First of all, the Bible originates from an oral tradition handed down for many generations before being committed to writing, then being translated and re-translated, etc. Which makes it fundamentally different from a work of fiction written by a single author, or even a group of authors; it tells the tale of a people as seen from within their community, whereas a work of fiction springs from the author's personal imagination. And we can see the people in the Bible move from warrior to mythic over the course of the story, in accordance with early humanity's development.
Which allows for several inconsistencies, tales to have been modified over the course of the years, details to have been rewritten a hundred times... which makes it nothing more than a book of tales. Whether they are written by one person or several doesn't change anything (other than explaining the stark contrasts in tone over the pages, from a vengeful god which murders thousands with a flick to a loving one).
This is irrelevant to anything I've presented. My statements are not based on philosophy: they do not start with an assumption and then draw conclusions, but rather start with experiential data; I am starting with observation and drawing conclusions based upon experience and logical inference.
Let's go to the wikipedia article and look at the first line:
Integral theory, a philosophy with origins in the work of Sri Aurobindo and Jean Gebser, and promoted by Ken Wilber,
It's perfectly correct and fine if you want to use the Integral Theory to explain what god is for you, and I didn't really want to go in there because it's a perfectly fine definition. The thing is, the definition in itself is the same as if we started discussing "what are the aliens for you", to talk we must first assume they exist. If you don't, well, that whole talk about defining god is little more than hypothesizing. And since everybody is free to do so, well, I didn't really go there. I just went for the parts where you claimed you can prove god exists.
But yet again, we have a fundamental difference between your argument and mine. The teapot is solely a hypothetical example; people don't actually report seeing or believing in it, either now or at any point in history. Spirit however, is essentially universal to human experience throughout the ages.
People used to believe in magic, in gods creating thunder, because they didn't know how it happened. People believed in gods from the moment they were aware of their own death and afraid of disappearing as a way to find comfort.
Notice how you are moving from "a defined God" to "Spirit", the concept of something magical and intangible that affects the world, which is something much blurrier.
And last, people believe many things. That doesn't mean they are necessarily true, or even real.
As far as I'm aware, the materialistic scientific worldview is currently the only one that has ever denied the existence of a Divine by default. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with this; the rational denial of Spirit has more depth than a mythic affirmation. But we would do well to come to terms with the fact that new and deeper ways of understanding the world have unfolded, and to take note that the Divine is often embraced by those who hold these worldviews.
I would like you to explain which views are those and how they are "deeper". And whether they are anything more than stories, philosphies. My mom is a new-ager who firmly believed "the mind of the universe" was going to change in the Mayan calendar change and become "more open", and I don't really think she has a deeper understanding of the universe despite following a new philosophy.
Also you go back to the argumentum ad populum: the fact that those new ways rely on god-ish beings doesn't mean they are necessarily right.
Oh, and there isn't much of a "scientific worldview", other than the fact that science tries to explain stuff that happens through experiments, evidence and earhtly logic, without relying on "magic" from a being from a higher plane of existence we can't see or touch, or even know whether it exists at all.
Which holds no bearing here, as I have presented evidence, which you have attempted to refute.
I didn't so much try to refute it as point out that you were either using the wrong set of evidence or overreaching and drawing unwarranted conclusions from the experiment you showed.
In addition, if your neighbor has looked out the window and seen that it isn't raining, while you have not gone and looked, what grounds do you have to draw any conclusions, positive or negative, about her assertions?
That is sounds like rain outside? That the weatherman said it would rain? That it rains all the time here, so it's more likely than not that it's raining? That dry weather seems to just be something that people make up to get some relief from all the damp???
What does this mean? I have looked around and never, ever in my life I have seen a god doing magic or miracles about me. I have never seen anybody turning water into wine. I have seen perfectly good explanations for basically any question I have ever had that do not require a magical being intervening. Why shouldn't I assume that there is a very good chance it isn't raining at all?
You must take the injunction to have the experience, after which comes verification or refutation from others who have also taken the injunction. Just like looking into a microscope in order to observe the structure of a plant, just like jogging every day for three months to see if it impacts your health, and just like engaging in regular transpersonal practices to see if you are indeed one with everything.
