Orlando Massacre - Pray Against Terrorism?

[PaulS]

 

An 'experience" is just that an experience. Calling that experience faith, even if it is the love of all humankind, to me does not seem what the discussion of faith is all about.

 

Yep, you get my point Rom.

[JosephM]

 

I'm not trying to say that anyone's faith is more valid than another, I'm trying to say that faith in both camps is faith. This point was contested earlier on that 'they' aren't really experiencing faith. I beg to differ.

 

For your definition of faith ...yes

[JosephM]

Its ok to differ. How can one know what the other is experiencing except to be One.

[PaulS]

 

For your definition of faith ...yes

 

For the definition of faith being one's intimate personal experience and relationship with God - whatever that means for the individual.

[JosephM]

Paul, I was referring to an experience similar to the description quote of Joseph campbell. In that state i testify yiou would not kill another. That state is connection to God or whatever word works for you

[PaulS]

Its ok to differ. How can one know what the other is experiencing except to be One.

Of course it is, but this discussion really began because it went down the path that a suicide bomber, in some people's opinions, couldn't/didn't have/hold/experience faith because of the harm they were causing. That to me seems to say they don't hold or have not experienced the 'real' type of faith (or why on earth would they do such a thing?).

[JosephM]

That's correct. No connection there

[PaulS]

Paul, I was referring to an experience similar to the description quote of Joseph campbell. In that state i testify yiou would not kill another. That state is connection to God or whatever word works for you

 

Yes, if that is how you experience faith indeed you probably wouldn't kill another.

Edited June 24, 2016 by PaulS

[JosephM]

Thats correct. You got my point.

[soma]

We fight endless wars and think God is on our side and the other side has the same feelings, I think this is Paul's point. Correct me if I am wrong.

[PaulS]

We fight endless wars and think God is on our side and the other side has the same feelings, I think this is Paul's point. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

Pretty much, Joe. We went around a bit discussing System 1 & 2 thinking, but I'm not convinced this has anything to do with how genuine and real a person experiences faith in their own way. So even though committing atrocities in the name of Allah seem abhorrent to us and we may think that person couldn't possibly have experienced a connection with God, I think the 'other side' would be saying exactly the same thing!

 

I don't think it's necessarily about blindly following an ideology, although I am certain there are instances of that. I think many of these people who are prepared to kill themselves (and others) have most likely experienced their own faith and are convinced of their own relationship with God

Edited June 24, 2016 by PaulS

[JosephM]

I don't disagree with that. It would seem that they feel and believe that way but i wouldn't agree that they are having a relationship with God. A relationship yes with their belief system. And they are certainly not alone in that.

[Realspiritik]

 

I further suspect that if we were to carry out brain imaging concerning an individual's faith, both yours and the extremist Muslim's brain would light up in the same area when thinking about faith and God. I am happy to be shown otherwise but I suspect there isn't any empirical studies demonstrating this. I do understand that different parts of the brain will light up with different emotions, but when it comes to faith I'm not sure it can be demonstrated as fact that these two parties would light up in different areas. Am I wrong in that?

 

 

Unfortunately, Paul, you're wrong in this assumption about how the brain works.

 

I accept that the science of brain scanning may not serve as a suitable proof for you in this discussion and there's nothing I can do about that.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your point that a radical terrorist believes in his cause and can rationalize his hatred and violence by making claims about God's justice. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you on that point.

 

Again, I make the point that what a person says about God and faith doesn't have anything to do with what's actually going on inside his or her brain. Again, I repeat that there's no "religion" box in the brain. There's also no one "faith" region or circuit. The experience of faith is, again, an experience of relationship, love, forgiveness, empathy, humbleness, openness to change, admitting one's mistakes, being able to learn from one's mistakes, being able to find meaning in difficult situations, being able to feel another person's pain, being resistant to addiction, being able to draw on the body's natural placebo effect, being able to trust. All these things add up together to allow the brain to feel what the soul already understands about God and the infinite wonder of Creation (i.e. faith).

