I've been thinking about this one for a bit too. Are religious experiences relative? If I say well, I have had this or that experience, how can I possibly convey what the experience is to someone who I'm trying to explain it to. If the experience happened only to me, doesn't that make it relative? Or at the very least, doesn't personal evidence for God make God subjective?

I read an essay that stated that if Aristotle were to find himself in a modern science class he would be at a loss. So in a sense all knowledge and experiences are relative. This is why some see ghosts of loved ones and others might see evil spirits when it was the same experience. Or why some see aliens and others see angels in a similar experience. The same entities just different perspectives.

Perhaps perhaps. But what I'm saying is many of the religious say that their belief stems from personal experience, rather than objective knowledge. So what does that make God? If our perceptions of God and our faith is reached through a personal understanding, does that not make religious belief, or God, subjective? And if God is a subjective experience, then what are the implications for religion?

God is not subjective, our ideas about God are. A personal religious experience would be relative to the one who experienced it. Others would have no way of knowing if the experience occurred unless they were present.

Most people argue against God. Or argue for God. This is incorrect, and I have found through my personal surveys of people that God's existence/non-existence usually isn't an issue when you get down to it. Its almost always about the concepts and ideas that we have about God.

God exists, but in the way that he exists he is not wholly understandable. We cannot only take what we know about him, and throw out what is not known.

Then how does personal experience of God constitute as evidence of God if the experience is subject to the individuals capability of understanding what happened?

Personal experience is only evidence to the person who experiences it. To another person, there is no evidence.

When I had my experience I wasn't a religious person or a Pagan. I had to do a lot searching to link it to Paganism. At the time I didn't know what Paganism was. So I would say that my experience was not relative to my previous experiences. I know I seen things in my religious experience which my Christian friends would be fearful of, through my Pagan experience I know what I am experiencing and I don't fear it. Even if I am unsure of what I am looking I have enough confidence not to be afraid.

I think religious experience can be subjective though. Some people seeing the spirit of a women would think they are seeing the Virgin Mary. I might look at the same spirit and say it is the Goddess Danu.

Then doesn't that make it subjective?

It makes the experience subjective, but not the meaning of the experience. I can experience Havayah, you can exeprience Jesus, and Joe can experience Allah. Were our experiences subjective? Yes, is the God we experienced? No, it's all the same God.

How can an experience be subjective but the meaning the same? If the experience is subjective does that not mean that the meaning an individual takes away is also subjective?

I suppose arguing this with you in particular, Kaizen, is a little difficult on my end, because you're sort of already where I wanted this debate to go. I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of certain religions that one way and one way alone is the way, and I wanted to address that how can that one way be the one way when all experiences are subject to our interpretation. You're right, you might experience your God, a pagan might experience their pagan God, I might experience the Deistic God (thats an oxymoron... experience the deistic god?...), a Christian might experience Jesus so on and so forth. So if religious experiences are personal and therefore subjective, how can that one way be that one way?

It's been my experience that almost everything is subjective. Christians (and other religious believers) have a subjective interpretation of their view of God. Non-religious folks have the same subjective views about the nature of God. I have rarely met a person who objectively views the nature of God. They do exist, but they are rare and far between.

Most people, regardless of what they believe, subscribe (to one degree or another) to a subjective view of spiritual beliefs.

So if a spiritual belief or experience is subjective, how can there be one and only one way to God?

Because, we may all experience the same God, but we still don't know what this God wants of us.

The reason I used to interpret God as being Jesus or why a Muslim experiences God as being Allah, is because we were raised in those particular beliefs most likely. It is up to the person to search for the way to respond to their experience. We could all experience God, but what has that told us? Nothing at all, we still need to figure how to react to him, what does he want us to do? Those kinds of questions are what debates about God are usually based on.

I experienced Havayeh, you experienced Jesus, Joe experienced Allah. What are our axioms? We only have one, we all experienced a diety. I say we follow Judaism, you say we go to Christianity, Joe says we go to Islam?

That's when we start arguing. Then the "Atheist" comes along and says "none of you are right" (referring to the ideas about God). Then we gang up on the Atheist because he said God didnt' exist, but that's not really what he/she is saying. He/she is saying that what we think about God is incorrect. Almost every "Atheist" I have talked to (in person) believe at some level that there is a deity/deities. What the "Atheist" doesn't agree with, are the many religious ideas concerning that deity. The "Atheist" feels that he/she shouldn't have to change himself for the sake of this deity, or adhere to the ideas of another person.

But what is our axiom? We all experienced something that was deity-like. Thus, we can all conclude that there is a diety (with the exception of a minority few people who are actually Atheists.). Then we just need to figure what to believe about that deity, and I personally feel that Judaism is the most logical option for anyone seeking God.

Just because we don't have an objective way of finding the right way to God, doesn't mean that we should assume that everyone should take his own way.

That's like if doctors said "We dont' know how to fix the problem, so everyone should just go out and take whatever chemicals make them feel good. Live and let live, to each his own. If you want to take those drugs, and it doesn't harm anyone, than sure! You wanna take chlorine because that helps you feel better? Go right ahead? Why not let your children decide as well?"


Do you see what I mean?

No, what I'm saying is that once you loose objectivity and replace it with subjectivity, can you qualify that as good evidence of God? I believe in God, really I do, but I've always wanted to discuss this. If an experience is subjective, does it qualify as evidence?