If this process is not followed, then one can do nothing more than abstractly reason out a conclusion, and point to circumstantial evidence that supports that conclusion, which is philosophy by any other name. If this process is not followed, we are engaging in more of the same metaphysics that you seem to disapprove of!
What does this mean?
Again, I have not presented philosophical or belief-based arguments. The four quadrants of reality (interiors and exteriors of individuals and collectives), as well as the levels of development, are not philosophical assumptions. They are present in your direct and immediate awareness, and you don't even need special tools to verify that.
Well, yes, the four quadrants exist as a way to define god if you start from "god exists". If you don't, they do not define anything. That's a philosophy for me (and for Wikipedia it seems).
I mean, you could modify those areas to define how society works, without the need for a god. It's just a chewed gum somebody stuck on a worldview to take advantage of the fact that we can relate to that to make an argument for god, despite the fact no god is necessary for that worldview.
And as to whether I've misunderstood the study, let me elaborate on how I reached my conclusion. When someone says "I feel fear," and we observe a physiological fight-or-flight response, we accept the fear as valid. When someone says "I feel happy," and we observe dopamine release and a change in demeanor, we accept the happiness as valid.
When someone says "I am speaking to God, and I hear her voice," we can observe activation of the language and concentration centers of the brain. When someone says "I feel one with everything," we can observe hemispheric synchronization, and specific brainwave patterns associated with meditative states. Why then would we conclude anything other than that the experience of God is valid?
the experience of God
the experience
And there you go. That's what I wanted to say. The experience those people are living is real. That's all we can know for sure. Because, you know,
there is no need for an actual god to exist for that person to feel "the experience" of god. You only need to make that person believe hard enough so it becomes real for them. It's that simple. The fact that a person who has interiorized the existence of god feels something special when doing an action intimately related to that god they believe in only proves the fact that humans can feel X under Y conditions, not that a God does exist.
I can make a person feel a terrible fear if I manage to convince them that there is a murderer on the room next door. That doesn't make the murderer real, but their feelings are.
As far as I can tell, that conclusion is based on nothing more than an assumption that God does not (or can not, or perhaps should not) exist, and that all interior states are merely inconsequential byproducts of chemical processes. This is scientific materialism at its "finest", and the irony here is that it is this materialistic view that is actually based on metaphysical assumptions.
"Science is necessarily methodologically materialist. Science wishes to describe and explain nature. Diversion into the "supernatural" begins to describe and explain matters that are not natural and obfuscate the natural.
Methodological materialism is a defining characteristic of science in the same way that "methodological woodism" is a defining characteristic of carpentry. Science seeks to construct natural explanations for natural phenomena in the same way that carpentry seeks to construct objects out of wood. In operating in this manner neither discipline denies the existence of supernatural forces or sheet plastics, their usefulness or validity. The use of either supernatural forces or sheet plastics is simply distinguished as belonging to separate disciplines. "
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Materialism
Last month, the videogame Professor Layton VS Ace Attorney was released in Europe. I won't spoil anything, but one of the most annoying things in the trials is that, since magic exists in the universe where the game plays, Phoenix has a ridiculously tougher time proving anything in court. "That piece of evidence was left in the wrong place, my client clearly couldn't have put it there!". In the real-world games, the prosecutor would say "Oh crap" loudly. In this magical world, though, they'd simply say "well she used
magic!", and suddenly your argument isn't worth a penny.
Science is materialistic from the second it doesn't rely on "gods" using magic to explain reality. If we used "magic", in fact, we would be stuck praying to the saints for rain instead of using chemical products to induce it, because we wouldn't be fully sure about whether it does work or is nonsense. After all, it's ridiculously easy to move the goalposts when you are talking about "magic", something we cannot truly comprehend or replicate. Both views are respectable, but you can't expect the side that has decided to stick with nature to accept magic. That would mean turning science into a completely different discipline altogether.
Oh, and all your arguments are based on nothing more than an assumption that God does (or can, or perhaps should) exist. What does it make you think your assumption is more valid? (And I love the subtle ideas you are hinting at with the "should not", as if we "knew" god existed but were trying to actively deny it for who knows what nefarious reasons. Nice one, that).