 

So because isn't just one thing -- because it draws on so many different potentials within the brain -- you'd have to look at a number of different factors in comparing the brain scans of a radical ideologue (who may or may not use religion as a rationalization for hatred) and a non-ideologue who has experienced God's presence.

 

One thing you'd have to look at the overall activity of the brain in the baseline state: the pattern of the most active areas, the density of neurons, the density of white matter, the density and patterns of many neural networks. Right off the bat, if you see decreased volume of grey matter in three related structures -- the left and right anterior insular cortex and the dorsal anterior cingulate -- you know there are probably going to issues with OCD, insistence on being "right," difficulty being flexible and open to others in relationships, and possible excessive religiosity (in the sense of rigidly adhering rules and regulations.) These three structures are supposed to work together as "the alarm bell of the brain" to tell other brain regions when "reality deviates from expectations" (http://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-scans-show-ocd-and-schizophrenia-share-common-loss-gray-matter-320724). But reduced grey matter in these structures has recently been shown to have a common association with several major mental illnesses.

 

This is just one example. There are many, many more available online. If you're interested in learning more, I'm sure you can find them.

 

So how do I know -- or better, how can I prove -- that my brain "on faith" is any different than the brain of a radical ideologue? Well, that part's easy. I had my brain scanned in 2004. I had a baseline scan, a concentration task scan, and a scan taken while in my regular cataphatic mystical state of connection with "the other side." So I'm pretty confident in stating I have lots of grey matter, lots of white matter, strong connectivity, balanced connectivity, and healthy function in all the brain circuits needed for empathy, relationship skills, time and timing, healthy interoception, positive mood, strong impulse control, and emotional insight.

 

These aren't the brain patterns researchers would expect to see in someone who lacks empathy for others (radical ideologues) and who acts on that lack of empathy.

 

I think it's extremely important to be aware that the brain patterns evident in cases where individuals lack empathy for others and act on that lack of empathy extend far outside the boundaries of religion to include all forms of radical ideology. The 20th century, unfortunately, gave us several examples of how badly off-track the brain can become when empathy circuits have been discarded (e.g. the pre-WWII genocide in the Ukraine, the European Holocaust, the Cambodian Holocaust, and the Rwandan Holocaust, to name just four). Human beings don't even need religion to be their worst selves (witness the atrocities committed by assorted atheistic and/or non-religious regimes) so it's not okay to turn the issue of massacres into a condemnation of religion and/or faith. It's always an issue of brain health, addictions that are denied, and the use (or perhaps misuse) of free will.

 

There are radical ideologues everywhere in the world (including the ranks of all major world religions) and there are also non-ideologues everywhere in the world (including the ranks of all major world religions). Each individual has the right and the ability to decide for him/herself how to assess and learn from the teachings of his or her religious tradition. Each individual has the potential to experience God's presence and the peace that comes from faith, but each individual has to choose that. Radical ideologues don't choose that.

 

The science and the history aren't on your side on this one, Paul.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Realspiritik

[PaulS]

 

Unfortunately, Paul, you're wrong in this assumption about how the brain works.

 

I accept that the science of brain scanning may not serve as a suitable proof for you in this discussion and there's nothing I can do about that.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your point that a radical terrorist believes in his cause and can rationalize his hatred and violence by making claims about God's justice. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you on that point.

 

Again, I make the point that what a person says about God and faith doesn't have anything to do with what's actually going on inside his or her brain. Again, I repeat that there's no "religion" box in the brain. There's also no one "faith" region or circuit. The experience of faith is, again, an experience of relationship, love, forgiveness, empathy, humbleness, openness to change, admitting one's mistakes, being able to learn from one's mistakes, being able to find meaning in difficult situations, being able to feel another person's pain, being resistant to addiction, being able to draw on the body's natural placebo effect, being able to trust. All these things add up together to allow the brain to feel what the soul already understands about God and the infinite wonder of Creation (i.e. faith).

 

So because isn't just one thing -- because it draws on so many different potentials within the brain -- you'd have to look at a number of different factors in comparing the brain scans of a radical ideologue (who may or may not use religion as a rationalization for hatred) and a non-ideologue who has experienced God's presence.