Just because not everyone has the same experience and some don't have any kind of experience doesn't invalidate the experience others do have. After all, blind people cannot experience the color blue, but that has no impact on the validity of the experience of those who can see blue. Even the fact that there are those who see most colors, but not blue, has not impact on the validity of those of us who do see blue. Additionally, although I may not be able to share someone else's experience of God because He chooses to make each one so personal, we can compare notes and I have seen a great deal of similarities between my experience and that of others.

I wish I could write in English faster and articulate my thoughts more clearly because I would really like to exchange ideas on this subject.

We can talk about establishing link between inner experience and outer expression of the inner revelation or some kind of feedback but still, after you’ve had such profound experience this world will appear as less solid and objective. Not exactly unreal but not so independently real as before.
There are rare cases of feedback when spiritual experience produces extraordinary reaction in material world and this can be witnessed by others.
But the most important thing to remember is that from spiritual overmental perspective mind itself is not faculty which has to prove reality or objectivity of the experience. Ordinary human mind is seen as infant, as transitional principle, which yet has to establish and prove it’s reality to higher planes.
Someone may call it hallucination, delusion but the fact is that from ordinary mental perspective these experiences are perceived as higher, as more profound , more real just as waking state appears more organized and real then dream which has no continuity.
Those spiritual experiences with feedback are of course another matter and subjects of much controversy since they challenge reductionistic world view.

Doubtless, there are similarities between Theophanies in specific religions, as in Christians will probably have similar experiences to other Christians and so on and so forth. I'm not trying to invalidate personal experiences, but I'm asking if religious experience varies from individual to individual, and our interpretation of religious experiences is subjective, what implication does that have for religion in general?

Suppose for a minute that I created a machine that could essentially simulate a religious experience. Now suppose I tested this experiment on various people, and they had no idea that I created a machine to simulate God for them, so they were completely at unawares. Would not a Christian feel that he/she experienced Jesus? A Muslim believe that he/she experienced Allah? A Jew feel like YHWH had presented himself before him/her? A Hindu believe that Lord Krishna or some other manifestation of Vishnu had appeared for me? An Atheist believe that his/her mind was playing tricks on them? You understand the point. So what then does this imply for Religion? If there is only one true religion, how are we at fault for our experiences being subjective to our personality? What is the implication here?

There can be no absolute certainty as long as manas ( human mind vulgaris) is governing principle of life. It will always create doubt even if truth is presented before it in most convincing manner.
It’s nature is constant movement from one thought to another in attempt to preserve continuity of material temporary ego or ahamkara. Certainty exists above and beyond manas and if it is ever to be manifested globally on this plane it will be long after mind as we know it becomes evolutionary atavism.
Spiritual experience has to be filtered through mental and vital individual and that is why theist will see God, atheist extraterrestrial trans dimensional beings, Buddhist just transient experience on the road to nirvana etc.
If your frame of reference is broader then you’ll be able to understand and appreciate all these points of view. In the end what matters the most is trans formative quality of experience not it’s translation upon returning to lower plane.
In genuine spiritual experience form is not something fixed and static, it is expression of certain qualities of higher reality and it may change at any point during interaction.

I would say no. To make the evidence subjective is to contradict that its even evidence in the first place. Evidence is used to expose the truth. If you say that the evidence is subjective, you unknowingly (or knowingly!) claim that there is no absolute truth about whatever the evidence is describing. To say that truth is subjective would be a self-defeating statement. Either its true or its not.

Wouldn't that all depend on how you define evidence?

If it were subjective, it would only be evidence to the person. But that says nothing of what is being described by the evidence. If the evidence only points to something, then you admit that you believe something is there. If this something really is there, then the evidence isn't subjective, we who interpret the evidence are. Whether or not you believe in the truth, the truth is still the truth. So, even if you are unwilling to believe, the evidence is still evidence.

It does not qualify as "evidence" in a scientific context. But it may be "evidence" in other fields - a courtroom setting is based entirely on subjective experience of an event, even when the lawyers say "Just stick to the facts, please". Everyone observes things in different ways, so a testimony, though subjective, is considered evidence in a court of law.

Just something to consider,

All experience is subjective. Objectivity can only ever be proven subjective and therefore all is subjective 'man is the measure of all things.' As for where you are coming fromI believe that mystic experiences are objective and prove that there underlies in the world of form and change a metaphysical substance or ground that is infinite and eternal whether it be called Tao, Brahman, Allah, Spirit, Godhead etc a million times.

Just a footnote. Science in no way can actually detect consciousness. It only infers that it is there. Consciousness cannot be observed by the five senses. No one know what consciousness/awareness looks like, smells like, tastes like, feels like, sounds like and yet without consciousness we wouldnt be able to experience any of those senses.

Science hasnt proven that consciousness is produced by the brain yet (though there are many theories). Without consciousness there would be no religion, art, science or philosophy. Yet everyday experience tells us that consciousness is the fundamental energy of our experience.

So, if all experience is Subjective, how are we supposed to establish the Objective? Is there even an Objective? And if all experience is subjective, what is the implication then for religion? We can say that there probably is an objective truth behind religion, but if every experience is subjective, which indeed it is, then how can we know the objective behind it?

If you do the slightest little research you'll find that Hinduism, Buddhism (Mahayana), Christian mystics, Sufis, Taoists, Neo-platonists etc all give writings on how God and our soul are one. I could sit here and write endless writings I have copied and written from my mystic books which many people here from unexplained mysteries have seen me write over and over. But I'll just give a few.

