From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 04:50:21 MST
Anders says
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:53:14PM -0900, John Grigg wrote:
> >
> > As I somehow imagine it, I would know an angel or God simply by the
> > sheer physical majesty (intense glow, levitating, telepathy,
> > overwhelming presence) and overall supernatural "vibe." You would not
> > need any tests done, you would instantly know.
>
> People undergoing mystical experiences nearly always have this kind of
> noesis experience of really knowing How Things Are. The drama may or may
> not be there and there might be a personal God or just Reality present,
> but the sense of Truth is very common.
>
> This is actually what bothers me as a materialistic neuroscientist. We
> have brain systems that tell us about the salience, familiarity and
> likely the perceived truth of things. If these were simply made fully
> active we would experience whatever we see or think as totally true and
> beyond doubt (even the dualist explanation that truth is experienced
> directly by the soul doesn't work, since the same argument could go for
> the corresponding truth-detection system within the soul). People with
> temporal lobe epilepsy sometimes get these sensations.
As some one who has had temporal lobe epilepsy I can confirm this. The
obvious thought (made many times) is that neurological disturbance of this
kind is the source of many religious experiences and visions, above all the
perception that one has been granted powers of prophecy. I vividly recall
the powerfull feelings of "deja vu" that were associated with grand mal and
also the way hearing or seeing something would suddenly trigger a
"recollection" of having "seen" or "heard" this in some kind of previous
experience.
> Just asking "please grant me a bit of limited omniscience so that I can
> think up a good question and understand the answer" (which I consider to
> be a very neat idea; a bit like the encounter with the eponymous entity
> in Hamilton's _The Naked God_) wouldn't work, since I could always be
> given an experience of having had indescribable experiences (now nearly
> faded) and a very convincing but deep answer I almost but not quite
> could remember.
Isn't this the way it usually seems to work? Happens with those wonderful
"trips" psychedelic substances can give you as well.
>
> Maybe we are going about all this from the wrong direction, trying to
> get a superbeing to demonstrate that it is the supreme super being. It
> is far easier for it to demonstrate that it is merely a super being in
> some practical sense (lift mountains, turn the sea to blood, solve
> diophantine equations instantly). It is probably because we all here
> seem to hail from the monotheistic cultural sphere. What questions would
> you ask Pallas Athene or Thoth if they appeared to you?
This is exactly right. The whole idea of a supreme being with the qualities
the three monotheistic faiths give it (omniscience, omnipotence etc) raises
all sorts of difficulties whereas the notion of a superbeing with enormous
but not unlimited powers is much more comprehensible. Polytheism makes more
sense to me than monotheism. The gods in such religions have great powers
but are still limited by a basic law or fate and they can't do things that
are actually impossible. They also have particular abilities (so you'd ask
Ares for advice about conflict but Athena for natural knowledge). I think
our monotheistic heritage does affect our thinking in all sorts of ways and
how we think about very advanced beings (like the one in Hamilton's book) is
an example of this. Personally the question I want answering is what happens
to all of those socks that vanish from washing machines and why is it only
ever one half of of a pair that vanishes?
Steve Davies
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 04:57:58 MST