 

One thing you'd have to look at the overall activity of the brain in the baseline state: the pattern of the most active areas, the density of neurons, the density of white matter, the density and patterns of many neural networks. Right off the bat, if you see decreased volume of grey matter in three related structures -- the left and right anterior insular cortex and the dorsal anterior cingulate -- you know there are probably going to issues with OCD, insistence on being "right," difficulty being flexible and open to others in relationships, and possible excessive religiosity (in the sense of rigidly adhering rules and regulations.) These three structures are supposed to work together as "the alarm bell of the brain" to tell other brain regions when "reality deviates from expectations" (http://www.medicalda...y-matter-320724). But reduced grey matter in these structures has recently been shown to have a common association with several major mental illnesses . So where/how does this demonstrate that an extremist Islamist isn't experiencing their faith just as believably as you are, albeit different in product than your faith?

You say there are many, many more available online. If you're interested in learning more, I'm sure you can find them. I'm battling to find anything online that shows me how one person's faith lights up the brain differently to another person's faith. Can you?You argue that you 'know' that your brain "on faith" is different than the brain of a radical ideologue because of a scan taken while in your regular cataphatic mystical state of connection with "the other side." I fully accept you believe that, but I fail to see how that provides any evidence whatsoever. Evidence to you maybe, but I can't see how that meets any scientific rigour that somebody else's brain 'on faith' might map differently to yours. So what if they are lacking empathy? Who determined empathy to be a requirement for experiencing faith?You relate several example where you consider the lack of empathy to be considered as 'off track brain'. To me it isn't a case of on or off track. In our societal judgement we may think of a lack of empathy as off-track, but in other cultural/religious situations it might not be an issue. I don't think empathy as we know even enters the suicide bomber's head - I suspect he or she very really is experiencing their version of faith, lack of empathy or not. Again, I am yet to see anything that scientifically demonstrates that 'their' brain mapping in regard to faith is different to yours (so to speak). Please, show me where this is demonstrated empirically and I will review it.You say that each individual has the potential to experience God's presence and the peace that comes from faith, but each individual has to choose that. Radical ideologues don't choose that. I don't see what science you are relying on there. Certainly not brain mapping as far as I can tell (see all above). You have an experience of faith - I accept that. Why don't you accept that 'they' have an experience of faith too - albeit different to yours. The brain mapping certainly doesn't support your argument as there is no evidence of who's faith is right or wrong.

As for sides, I have none. But I do appreciate a good debate and I certainly prefer evidence-based arguments over personal 'experience'. That is not to take away from one's experience which I think is genuine, but that is to say that I think many people have 'different' experiences which are just as genuine to them, even if other people don't believe so.

Edited June 24, 2016 by PaulS

[JosephM]

Paul,

Lets not get lost for the trees in the forest.

 

I think we have agreed with you that that regardless of religion or no religion, beliefs do not make one more right or more valid than another except in their own mind. From a subjective perspective, each has there own view of whats more valid and there is no real proving by your criteria of proof whose belief is objectively more valid.

 

If you want to believe that people who kill other innocent people have a real relationship with God that is just as valid as people who experienced a oneness with all (God) where violence to the innocent is not even a possibility , that is fine with me. But i don't think you really believe that. If all your saying is that most believe their relationship with God is more valid than the other, whether Muslim or Christian then there is no disagreement.

 

In a nutshell, i think that what Jen and i have been saying for the most part is that our experiences have shown us that when in a state of awareness (relationship) with God (not a belief system), violence among other things toward another is simply not present. Can we prove this unequivocally to you. I certainly can't. As i said before in half jest and will say again to anyone looking for evidence .... It is self-evident ...Go get your own

 

PS Thanks for the discussion.

Edited June 24, 2016 by JosephM
PS

[Realspiritik]

Hi Joseph. I again agree with you. There's no way to prove it unequivocally. Yup . . . for those who want evidence, go get your own!

 

Amen.

[romansh]

Science does not deal in proof unless we are dealing in alcohol. And here the Imperial degrees proof is stronger than the US version.