'I exist' is the only permanent self-evident experience of everyone. Nothing else is so self-evident as 'I am'. What people call self-evident, that is, the experience they get through the senses, is far from self-evident. The Self alone is that. So to do self-enquiry and be that 'I am' is the only thing to do. 'I am' is reality. I am this or that is unreal. 'I am' is truth, another name for Self.


-"Be As You Are"
The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharsh

Atman= Self, the basis of all; the substrate of the individual, and identical with Brahman (the Absolute Godhead)

Brahman= The ultimate Reality; the eternal imperishable Absolute, ungraspable by thought and inexpressible by speech.



The Atman is that by which the universe is pervaded, but which nothing pervades; which causes all things to shine, but which all things cannot make to shine. . . .

The nature of the one Reality must be known by one's own clear spiritual perception; it cannot be known through a pandit (learned man). Similarly the form of the moon can only be known through one's own eyes. How can it be known through others?

Who but the Atman is capable of removing the bonds of ignorance, passion and self-interested action? . . .

Liberation cannot be achieved except by the perception of the identity of the individual spirit with the universal Spirit. It can be achieved neither by Yoga (physical training), nor by Sankhya (speculative philosophy), nor by the practice of religious ceremonies, nor by mere learning. . . .

Disease is not cured by pronouncing the name of medicine, but by taking medicine. Deliverance is not achieved by repeating the word "Brahman," but by directly experiencing Brahman. . . .

The Atman is the Witness of the individual mind and its operations. It is absolute knowledge. . . .

The wise man is one who understands that the essence of Brahman and of Atman is Pure Consciousness, and who realizes their absolute identity. The identity of Brahman and Atman is affirmed in hundreds of sacred texts. . . .

Caste, creed, family and lineage do not exist in Brahman. Brahman has neither name nor form, transcends merit and demerit, is beyond time, space and the objects of sense-experience. Such is Brahman, and "thou art That." Meditate upon this truth within your consciousness.

Supreme, beyond the power of speech to express, Brahman may yet be apprehended by the eye of pure illumination. Pure, absolute and eternal Reality---such is Brahman, and "thou art That." Meditate upon this truth within your consciousness. . . .

Though One, Brahman is the cause of many. There is no other cause. And yet Brahman is independent of the law of causation. Such is Brahman, and 'thou art That." Meditate upon this truth within your consciousness. . . .

The truth of Brahman may be understood intellectually. But (even in those who understand) the desire for personal separateness is deep-rooted and powerful, for it exists from beginningless time. It creates the notion "I am the actor, I am he who experiences." This notion is the cause of bondage to conditional existence, birth and death. It can be removed only by the earnest effort to live constantly in union with Brahman. By the sages, the eradication of this notion and the craving for personal separateness is called Liberation.

It is ignorance that causes us to identify ourselves with the body, the ego, the senses, or anything that is not the Atman. He is a wise man who overcomes this ignorance by devotion to the Atman. . . .

When a man follows the way of the world, or the way of the flesh, or the way of tradition (i.e. when he believes in religious rite and the letter of the scriptures, as though they were intrinsically sacred), knowledge of Reality cannot arise in him.

The wise say that this threefold way is like an iron chain, binding the feet of him who aspires to escape from the prison-house of this world. He who frees himself from the chain achieves Deliverance.

----Shankara

Prayer is the laying aside of thoughts. --The Philokalia (Christian mystc text)

A soul pure in God is God. --The Philokalia

When the mystic experience is reached, all that happens is that we discover who we already are. Nothing new is added, the laying aside of thoughts gives us greater spiritual clarity.

I gained nothing at all from supreme enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called supreme enlightenment. ---Buddha

The paradox is that we are and yet we seek ourselves.

There is no greater mystery than this: Being Reality ourselves, we seek to gain Reality. --Ramana Maharshi

The "I" casts off the illusion of "I" and yet remains as "I". Such is the paradox of Self-realization. --Ramana Maharshi

The soul is in itself a most lovely and perfect image of God. --St. John of the Cross

In thos respects in which the soul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself. --- St. Bernard

My Me is God, nor do I recognize any other Me except my God Himself. ---St. Catherine of Genoa

To gauge the soul we must gauge it with God, for the Ground of God and the Ground of the Soul are one and the same. ---Eckhart


This mystic message is the core of all the higher religions. The Indian mystic Sri Aurobindo was quite correct when he said: All religions are approaches to a single truth.

What is this truth? It can be called infinite consciousness/nothing/Tao/God/Nirvana.

That is our true identity and to find this out is the only worth while goal we have.

The aim of human life is to know thyselves ---Socrates

Ignorance of the self is the source of all troubles and the knowledge of it is deathless bliss and peace. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. P66. (Yogavasishtha V.5.23)



Know thyself and then everything else is added because everything is who you are. You arnt just an ego in a body but the whole cosmos! But by Identifying with the illusory mind or ego we suffer the feeling of illusory seperateness.
It is a paradox as this little Zen/Tao story demonstrates:


A monk asked Wei-Kuan: "Where s Tao (infinite absolute)?"

Kuan: "Right before us."

Monk: "Why don't I see it?"

Kuan: "Because of your egoism you cannot see it."

Monk: "If I cannot see it because of my egoism, does your Reverence see it?"

Kuan: "As long as there is 'I' and 'thou', this complicates the situation and there is no seeing Tao."

Monk: "When there is neither 'I' nor 'Thou' is it seen?"

Kuan: "When there is neither 'I' nor 'Thou, who is here to see it?"

w00t.gif OUTRAGEOUS AYE?!





