Newbie questions his sanity

[Whomp]

It has taken me quite a while to formulate this post.
I believe in a "god" because of first hand experiences I've had.

The more I lurk here, it seems the prevailing opinion is that deists are irrational at best. I am not a student of philosophy, and debating critical thinking is not my strong point. However I consider myself to be at least moderately intelligent.

So, "skeptically" speaking, is personal observation enough to make a judgement on, lacking other evidence? If not, then I must be irrational for believing I have experienced the things I have.

What the experiences have been is unimportant. Either they happened, or are the product of a deranged mind. If they happened, I begin to believe in a higer power. If they didn't, I'm crazy.

So I have to assume that my experience is real. I understand that my personal experience would not convince someone else of the existance of 'god', and I really don't care.
I feel absolutely no need to evangelize.

This board has really opened my eyes to critical thinking and skepticism. I find myself questioning and testing long held beliefs and opinions. This is a good thing. This is an issue I have trouble reconciling.

Reading back over my post, I realize I am not expressing myself well. Perhaps it will be enough to get a dialog moving though.

Whomp!

[Torment]

You say that either what happened was real or you are crazy.

Perhaps you are ignoring the possiblity of a third option?

Are you positive your experience couldn't be explained rationally? I'm not asking you if you THINK it can't be explained rationally, I'm asking you if there is any possible rational explanation whatsoever.

Many people who claim to have "witnessed" miracles or some such thing, often don't accept that there are rational explanations. They insist that their interpretation of how these events happened are true, and don't even consider any of the alternatives.

[Whomp]

I'm not sure what the difference between

B]Are you positive your experience couldn't be explained rationally?[/b]

and

asking you if you THINK it can't be explained rationally

If I think it can't be explained "rationally", then I'm pretty positive. Otherwise I wouldn't think that.

Let's postulate for a moment that I saw a manifestation of a spirit.
Let's also postulate that I can't find a rational, expainable natural phenomenon that would account for what I saw.

Is my story convincing to you ... of course not. But do I ignore my own experience because "rational" people don't believe in god?
Do I commit the sophistry of "It's a currently unexplained occurance that surely has some rational explination."?

Or, should I just sit and wait for the gentlemen with the canvas sportcoat?

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
What the experiences have been is unimportant.

Hey Whomp,

I think the experiences are the most important thing. If you could capsulize what happened, maybe someone else who experienced something similar can make sense of it.

[Dymanic]

Hi Whomp!

I have always thought that if I woke up one morning and Jesus was sitting on the foot of my bed, and he told me all about how he wanted me to follow him and become a Christian...that I would do it without hesitation. I just won't do it on the strength of someone else's experience.

As one with some first-hand experience in psychedelic drugs, I would be fairly confident in my ability to distinguish between the real thing and some kind of hallucination. So, as torment says, a lot seems to depend on your degree of confidence in what you saw (or heard, or whatever). If you would like help evaluating that, then what the experiences have been is important.

'Cmon, give it up, we'll be nice.

[Torment]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
I'm not sure what the difference between

Are you positive your experience couldn't be explained rationally?

and

asking you if you THINK it can't be explained rationally

If I think it can't be explained "rationally", then I'm pretty positive. Otherwise I wouldn't think that.

What I was asking was basically whether you were "pretty positive" as you just said, or "absolutely no doubt in my mind positive".

Quote:

Let's postulate for a moment that I saw a manifestation of a spirit.
Let's also postulate that I can't find a rational, expainable natural phenomenon that would account for what I saw.

Is my story convincing to you ... of course not. But do I ignore my own experience because "rational" people don't believe in god?
Do I commit the sophistry of "It's a currently unexplained occurance that surely has some rational explination."?

Not being able to find a rational, explainable solution does not neccasarily mean one isn't present. If you simply give up after looking at a few and speculate that it is supernatural, that is not very logical. Did you ever consider you were hallucinating as a rational explanation?