 

What science does have is corroborating evidence, no evidence one way or another or evidence that contradicts the hypothesis. What is the corroborating evidence for an experience of God?

That is beyond me.

 

So ultimately it is personal testimony that we are discussing. Except that when that testimony is questioned it can be upsetting to people.

[PaulS]

Paul,

Lets not get lost for the trees in the forest.

 

I think we have agreed with you that that regardless of religion or no religion, beliefs do not make one more right or more valid than another except in their own mind. From a subjective perspective, each has there own view of whats more valid and there is no real proving by your criteria of proof whose belief is objectively more valid.

 

If you want to believe that people who kill other innocent people have a real relationship with God that is just as valid as people who experienced a oneness with all (God) where violence to the innocent is not even a possibility , that is fine with me. But i don't think you really believe that. If all your saying is that most believe their relationship with God is more valid than the other, whether Muslim or Christian then there is no disagreement.

 

In a nutshell, i think that what Jen and i have been saying for the most part is that our experiences have shown us that when in a state of awareness (relationship) with God (not a belief system), violence among other things toward another is simply not present. Can we prove this unequivocally to you. I certainly can't. As i said before in half jest and will say again to anyone looking for evidence .... It is self-evident ...Go get your own

 

PS Thanks for the discussion.

 

Thanks Joseph,

 

I am happy to let it slide as it seems there is little more constructive discussion to continue with.

 

But to be clear, I am not arguing the 'rightness' of one's faith over another. Although each has there own view of whats more valid and there is no real proving by your criteria of proof whose belief is objectively more valid, this is not what Jen is saying, hence my discussion. In fact, as Jen was quoting science (brain-mapping) as evidence of another person's faith experience not being 'right', I was simply trying to understand how she thinks that is evidence. It certainly doesn't seem to be evidence to me even though I fully accept the science of brain mapping. Whilst brain mapping indeed demonstrates different areas of our brains light up with different emotions, there is no brain mapping studies that will tell us when a persons faith experience is real or not to them. Hence I cannot see how Jen can draw the conclusion that a fundy Muslim isn't having a faith experience with their God which is just as real to them as you and her are having in your experience.

 

I can understand how this might get confused with thinking that one's faith experience is not genuine, but I am not challenging this. Indeed I am saying the opposite, that people's faith experience is very, very genuine to them - extremist Islamics as well as dozens of other religious and non-religous people, including those who are spiritual but not religious.

 

'Believe' is a strong word concerning my thoughts regarding people who kill other innocent people have a real relationship with God that is just as valid as people who experienced a oneness with all (God) where violence to the innocent is not even a possibility. All I am saying here is that to me it is likely that these people are experiencing what they consider a true faith experience - it's just that it seems abhorrent to us, and I think that has to do largely with our our conditioning and programming. But I suspect it takes nothing away from the fact (I presume) that their expereince is very real to them.

 

I fully appreciate that your's and Jen's experiences have shown us that when in a state of awareness (relationship) with God (not a belief system), violence among other things toward another is simply not present. I am not asking you to prove this. I was asking Jen to prove that brain mapping demonstrates another person (in this case the extremist Islamic) doesn't have their own faith experience - this evidence, even though Jen has referenced the science of brain mapping several times now, does not seem to exist.

 

Jen - I am sorry if you are offended by me challenging your claims of science, but I was genuinely trying to dig down and see where that evidence exists. I appreciate that you might think I am ridiculing your faith but I am not. However when you quote science to support a position, I want to see and understand that science.

 

In any event I am happy to leave this subject now.

 

Peace and goodwill to all.

 

Paul

[romansh]

Came across this recently an ancient letter to the Times (of London) regarding intercessory prayer.

 

Quite amusing I thought.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2016/07/prayers-for-rain.html

[Burl]

A brief comment from an Orlando area resident. The public narrative is not correct on many points, and we will never know exactly what happened.

 

What is true is that there is a great deal of fear, and trust in Christ is the only way to live as fearlessly as we are able. Fear is the true enemy.