We just go by faith or trust that not all people who have had mystic experiences were deluded, lying or experiencing some kind of brain meltdown.


Take what Aldous Huxley says:

Nothing in our everyday experience gives us any reason for supposing that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen;and yet when we subject water to certain rather drastic treatments,the nature of its constituent elements becomes manifest. Similarly, nothing in our everyday experience gives us much reason for supposing that the mind of the average sensual man has, as one of its constituents, something resembling, or identical with, the Reality substantial to the manifold world; and yet when that mind is subjected to certain rather drastic treatments, the divine element, of which it is in part at least composed, becomes manifest, not only to the mind itself, but also, by its reflection in external behaviour, to other minds.

It is only by making physical experiments that we can discover the intimate nature of matter and its potentialities. And it is only by making psychological and moral experiments that we can discover the intimate nature of mind and its potentialities. In the ordinary circumstances of average sensual life these potentialities of mind remian latent and unmanifested. If we would realize them, we must fulfill certain conditions and obey certain rules, which experience has empirically to be valid.

---Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy


I know this is alot to read but I had to demonstrate my point/.

Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am.

I agree, to know that I exist is the only truly objective experience an individual has. There is indeed nothing more self-evident than the concept that "I exist". Of course, existence is subjective from individual to individual, that is, that I exist to me, but, for instance, I may think that BNW does not, in fact exist (no worries BNW, I do think you exist ), that all of the experiences around me may in fact be products of hallucinations or dreams of some sort. Do I really know that I am awake? I could be in my bed right now, as Descartes once postulated. So, basically, all experiences outside of 'I am' are subjective, thus including any religious or spiritual experience I may or may not have. I hate to delve into skepticism, as I'm not a skeptic, but I'm just asking questions.

You'll find though that all genuine mystic experiences are without thought or thoughtless. Just pure simple timeless awareness. Decartes to eastern philosophy or western mysticism would be changed to I Am therefore I think. In deep sleep without dreams we still are yet we dont think. Amness is the fundamental ground of being to such religious minds. As the bible says 'I am that I am'.

Indeed, a lot of Eastern religions are heavy on the mediation, which requires you to basically empty your mind. I'm not very educated on the Eastern religions, but I know bits here and there.

I am therefore I think works as well, but it still revolves around the fundamental knowledge of I am. Even when you dream (and I could be dreaming now, though I am relatively sure I am not, but what is sure?) you still retain that objective knowledge that I am.

Wait a minute. You're assuming that personal experience is not objective knowledge. Primarily all objective knowledge comes, in first form., as personal experience. For example, when Australia was first discovered it was via personal experience.

Perhaps you mean unverifiable personal experience. Thats a little more acceptable, but again what about the first people to see australian animals. There were quite a few who saw them, but when they brought paintings or even the stuffed animals themselves back to europe they were dismised as liars and fraudsters People could not accept animals which were so unfamiliar to them

This did not invalidate the first explorers personal experiences, or the truth of them. Thus one has to be careful in purely categorising personal experience as subjective or even un real. Most of us simply see what is there. We may interpret what we experience through cultural filters, but most people do not experience what is not there. So when people claim a religious experience there actually is a good chance that they have experienced something real and valid.

Of course one can challenge any assumptions and conclusions they make from what they experience, but it is not actually acceptable to deny the possibility that their experience matches objective reality.

Thus i continue to argue from experience that god does have objective reality, and while most come to him through belief, some come to him through experience. Just because the vast majority come to him through belief, does not, in itself, invalidate his physical reality or some peoples' experience s with that reality.

In my life i have experienced just 2 fully materialised angels. Both of these were witnessed by other people. One was a bright pillar of light which manifested next to me, and spoke to me with a message, while performing a physical miracle. The light was observed by others, who did not know what it was.

The second was a young man who brought a bible to my hospital bed, and then disappeared off a private balcony, 5 floors above the ground. Other people in the hospital commented on the young man (the nurses found him particularly attractive.) He left a physical bible with me. He also gave me a direct message from god and performed a physical miracle. ( 2 if you count his dematerialisation from the balcony which had no other egress to any where else.)
Thus some miracles do happen in conjunction with independent and verifiable witnesses, to the external events, if not the internal communications.

Do you have a picture of that bible you can upload here?
And does the bible have any information on its back pages about whhere it was printed stuff like that? What language was the bible in?
And I realy hope the angel was not realy a boy as in little boy if the nurses found him attractive

Mr. Walker, unfortunately I'm going to have to disagree with you. Philosophically speaking I consider personal experience subjective because it is personal. When you have a subjective experience, whatever happens is subject to your perceptions and your interpretation of that event. I hate to bring up semantics, but here:
Subjective: relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
Unfotunately, Mr. Walker, your two experiences with angels were subjective experiences. In a subjective experience, our perceptions influence what it is we see, or wish to see. For example, if you and I were standing somewhere and we saw some sort of amazing phenomina that neither of us could explain away as something 'natural', we would both have our own subjective interpretations of the event. You might think, for instance, that it was an angel or an omen or something like that, where I might say it was a UFO or superman or something else. But do we actually know what the event really was? No. In order to do that we would have to have full objective knowledge of the event, which we don't. So my question is, Mr. Walker, is if people now a days seem to be leaning towards personal experience, which, let me reiterate, is personal, then does that not make the experience subjective to the individuals senses and perceptions? And if that experience is therefore subjective, what does that say about God?

If you are going to say that Christian mystics are a true religion, compared to Orthodox Christianity, then you need to provide a good argument. But, for the sake of the argument, lets test this pluralist view.

