that you had such great power… but now, we call it technology and not miracle. See??? on both sides, there are arguments that if we use our intellect which I believe is God gift to man, then it would not be hard to believe that there is that supernatural power we call God.

Atheists believe on evolution and the big bang theory while the theists believe on creation. Both can not be proven by science by this time. Evolution until now has no many loose ends and the big bang theory still remains a pigment of imagination. Creation cannot be proven also by science… so what now?

My advice, use your intellect and your conviction and listen to your heart… and you may find the answer, if you listen hard! That happened to me because I was a big skeptic too. Now I am a believer and a faithful follower of Jesus Christ, but not a fanatic follower of any organized religion.

 

[frankblahnik]

It’s important to note here, we cannot love what we do not “believe” to be good, but we can still love that which is wrong.

We recognize and acknolwege the concept of goodness and aspire to obtatin it. We LOVE to think of ourselves as good, and go to great lengths to disguise our own flaws as a result of this.

How many people, truly do things, in the name of badness?

Our desire (and hence love via chemical reactions in the brain) COULD be an evolutionary trait.

But. our desire to be believe we are good can so ‘scew’ our reality, that we can literally attempt to wipe out an entire race of human beings in the name of goodness as did Hitler. He actually thought he was doing the right thing. Nothing seems to inspire anyone to such lows(and thankfully sometimes heights) as a belief that we are doing good.

It is this unbelievable passion for goodness, that should be addressed.

Passion for goodness…

Where does it come from?
Why do we have it?

 

[crowonsnow]

So, Crow, you are here to educate us. So you are going to bring us out into the full glory of - what? - rationalism? materialism? humanism? You may believe that these are ‘better’, we do not!

Here you betray that you regard ‘theists’ - or Catholics as ignorant and needing ‘education’.

Teachers, whatever your opinion, are not seeking to convert (the strict meaning of evangelise), rather they seek to provide knowledge, understanding and experiences that were not previously available.

Do you really believe that most of us here have not thought through our Catholic beliefs, have not wrestled with and won (to our personal satisfaction if not yours) the arguments that you and those like you present over and over again? Do not have the knowledge that you have? and have arrived at a different understanding of the world through a long education and personal experience? Breathtaking that you should think so…

You are not educating - you are evangelising.

Two different things.

The strict meaning is to preach the Christian gospels to, not to convert. You expanded the meaning so I took the liberty to join in.

Generally speaking, however, you’re spot on in the educating part. And it’s a good thing we do that or else the stupid would stay stupid. I’m certain there’s a survival mechanism at work, no different than an elephant matriarch leading her family band to water and food. We all learn.

Interestingly, and something you no doubt know, the dumbest of our species always think they’re the smartest. That’s been proven. And the smartest always underestimate their relative intelligence because they’re smart enough to be able to appreciate their own stupidity. In other words you have to be a pretty smart to realize how dumb you are.

 

[Fran65]

In other words you have to be a pretty smart to realize how dumb you are.

Exactly a point that we (Catholics) have been trying to make.

As humans we do not understand God. His ways are a mystery to us. We know that we will never (while on earth) ‘have it all figured’ out as a poster (also atheist) put it on another thread.

We are not setting ourselves up as capable of understanding everything on heaven and on earth using our human intellect.

Thank you for reminding me of that.

 

[frankblahnik]

Passion for goodness…

Where does it come from?
1)Our personal passion for goodness could come from seeing/experiencing the pain and suffering of the world, and our desire to do something about it.
2)…

Why do we have it?
1)To make the world a better place to live in.
2)…

What causes people to twist their passion for goodness into doing evil and calling it good?
1)Their belief in whats right and wrong become skewed somehow…but how?
2)…

 

[frankblahnik]

First of all, let me apolagize for jumping into this thread unexpecdidly. I did read through the entire thread and was hoping you would come back to discussing the passion for goodness.
utenumsin:

I would like to get back to this “passion” as well and look deeper into the character of the more altruistic passions, expecially with reguard to love for God.

I guess I didn’t really address the issue with regard for love for God, but on a more personal level that all could relate too. (see my quote below)

frankblahnik:

Our personal passion for goodness could come from seeing/experiencing the pain and suffering of the world, and our desire to do something about it.

But, on the other hand, the the desire to do something about it, could be the very thing that skews our belief in what is right and wrong, and the cause people do evil things out of a passion for goodness (or I guess I’m thinking more of justice in this sense).

Nonetheless, passion for goodness must be co-operative and not competitive.

With regard to love for God, passion for goodness takes on a whole new meaning. For God is all good, and to love God as our Father, you would want to do good to please him, like any son wants to please his father. There is nothing I want more then to hear from God the words “Good job son, I am well pleased with you”, and then take me into His loving embrace for all eternity.

I love you Big Daddy God.

 

[utunumsint]

First of all, let me apolagize for jumping into this thread unexpecdidly. I did read through the entire thread and was hoping you would come back to discussing the passion for goodness.

Sorry. Just busy with my day job, which I don’t intend to quit.