We often don't think these kind of things happen to us, because we are healthy people. I blacked out and fell to the ground earlier this year. Nothing seemed wrong with me. I was in perfect health, and neither I nor my doctors could find a reason why it happened. Do I think it was a supernatural experience? No. The same can apply to hallucinations.

Quote:

Or, should I just sit and wait for the gentlemen with the canvas sportcoat? [/b]

It is possible that it is a hallucination, or even temporary insanity. You seem to be rational enough right now. Hardly insane.

[Whomp]

Wow, how to write this without sounding like a raving lunatic...

I am basically an animist, and have been all my life. In reality I don't actually believe in god, but its easier to say that than to explain.
I'm unsure where my beliefs came from, but they have been with me as long as I can remember.

I have spent long months in the wilderness of New Mexico backpacking. On two occasions I have spoken to animals.

Well... OK... not spoken , but heard/felt in my head.
A deer walked into my campsite one day and laid down about 6 feet from me. Now when I'm out, I try very hard to be in harmony with my surroundings, (Woo Woo!!!) but I'm not THAT good!
A communication began with the deer. The particulars are unimportant. I was able to touch the deer before it left. I also saw things that it had "told" me.
I knew where it had slept the night before, and found the bed. I knew where two seperate springs were that I didn't know existed before. And I knew where i would find a decomposing cow. (Go figure)

Having "confirmation" of these things convinced me that I didn't imagine the whole thing, or have a psychotic break, but I also can't fit it within the "rational" world.

[Dymanic]

Hard to know what to make of that.

I would ask a couple of questions (just routine): Were you taking any kind of drugs or medications? Are you in your late teens/early twenties?

[Whomp]

I have taken psychadelics in my time, but I don't when I'm out packing. Too easy to mess up and hurt yourself.

Although I'm unsure of the reasoning behind the question, I'm 35 years old. The experience I related was probably 7 or 8 years ago.

[Dymanic]

Would you say that the experience was more auditory than visual? In other words, you say the deer didn't speak in words, but...not pictures, either? Something heard?

Were these two experiences unique for you, or have you had other similar ones? Have you developed an unusual rapport with any other animals since these incidents? So you find yourself irresistably compelled to watch 'The Wild Thorberrys' (Sorry...I HAD to put that in. I need to test you for teaseability at this time. If you've never seen the show, I recommend you check it out--I think you'll enjoy it).

Quote:

Although I'm unsure of the reasoning behind the question, I'm 35 years old.

Just trying out a couple of ideas. Early twenties is the most common time for the onset of schizophrenia. The sort of experience you describe is not typical of what I've seen in the schizophrenics I've known (though they were all urban dwellers). It is not far from some drug-induced experiences I've had. Some people used to think it was funny to 'dose' somebody without telling them.

Another thing that pops into my head is that it is often recommended that contact with animals in the wild be avoided, especially when they seem to display unusually tame behavior--this is a common symptom of some stages of rabies.

You sound like you are willing to consider that this may have been some sort of delusional episode, and I agree that this possibility bears examination. Even if this is the case, it doesn't necessarily mean you're hopelessly deranged--the presence of mind you have shown so far indicates that you are pretty functional, which is more than a lot of us can say.

If that possibility bothers you, you might consider seeking the advice of a mental health professional. So far, I'd have to say that the conclusions you have reached are pretty much the same ones I would have reached if these experiences had happended to me. (Well, except for the part about God--I don't see it as evidence of that. Something unusual, and possibly unexplainable seems to have happened to you, but I don't see how it goes that far--doesn't prove astrology or Atlantis either).

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
I have taken psychadelics in my time

bingo. I have had a number of people report to me that they have had halucinations happen a long long time after they have consumed this stuff.....

[Whomp]

Hmmm, it seems that ANY explaination is more agreeable than a spiritual one.

Quote:

have always thought that if I woke up one morning and Jesus was sitting on the foot of my bed, and he told me all about how he wanted me to follow him and become a Christian...that I would do it without hesitation.

From what I've seen so far, this may not be the most accurate statement. Are you saying that this would convince you of Jesus' existance, not of schizophenia, or temporary insanity?