All religions teach about a deity or deities and their relation to us. Whether we seek enlightenment or not, something happened to where we have struggle with everything just to get to that point. Apparently the deities are already there. Therefore, the we cannot possibly be deities because we cannot be at two places at one time. Either we have reached it or we have not. And beside, all religions may agree on a superficial level about morality and such, but all of them have major differences. If we are deities, then how come we cannot create something from absolutely nothing? We are confined to the restraints of this universe. We are not deities. And unless you can provide a logical answer as to why we have to be stuck in human bodies, then that theory apparently falls victim to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Take care.

The teaching that all souls are one isn't pluralism, Bluefinger. Its monism. Many of the mystical religions believe we all came from the same place, and go back to that place when we die. We are like the cells of a body, each individual and unique, but each a part of a greater being. Or so monists believe.

Second, who are you to say that Christian mysticism isn't a religion?

The mystic accounts I read about either advocate spiritual practices and ways of life so that one can experience God for oneself via direct experience instead of just being content with a belief system that cannot be proven.

And I dont have to provide a good argument because the mystics themselves speak from experiences and not second hand knowledge.

Einstein was no mystic but sums up what I am saying:

Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends with it. --Albert Einstein

And because I cannot be bothered expending too much energy debating how first hand experience of God or metaphysical existence (whatever it may be) is better than belief formula here is a quote by astounding psychologist/psychiatrist (with quite a spiritual edge), Carl Jung:

One of the main functions of formalized religion is to protect people against a direct experience of God. ---Carl Jung

I know from experience that many people from organized religions especially Christians (since they are the ones I come into most contact with) are very dogmatic and closed minded about the world and also about other spiritual possibility.


Also the pluralist view has little to nothing to do with mysticism. You are getting personal deities and gods mixed up with experiences of oneness with the universe and that which transcends it.

Theosphically speaking Religions are viewed as idiosyncratic expressions of immutable and eternal values. Religions are said to be born and die in time, yet their spiritual values always remain eternal. When a religious form has fulfilled its mission, it begins to degenerate and dies, then a new messenger appears and delivers a doctrine appropriate for that culture. Different cultures require different doctrines for their development and this results in a vast difference of religious doctrines. Nevertheless, if one understands their core values, all religions naturally support each other.

Schools and religions can become cages of the mind which impede the reception of truth, yet they also deliver a massive doctrine and state that every religion and sect is necessary. A possible resolution is found when one understands that just as a cage can protect one who is bewildered by the unknown, so can it become an obstacle for the realization of truth. Ultimately the teachings call for the student to acquire his own Gnosis, or self-knowledge, and the teachings are only a means to that end.

Your definitions may be accurate but they dont make sense in the context of this debate. First there is absolutely no way to differentiate the nature of an object from the way it is known in a mind. different minds may interpret it differently, but all minds will interpret it. Logically we get around that in daily life by assuming that when we see a wall its there so we dont walk into it, when we see an open door we assume we can walk through it Thus it is our experiences with what we perceive which teach us how to label and react to what we see.

So you are correct that all observation is subject to perception , but so what. This is not an inherent flaw, and it is something we compensate for every second of our existence. In my case the angels were "real" objective things, because they were seen by other independent witnesses. I already said that the conversations they had were subjective, in that there were no other witneses, but that also applies to a large percentage of the conversations i have with other real entities (people) every day. Finally the miracle it performed, total rremoval of all nicotine from my body and all physical symptoms of nicotine addiction and withdrawal were observable by other people. if i had realised fully what was going on i would have gone in and got a blood test, but the removal of any addiction and its symptons is both real and observable. I guess any one who has given up smoking will know when they are suffering the effects of addictin and when they are not.

But i am way beyond bothering to argue my particular experiences. They have been both reinforced and superceded by an ongoing lifetime of experiences. My point stands.

Humanity cannot operate on the principle you propose(that we cannot trust our senses) Of course we can.

Otherwise we would begin to walk into walls instead of going through doors. Your assumption , along with many others,, is that what i describe is impossible therefore cannot happen. My experiences indicate that it is indeed possible, and thus is just as real as the walls i studiously avoid walking into.
If my experience of walls is subjective, what does that tell me about the nature of walls. Should i continue to avoid walking into them, or is it ok to just assume they are purely subjective and safe to walk through?

And there is no point arguing that other people can see the walls. For either everyones perception is subjective and thus untrustworthy or it is not, and the fact that some people see/ experience/perceive god, angels and miracles may well mean that they see something which is there but others do not. After all a blind man or a drunk will walk into a wall because their vision/perception is different to others.

Perhaps we dont have a great disagreement because indeed i apppreciate that many people who have seen god perceive and interpret him in different ways. This is a natural phenomenum, which you point out. It is the people who say that, because all perception is subjective, that god cannot have a real solid existence, with whom I have a disagreement.

10 different people can see and describe a platypus in 10 different ways. That does not invalidate the existence of the platypus.

I understand your skepticism. I had the bible for about 8 months, until it was lost with all other possessions in a major bushfire,(Involving another story of divine/miraculous intervention) but it was just a normal bible KJv. I think. Plenty of other people saw it and read from it.

When the bloke dropped off the bible I assumed he was either a chaplain or Jw/mormon or possibly an intern (but the bible was a standard one as i discovered later.) He was young, dressed in a suit and tie and, as i remember it, did not speak.