I guess I didn’t really address the issue with regard for love for God, but on a more personal level that all could relate too. (see my quote below)

Originally Posted by frankblahnik
Our personal passion for goodness could come from seeing/experiencing the pain and suffering of the world, and our desire to do something about it.

But, on the other hand, the the desire to do something about it, could be the very thing that skews our belief in what is right and wrong, and the cause people do evil things out of a passion for goodness (or I guess I’m thinking more of justice in this sense).

I think we seek for goodness in order to be happy, or in other words, to seek a state that includes truth for the intellect, true objects for the will, and true emotional bliss. However, I don’t think this is something that we Christians can hope to acheive on this planet, and often the very striving for release from suffering, contradiction of the will and of the intellect, leads us to marginalize others, and to evil acts.

In this world, I think the truest act of goodness is that of Christ on the cross when he says, “Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.” This is one of the truest statements ever made about the human condition. So much of our sinfulness comes from our lack of understanding, our inability to control our emotions and properly direct our wills.

Nonetheless, passion for goodness must be co-operative and not competitive.

With regard to love for God, passion for goodness takes on a whole new meaning. For God is all good, and to love God as our Father, you would want to do good to please him, like any son wants to please his father. There is nothing I want more then to hear from God the words “Good job son, I am well pleased with you”, and then take me into His loving embrace for all eternity.

To acknowledge that there is something above us that governs us, and that we must submit to is one of the central themes of Christianity. But so is the mystery of suffering. Especially in its human dimension. Happiness that is free from limits and obedience is not a Christian form of happiness. In fact, it is not a form of happiness at all.

Thanks for posting,
God bless,
Ut

 

[Dameedna]

Actually, Happyrevert’s experience was ‘real’. She has told you about it, been very clear that it occurred and it has had an enduring effect on her life.

That’s real enough for me.

It is the meaning of the experience that can be discussed.

It is only real enough for you, when it co-incides with your already existing belief. IE, as long as a religioius experiences supports your view, you will aggree with it.

It’s not about the experience, its about you.

I see circular logic happening.

Yes, a person can experience something. They do that all the time. People feel SO strongly about their experiences that they are willing to die…and worse…they are willing to kill in the name of them.

I suggest we question these experiences and try to find a way to validate them. Otherwise, you have an entire human race that claims they have had"god" revealed to them in an experience…

…and what you end up with is the FDLS, the Jihad bombers, or the inquisition.

You tell a mistruth, when you say “xx claimed to experience it it is good enough for me”.

If “xxx” was told that God wanted them to bomb the pentagon, I suspect you’d have some reservations.

In other words, some-one claiming they had a religioius experience is not actually enough for you. They have to “validate” it in some way. They do so FOR YOU by aligning with your religion.

That…is actually meaningless in terms of what is real.

Don’t believe me? Then go talk to a FDLS member and find out EXACTLY how real their religious experiences are.

And then you will know why I reject them.

 

[Dameedna]

The first question has two answers. In one sense, all theists are ahead because they have started down a path, that if it comes to fruition, will bring them to the Lord. The second side of that is how you define ahead. If you mean the likelihood of getting to heaven, then not necessarily. .

No I mean , are you capable of placing something above yourself, IE above your own desire to believe.

If you are not willing to accept all possibilities on your journey toward truth, inlcuding God not existing, then you are not willing to embrace truth.

It will simply hurt to much and you will reject it because you don’t want it to be true.

Do athiests have any kind of absolute truth? No…they do not.

But, they are much stronger than you because they can accept the very thing, you cannot. They accept there may in fact not be a God. Until you have gone through athiesm you will not understand it. They…do not believe what they want. They accept the very thing, you fear the most.

You will continue to believe what you want. Truth…won’t be important to you.

So no, I don’t think you are “ahead” of the game. You just feel very comfortable.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Don’t believe me? Then go talk to a FDLS member and find out EXACTLY how real their religious experiences are.

And then you will know why I reject them.

i noticed that you have made several references to the FLDS, were you a member, or close to a member of that organization?

can you be a little more specific about what they do, or have done that you find offensive?

i as that in the light of recent events, the state of texas seized their children on what were later to be determined false allegations about a non-existent member.

the state of texas was forced to return the children, and then reprimanded by the courts for their actions.

that said i think mormons are a cult from a theological perspective. but i grew up in foster care and group homes myself and i know first hand how they can act long before they think.

so, can you be more specific as to what they have done that you find offensive?

 

[Dameedna]

i noticed that you have made several references to the FLDS, were you a member, or close to a member of that organization?

can you be a little more specific about what they do, or have done that you find offensive?

There is a technique the FDLS use to teach children to remain “sweet”.

A baby, will held under a tap of water…when the baby cries, the water will be poured over the babies head. This will obviously choke the baby, as they cannot breath. The baby will then be removed once they stop crying. As soon as they cry again, they will be shoved under the water, and they will choke and stop crying.

Before a baby is even aware, that it exists they will have learnt that to cry, is to die. It is the complete and utter removal of human will, before a child even has the chance to know it exists.

And the FDLS …continues down that path from then on.

This…has all been “revealed” as a technique to be used by humans(given by God), to make sure FDLS members will learn submission to God and will get the reward they deserve in heaven.

Does that answer the question?