Please understand, I've been treated quite gently in this thread and I appreciate it, but it seems that any mental gymnastics that DON'T include the spiritual are preferable to one that does.

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
Wow, how to write this without sounding like a raving lunatic...

I am basically an animist, and have been all my life. In reality I don't actually believe in god, but its easier to say that than to explain.
I'm unsure where my beliefs came from, but they have been with me as long as I can remember.

I have spent long months in the wilderness of New Mexico backpacking. On two occasions I have spoken to animals.

Well... OK... not spoken , but heard/felt in my head.
A deer walked into my campsite one day and laid down about 6 feet from me. Now when I'm out, I try very hard to be in harmony with my surroundings, (Woo Woo!!!) but I'm not THAT good!
A communication began with the deer. The particulars are unimportant. I was able to touch the deer before it left. I also saw things that it had "told" me.
I knew where it had slept the night before, and found the bed. I knew where two seperate springs were that I didn't know existed before. And I knew where i would find a decomposing cow. (Go figure)

Having "confirmation" of these things convinced me that I didn't imagine the whole thing, or have a psychotic break, but I also can't fit it within the "rational" world.

I guess I would have to describe myself as a weak minded skeptic. I am one of those people who has to conciously fight the urge to pick up the phone and order the Pasto Pro or whatever the latest piece of junk Ron Popeil is hawking on TV. I have always been fairly gullible and only learned my skepticism after years of disappointments. In my younger days I was always drawn toward the fantastical. I used to read those Carlos Castaneda books and other mysticals sorts of stuff - which your story sort of puts me in mind of.

I guess my feeling is this - I still like/need to believe that there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in all our philosophies - to badly paraphrase Shakespeare. I do believe in the truths of science. I also happen to be a scientist. But I also believe in the truths of personal experience. I do not believe that everything is explainable. I believe that somethings in experience are irreducible. I believe that the brain, while composed of purely physical stuff, amounts to far more than the sum of its parts. I am not uncomfortable with the notion that there may be "mystical" aspects to reality - which is to say, aspects of reality of which we are not generally expressly aware but which can be profound and meaningful and which are just as real as those aspects which we take routinely forgranted. I am not talking about anything supernatural here, merely that there are subtle aspects of natural reality which are over looked in the workaday world. got to go. ok, now skewer me. got to start the weed whacker for the wife.

[shemp]

Whomp, the only first-hand experience you ever had with god was when he grabbed your willy and wanked you.

There is a simple explanantion. You are deranged.

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
Hmmm, it seems that ANY explaination is more agreeable than a spiritual one.



From what I've seen so far, this may not be the most accurate statement. Are you saying that this would convince you of Jesus' existance, not of schizophenia, or temporary insanity?

Please understand, I've been treated quite gently in this thread and I appreciate it, but it seems that any mental gymnastics that DON'T include the spiritual are preferable to one that does.

Bingo! Your first shave with Ockham's razor.

[Whomp]

Shemp, you cutie! Gimmee a smootch....


Arctic, I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

Is that how Occam works?

[arcticpenguin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp

Arctic, I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

Is that how Occam works?

Occam says you should provisionally accept the simplest explanation that explains all the data.

We know that hallucinations happen. We can prove this, and they do not involve any new forces or entities. If you want to speculate that there is a ghost in the seance room making things go bump and playing the musical instruments, then that ghost is new to science and is therefore a more complex explanation than that the medium, under cover of darkness, knocked things around with his foot. Supernatural explanations do not fit into our current scientific understanding of the world (by definition).

[arcticpenguin]

To relate this to the specifics of your experience, a person alone in the wilderness for weeks or months at a time experiences hallucinations - would that be an extraordinary occurence? Would it be difficult to explain knowing what we know about the brain and hallucinations?

No.

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp

Hmmm, it seems that ANY explaination is more agreeable than a spiritual one.

I'm going to plead guilty to that, but I think I can defend it.