While not my type, I can well understand why young female nurses might have found him attractive. (and maybe some young male ones too) The hospital did not provide bibles because of reasons of political correctness, and i had not asked for one, so this was the first suprise. My second was when i opened the bible at random, placed my finger on a text and began to read. The verse, to paraphrase, said. "Do not fear. No harm will come to you, for I am watching over you."
At that moment I felt a (purely subjective im sure) peace and calm fill me and I absolutely knew i would be safe and well. That's when I went after the bloke to tell him what i had read, only to find that the door he exited from, led onto a small private balcony inaccessible from any where other than my room. Within the minute it took me to go after him, the young man had disappeared.

Until that time I had been facing a triple by pass with a considerable chance of not awakening from the operation. I had been taken by air ambulance over 600 road miles from my home town with a total of $3 of my own money in my pocket. I had no chance to say good bye to my wife or family and while not worried about death, i knew my financial and personal affairs required some tidying up. However, once that message was received I absolutely knew that none of those things would be a problem.

And i was right My stay in hospital cost me absolutely nothing. I spent the $3 on newspapers before i found i could even get them for free from the reading room.
My wife and parents drove over within a couple of days, allowing us to sort out both personal and financial concerns, and despite the most excruciating pain i have ever experienced, I came through with such flying colours that my doctor told me I had no further worries. All in all I spent two weeks in hospital and afurther week in a recovery house in our capital city with my mum and my wife competing to look after me

I went to hospital because of a direct prophetic dream . The doctors at first could detect nothing wrong, but eventually discovered a major artery almost completey blocked and 2 others partially blocked. They informed me that if i had not come into hospital, i would certainly have died within a few months of a massive heart attack ,probably while just walking along.

And so the context, and the continuity, of the experience, while partly subjective, is one of the more convincincing attributes of this entire episode.

Different minds interpret it differently, but all minds will interpret it? Mr. Walker, doesn't interpretation imply subjectivity? Interpreting something doesn't give you objective knowledge of what that something is or means or whatever. Thats why its an interpretation. You're contradicting yourself.


Mr. Walker, I don't think you quite understand objectivity vs. subjectivity. Anything that is subjective is subject to an individuals perceptions, their beliefs, who they are etc. etc. etc. I'm not trying to argue your specific experiences, but I will say that is a little presumptuous to say that your experience, or any religious experience for that matter, is an objective one. Are you trying to imply that your experience could have not been in any way shape or form affected by your perceptions, your senses, your beliefs, your disposition and the thousands of other intricacies that go into the inner workings of your brain? Because if you are I would say thats a little arrogant, Mr. Walker.


Who says that our senses are 100% reliable? Have you ever hallucinated, Mr. Walker? Have you ever been deceived, either by another person or an optical illusion? Have you ever thought you saw something moving in the corner of your eyes only to find out it was a shadow, or a trick of the light? Believe you me, Mr. Walker, your senses are not 100% reliable. The human senses can be easily deceived into thinking one thing, when in fact an entirely different thing is happening. Have you ever heard of a placebo?

Besides that, your walking into walls seems like a straw man. There is a big difference between walls... and a theophany. For instance, if we look at your first experience with angels, you have already proven objectivity wrong. Lets take a look:

If your theophany was objective knowledge, Mr. Walker, your companions would have understood what was happening. The very fact that you were the only one who heard this thing talk reeks of subjectivity right there. If the knowledge, if your perception, if the very event were not subjective Mr. Walker, your companions would have understood what was going on. If your companions observed this so called miracle, then why did they not hear the voice? Did they not see a miracle?

Of course they didn't, because your subjective experience was that a miracle had just occurred, where your companions subjective experience was something different. Thats called subjectivity. There are a million different plausible explanations for what you experienced, Mr. Walker, all of them dependent on who views it.


If the knowledge were objective, if the experience of God or a theophany or whatever were an objective experience, then everyone who experiences God would attribute it to the same God, for example, if Jesus were the one true Son of God, then you'd think that only Christians would experience miracles, or that anyone who experienced a miracle would immediately convert to Christianity. Of course that is not the case, now is it, Mr. Walker?


Ultimately I don't think we really do have a great disagreement. All I'm saying is that the experience of God is subjective, depending on who you are, where you are from and your predispositions, among other things. You should read some Descartes, Mr. Walker. The only knowledge that I think a person can know purely and totally objectively is cogito ergo sum: I think therefore I am.


If 10 people see the same thing in 10 different ways, then what do we know about that thing, objectively? If I and you and 8 other people see something, and we each describe it differently that makes the knowledge subjective, Mr. Walker. I'm not saying that there wasn't an objective thing or experience, but we all interpreted it in different ways.

.

No Im simply stating that if something is there it can be interpreted. if its not there then it cant be interpreted. I have already agreed that everyday we interpret everything we see, but this is irrelevant to the existence of what we see




It is quite possible that we have different interpretations of the words. Yes all human experiences are subjective , but in the real world this is irrelevant. We all learn the properties of a rock, and what will happen if we kick it. Thus the objective nature of the rock delineates the subjective nature of our experience with, it just as much as our minds interpretation of the experience does.

Of course my experience was influenced by my beliefs etc. I was a complete athiest and secular humanistat that time, for example. Therefore the experience came as a traumatic shock. I recount what happened and differentiate the actual physical experiences( The light and the removal of nicotine from my body) from posible subjective elements eg the voice. I had to do some research to determine what this entity might have been, as i had never heard of angels appearing as 2 metre high pillars of light. I am not, and particularly then, was not predispossed to belief. In fact i am an inherent skeptic who disbelieves everything unntil he has evidence for it.


