[extropy-chat] Re: John Wright Finds God

[Adrian Tymes]

--- john-c-wright at sff.net wrote:
> And yet, I am in the same position as Mr. A Square
> of Flatland might be in
> trying to describe a sphere to his fellow
> two-dimensional beings. "It was like a
> circle, and yet it was not a circle, for it extended
> into directions for which
> we have no name and cannot picture." Mr. A Square
> has no word for "volume" and
> he cannot express the overwhelming solidity of his
> three-dimensional visitor. 

You're talking about spiritual experiences, right?
Eh, had 'em.  Remember that you're just an observer,
and that your senses can be tricked.

You know they've found the neurochemistry behind them,
right?  It can seem profound to the observer - but
think of it as an electrochemical mirage.  Just like
how a desert traveller might see something that looks
just like water on the horizon...yet, upon closer
study, there's no water there.  But the mirage-seer
sees something completely indistinguishable, from
afar, from water.  Likewise, these spiritual mirages
can seem completely indistinguishable from being
touched by God...yet, upon closer examination, one
does not see that.

Note that you're having trouble putting the experience
into words.  It is not just a factor of the language
not having words for them, but due to the distorted
nature of your recollection of the event - being the
observer who experienced this mirage.  You yourself
can not perceive it in the same way you can perceive
the computer you're reading this note on.

Now, that said - having had this experience, you can
remember it and use it to relate to others who have
had it.  You remember your own search to attach
meaning to it, and how natural it can feel to ascribe
it to the supernatural.  Many people just leave it
there, rationalizing it as proof that God must exist
and that they are now chosen to believe.  But consider
what you actually felt: there was no doctrine, there
was no dogma, just a presence.  Mankind makes up what
gets attached to that - and the earliest stories
gained steam as more and more people accepted those
theories in lieu of better ones.  But study the
history of science through the past few (at least two)
centuries, and you will see how even the most cherised
of truths can, if unchallenged, enshrine things that
turn out not to be so.

(Which is not to say that God doesn't necessarily
exist.  Just that if God does, the impact on our life
is either so vague or so enshrined in the nature of
the universe as to be equivalent to if there is no God
for all practical purposes, including and especially
issues of morality.  I.e., "Thou shalt not kill" so
that other people don't waste their resources
defending against you, and if they reciprocate then
you can spend your resources elsewhere - say, on
improving your life and maybe others'.)