The most agreeable explanation (not always necessarily the best, just the default first choice) is always going to be the one that requires the least number of unsupported assumptions. The fact that this often makes the spititual explanation less desireable is not my fault; all explanations are measured with the same yardstick (if it makes you feel better, explanations that require intervention on the part of extraterrestrial beings are also disfavored for the same reason, and that's not exactly a spiritual explanation).

Quote:

it seems that any mental gymnastics that DON'T include the spiritual are preferable to one that does.

You yourself suggested that a possibility is that the experience was delusional. I agree that that is worth looking at. If that's mental gymnastics, it ain't exactly the Olympics.

As far as my being convinced by a firsthand experience with Jesus--yes, I would tend to give a lot of weight to such an experience. I don't see that I would have any choice about this--in a struggle between my intellect and my eyes, the eyes tend to win out most of the time; when dealing with firsthand observation, the information is sent directly to the brain, and the conclusion is reached before the intellect is even consulted. A conclusion like that can be overruled, but not without considerable effort. As I said earlier, a lot depends on your degree of confidence that what you saw was real.

Quote:

I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

A spiritual explanation can be the simpler explanation only as long as you can confine it to its specific domain, which of course you can't; it has ramifications for the rest of reality. A lot of stuff comes unravelled as soon as one verifiable supernatural phenomenon rears its lovely head.

[wraith]

...just passing by...

Hi there Whomp...

Oh by the way, I dig your avatar Torment

[Torment]

Quote:

Originally posted by wraith
...just passing by...

Hi there Whomp...

Oh by the way, I dig your avatar Torment

Thanks. I find it blends well with my username.

[Whomp]

Quote:

A lot of stuff comes unravelled as soon as one verifiable supernatural phenomenon rears its lovely head.

I'm unsure why the existance of "soul" or "spirit" unravels anything. How is my experience any different that having Jeesus expounding from the foot of your bed?
I agree that I couldn't possibly expect someone to change thier viewpoint because of an unverifiable claim of mine.

Arctic -
I'll concede that one. Being out that long (over a month) does change your mindset. It sure didn't seem like a halucination though.

Like I'd be able to tell

But I can still pull out my forest service quads and look at two springs penciled in because of that experience.

[asthmatic camel]

Hi Whomp,

Have you considered the possibilty of sun-stroke as an explanation?

Just a thought.

[Whomp]

A.C. - No.

[Yahzi]

[Q]Whomp[/b]

Quote:

I'm unsure why the existance of "soul" or "spirit" unravels anything.

Because it contradicts every other experience we have.

Irrationality lies in inconsistency: in accepting as true an experience that contradicts all the other data - while still accepting all the other data as true!

If souls are real, then a) murder is not the crime we thought, b) death is not the end, c) evolution is not the origin of man or life, d) the brain is not the mind, e) people with brain damage are simply inexplicable, f) the four fundamental forces are not sufficient to explain the universe, g) physics is missing something crucial, h) computer programmers are toying with forces beyond their ken, i) the common experience of 5,000 years of written history is wrong, j) Shakespeare's plays no longer make sense, k) Confucious no longer makes sense, l) The Illiad no longer makes sense, m) hospitals no longer make sense...

need I go on?

The discovery of the soul would be more significant than the discovery of fire, literacy, or the wheel. It would change human society that much.

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp



This board has really opened my eyes to critical thinking and skepticism. I find myself questioning and testing long held beliefs and opinions. This is a good thing. This is an issue I have trouble reconciling.

[/b]

All this board has done is open my eyes up to how incredibly stupid Skeptics are and arrogant to boot.

Quote:

Originally posted by Torment
You say that either what happened was real or you are crazy.

Perhaps you are ignoring the possiblity of a third option?

Are you positive your experience couldn't be explained rationally? I'm not asking you if you THINK it can't be explained rationally, I'm asking you if there is any possible rational explanation whatsoever.

Many people who claim to have "witnessed" miracles or some such thing, often don't accept that there are rational explanations. They insist that their interpretation of how these events happened are true, and don't even consider any of the alternatives.

Rational explanation? Seems your notion of a "rational explanation" is anything consonant with the materialist metaphysic

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
[b]Hi Whomp!