Idid not say that our senses were 100% reliable. I said that we operate in practice s if they were highly reliable. We have no choice, and the fact that this works so well shows just how reliable our senses are.
I have seen the things you talk of and understand them. I have also experienced things which are beyond present scientific explanation. These are real and verifiable, or witnessed, things. The fact that you cannot accept that, is a limitation of yourself not of me.

As far as i know, no i have never hallucinated. but then even with considerable study into the nature and form of hallucinations, i guess it would be hard to identify one. But i do know that hallucinations cant change physical reality, or give accurate visions and aural warnings of future events. Hallucinations can only represent knowledge held within the conscious or sub conscious mind of the person hallucinating. Human senses are not as easily deceived as you imply, especially when intelligence, rationality, and skepticism are used to investigate those experiences.


It is not a straw man just a simple illustration of one problem in thinking that we can only operate on objective information(whatever limited input that might provide)



you either did not listen to or chose not to understand what i said. I had no companions. The light was seen from a long distance away.(Thus the pillar of light was real) There was no one close enough to hear the voice, which to my senses quite clearly emanated from the light rather than inside my head(but i acccept this may be a subjective experience(even though as a class room teacher i can usually locate the position of a voice in a class room with my eyes facing the other way.)
So the light manifests and a voice says" I am going to take away your nicotine addiction" then it immediately does. physically and permanently .After smoking more than a packet a day for over 5 years , i have never had another cigarette in my life for over35 years. The symptoms of bioth addiction and withdrawal ceased immediately and were never felt again.

Others can attempt to come up with whatever rational explanations they like, but for me this was a physical epiphany. An experience i had never considered physically possible, and one which took ne a long time to investigate, understand and accept. If you wish to to cal it subjective fine, but the experience was real and had physical effects in the real world. My attibution of this to an angel came later and is subjective. But like all humans i analysed my experience and found that it fit, fairly precisely, within a subset of other experiences by other people. So an angel is a culturally acceptable word for the context of my experience.

Not a million but certainly many. And if this was the only experience in my life your point would be more valid. however it is only one of dozens. Some more dramatic most less so. time and time again other peole witnessed the outside events. Of course they cant witness the inner dialogue or my reflections. again so what. They cant do that with any of the ordinary mundane and every day occurences in my life either.. This does not make any of the experiences any less real or valid or objective/subjective



Thats just rubbish, and really i dont think you believe that.
GOD is. All sentient beings experience and understand him through many filters, including scientific knowledge and cultural back ground. (in itself this tells us a little about the physical nature of god.) To use your arguement, if no god existed then no one would experience him thus the experiences of so many people must prove the existence of god. Neither of these sttements is valid. if i lived in a muslim country and had my experiences it would merely make me know that fod existed, but i would still probably frame him within an islamic context(which is remarkably similar to the christian one.) The jewish perspective is similar. other older and more foreign cultures impose different cultural perspectives. however these perspectives and beliefs do not create god, they merely interpret our experiences of him.

I



The first two sentences i agree with. The last is really philosophical mumbo jumbo. Descartes was not the first person to come up with this idea, and its not very helpful in this debate anyway. I have read descartes but this concept was familiar to me through general reading before i ever went to school. I had dismissed it as very useful before i got to high school. Basically its ok to say that "the fact that ican think proves that iexist." but people then go on to suggest this means that everything only exists via thought.

Still, today, some philosophers follow this ludicrous argument (sorry brave) Today we have a much better understanding of consciousness than in descartes time, and are already capable of creating and replicating elements of it, like memories, artificially.

Even philosophically such an argument does not make sense. Consciousness is dependent on one or both of two things. Either an organic base to physically sustain it( This requires a real objective universe) or it is dependent on data input to operate(again this requires a real objective universe) Independent consciousness is not sustainable organically or philosophically


yes we probably agree here but it is what this means that we disagree on. To me the prime thing is that even if we are a little sure how to define and describe it, the platypus /object exists. You seem more intent on saying we cant be sure it exists ,or give it a name and definition because we all see it differently. In practical terms, as i said before, you cant operate on this principle...

When the 10 people have codified their collective subjective knowledge, sorted out their differences, photographed the platypus ,and put it in the encyclopedia galactica, i suppose then you will turn around and say. "Ah well, now it is objective knowledge" Why trust the collective subjective any more than the individual "subjective?"

]
Somewhere you indicated i might be arrogant. I certainly am, but in my subjective opinion, arrogance can be a positive attribute. I am certainly arrogant enough to trust my own experiences, my own intelligence, my own logic, and education.

I am certainly arrogant enough not to accept someone else telling me what is real and not real; and what is possible and what is not possible.

Mr. Walker, I'll respond to the entire post after I get back from work, but I wanted to say that you missed my point. I'm trying to show that experiences are subjective, but just because they are subjective doesn't mean that there is an objective truth behind it. At no point was I trying to promote philosophical skepticism. The problem arises when we search for the objective through a sea of subjectivity.

I don't think the question is valid as were dealing with a perceptional bias.
This bias is the engine of creation of such experiences.
Your questions seem to be directed at the bias, but the answers lies beyond the bias IMO.
Beyond the bias lies the truth of the experience, but only to the experiencer.
People tend to believe and trust in the symbolisms in which the experience manifested, without understanding or questuioning where these symbolisms came from in the first place.
One experiencer relates what I am trying to say in an analogy of a warehouse.
We live our lives rummaging around a huge warehouse and the only light we have to see with is a flashlight. Our whole life is focusing on what is revealed to us by the flashlight, and we have becopme accustomed to believe in only what we can see with that flashlight. We only trust in what can be illuminated and fear what is beyond the light.
The experience however lit up the whole warehouse for an instant.
In that instant the vastness and breadth of the warehouse becomes apparent, and the context of the vastness and the relationship between the whole and what I was illuminating with my flashlight became apparent.
The warehouse is there...whether lit up or darkened, whether I trust in what is only revealed to me through my flashlight, or in my trust that there is more beyond the beam of the flashlight.
If you were to look at spiritual experiences such as STE's OBE's ADC's, these all seem to connect to the personal symbolisms known to the experiencer
NDE's though, seem to point to something beyond the concepts and precepts created by man in understanding his place within the all.
In one account the experiencer stated that " the further into my experience I went...the NEED for it to be Mother Mary FADES......"
There is no fault in our experiences being subjective to our understandings and "truths"...but it opens up the door to begin to understand where the "bias"" came from and how they were formed.
From that, if you dare to take the journey, and TRUSTING in the experien ce, you begin to understand yourself.
Although the warehouse has become dark again and I am here again with only my flashlight the knowledge of the wharehouse is seared into my mind and i no longer really rely on what is revealed to me with the flashlight because i have a perceptual understanding of the relationship between the flashlight and the warehouse.
Loook at it this way.
We are the way the universe reflects on itself.
Without us, the universe is utterly meaningless.

Blessings

Just going by recent replies it sounds like the more recent posters are arguing for the same thing. The Event is often objective (or more correctly, "can be" objective - we're not talking about hallucinations but tangible events that other people saw but couldn't explain - an hallucination would be subjective, which people have already stated). But our interpretation of said event is subjective!!!!.....

I get the impression that both Mr Walker and ChurchandDestroy are saying the same thing in this respect, but are getting caught up in the semantics of terminology. The Objective event (the pillar of light - Objective, considering it was seen by others, though at a distance) is interpreted subjectively by Mr W as God's divine act in removing nicotine addiction, but could be something else (for example, aliens using technology to rid the body of toxins - as just one of many other possible interpretations).

Just my casual observation All the best,

Just wanted you to know I read and apreciated the response here.
A shame you lost the bible, I would especially be interrested in seing if it was a bible you could see where was printed, for a number of reasons.

Right, but in all reality monism is a form of pluralism if you accept all mystic religions. Its only monism if you stick with one religion. Thats the point I'm getting at.

I never did. I simply suggested that if you would choose mysticism as the real religion over orthodoxy, then you need a legitimate argument. Thats all. After all, mysticism always forms from orthodoxy, otherwise its an orthodox teaching on its own.

Can you show some examples? I'm not just going to believe it because you told me. The mystics I know of seek knowledge of the spiritual world, but often look in contempt with the rest of the world for their lack of knowledge. The Gnostics were famous for that.
All they speak of is their experiences, but their teachings lack morality, direction, and usefulness. So what if they know how many levels of heaven and hell there are? They could just be blowing smoke for all we know. If their practices have no social usefulness, then its not a religion, its aimless.
I agree with that. But a mystic can't say that God exists and then give us no message. That has no usefulness. No matter how much at peace you are with yourself, if you don't care about the peace in the world then what good are you?
Then your beef is with structured religion. But what happens when you have a bunch of people talking about their experiences with God, but no useful message? Everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Thats may be one thing if you live alone, but if you are part of a community, then you need organization. A kingdom divided against itself will not stand. So experience is only the prelude to getting to know God. God doesn't just act in a personal way though. And I think many need to come to terms with that. I see many make up what they approve of God or else they don't believe it. But so many different views! So many different ideas of what good is! How can one ever know?
Oh, no, my friend. Close minded means to refuse to keep up with the times and be open to any truth. Compromising is another word that many people like to use to describe being open-minded. If compromising is open-mindedness, then I must be close-minded. The truth is, to be open minded is to be open to the truth and facts. But many confuse being empty minded with being open minded. I'm not going to accept any ol' view because people say its right, I'm going to test it.


Being one with the universe means that you will die, as the universe will die. There is no transending in death. Either you are alive, or you are dead. So much for transcendentalism. And being one with the universe allows immorality to thrive. What is the point in peace and love if we all are one and go to the same place? Your view isn't making any sense. I'm not going to compromise my values for a view that allows all people to throw out reason and do whatever they want. And you can add more teachings to this, and make it a religion, but it still makes everything pointless in the end.

lol, personally i dont see any actual difference between these two possibilities. After all, angels and god are aliens in every definition of the word, and i am still not sure whether god uses technology, or inherent attributes of his nature to perform "miracles"

I am the first to admit my experience was interpreted through my cultural millieu, and also that i deliberately chose a christian aspect/avatar of the god i know, for many reasons.( which i have outlined elsewhere).

Read my earlier post with all the mystic writings. Many of the are Christians. This should answer your question. Doesnt the bible say that a friend of the world is an enemy of God?





Again you show how little you know of mysticism. All genuine mystics I have read into from Buddha to Jesus emphasize that without love and morality one will never attain the highest spiritual awareness.



I have never read into msytics who emphasize about levels o heaven and hell. All that I have read into say such things is speculation and that all is one and that only through love and detachment from the ego and looking upon all things as one does one attain oneness.



Most mystics I read into say silence is the deepest of all teachings. Also if christ is all and in all then what is there that is different from christ or God to not be at peace?