I have always thought that if I woke up one morning and Jesus was sitting on the foot of my bed, and he told me all about how he wanted me to follow him and become a Christian...that I would do it without hesitation. I just won't do it on the strength of someone else's experience.

To give credit this is actually fair enough.

Quote:

Originally posted by Torment


Not being able to find a rational, explainable solution does not neccasarily mean one isn't present. If you simply give up after looking at a few and speculate that it is supernatural, that is not very logical.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that the Skeptic will never enlighten us as to why it is illogical. Just axiomatic for the materialist/Skeptic!

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
Shemp, you cutie! Gimmee a smootch....


Arctic, I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

Is that how Occam works?

Occams razor is only ever used in this board as a justification of materialism and skepticism. By definition they consider any explanation consonant with materialism to be more simple.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
The most agreeable explanation (not always necessarily the best, just the default first choice) is always going to be the one that requires the least number of unsupported assumptions.

So how the f*ck does this always justify materialism? For a kick off you're advocating the existence of a material world. Doesn't seem to me that materialists are f*cking presupposing the least number of unsupported assumptions.

Absolute f*cking a*seholes

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahzi
[Q]Whomp

Because it contradicts every other experience we have.

Irrationality lies in inconsistency: in accepting as true an experience that contradicts all the other data - while still accepting all the other data as true!

If souls are real, then a) murder is not the crime we thought, b) death is not the end, c) evolution is not the origin of man or life, d) the brain is not the mind, e) people with brain damage are simply inexplicable, f) the four fundamental forces are not sufficient to explain the universe, g) physics is missing something crucial, h) computer programmers are toying with forces beyond their ken, i) the common experience of 5,000 years of written history is wrong, j) Shakespeare's plays no longer make sense, k) Confucious no longer makes sense, l) The Illiad no longer makes sense, m) hospitals no longer make sense...

need I go on?

The discovery of the soul would be more significant than the discovery of fire, literacy, or the wheel. It would change human society that much. [/b]

What a complete tit.

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp

I am basically an animist, and have been all my life.

On another thread, we concluded that one tends to first choose an explanation for things that fits with the system of beliefs he was already using. Just kinda easier to do that than make up a new one for every new experience.

Quote:

In reality I don't actually believe in god, but its easier to say that than to explain.

Understood.

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

So how the f*ck does this always justify materialism? For a kick off you're advocating the existence of a material world. Doesn't seem to me that materialists are f*cking presupposing the least number of unsupported assumptions.

Without necessarily getting into all that, what's your slant on the talking deer thing?

[Whomp]

Ian, could you maybe go be on someone else's side?

Please?

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
Ian, could you maybe go be on someone else's side?

Please?

I'm not on your side ar*ewipe. I have not defended what you have said in any shape or form. I am merely attacking those who unthinkingly espouse the materialist metaphysic. If I wish to make comments regarding the breathtaking stupidity of some of the remarks on this thread, then I shall do so.

If you don't like it then don't read my posts or put me on ignore. Your displeasure will not prevent me from voicing my opinions though.

I suggest you deal with it.

[Torment]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
Ian, could you maybe go be on someone else's side?

Please?

Don't worry about it. Half of us don't even realize if he is on your side or not. All we see when he posts is "This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here] ".

[asthmatic camel]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
Ian, could you maybe go be on someone else's side?

Please?

Whomp, despite your hallucinatory talking deer the above proves that you are not wholly psychotic afterall

[Whomp]

Ian - Ahh sweet reason.

Yahzi, Im thinking about what you said, and I'm not quite clear how the existance of a soul etc. abrogates all those other things.
Let me ponder for a bit.

Torment, thanks.

[Whomp]

A.C. - I'm fairly sure the deer wasn't halucinating at the time. I could be wrong though.
Mushrooms abound.

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whomp
Shemp, you cutie! Gimmee a smootch....


Arctic, I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

Is that how Occam works?

Give an example of a religious explanation that is simpler than a scientific account.