Your anecdotes in support of God or gods or paranormal

[cloudyday2]

I wanted to start a discussion challenging metaphysical naturalism in some way, because most discussions challenge only Christianity. (While metaphysical naturalism is not a requirement for atheism it seems to be synonymous with atheism in practice.) I looked at Wikipedia's article on metaphysical naturalism and was underwhelmed by the arguments against ( Metaphysical naturalism - Wikipedia ). So I thought that personal anecdotes might be a better way to challenge metaphysical naturalism.

Please share any personal anecdotes that seem to challenge metaphysical naturalism.

*** For extra credit, please share any personal anecdotes suggesting that God, gods, or paranormal actually CARE what you believe or how you live your life. THAT is the real question that I ask myself. If God exists and doesn't care, then who should care about God? But if there is something out there that cares, then I would like to respond to it.

 

[Silmarien]

I live in the New York region, and while it's normal to see Evangelicals wandering around with signs or handing out brochures, I've never heard of them actually approaching people for one-on-one attempts at evangelization.

So I was sitting in a park one day before work, right in the middle of downtown Sodom and Gomorrah, when an unlikely Evangelical woman came right at me. This was about six months after I'd surreptitiously slinked my way into the back row of one of the local churches, and I was having a lot of trouble working up the nerve to break the ice and talk to my priest, since I have some weird hangups about talking about spiritual issues. So the first real conversation I had in person about my weird journey was with this street apologist.

That's the only time I've ever run into street apologism, and while it was admittedly not a great conversation, it really was the sort of push that I needed at precisely that time to break me out of my shell. Not exactly supernatural, but between the timing and the unlikeliness of running into that in Manhattan, it definitely gives me real pause.

The only other strange experience I've had was a message from an angel in a dream. I was an atheist at the time, so I have no idea why my subconscious would be producing weird Christian dreams--weirder still because in retrospect it was much more authentically Christian than I would have been able to come up with at that point. I did not immediately repent and convert, though I'd have probably been better off if I had.

(Also, for what it's worth, that anti-nominalist argument briefly mentioned on the Wikipedia page is, in my opinion, extremely powerful. Unfortunately, it's pretty arcane and medieval, so it can take months if not years to unravel and find out just what sort of force it has. There are actually multiple stories of atheistic philosophers really tackling Thomistic thought to try to break their students of it and ending up Catholic instead. )

 

[durangodawood]

....it can take months if not years to unravel and find out just what sort of force it has.....

Thats a darn shame.

 

[cloudyday2]

Also, for what it's worth, that anti-nominalist argument briefly mentioned on the Wikipedia page is, in my opinion, extremely powerful.

As I was skimming some links in search of an overview of that anti-nominalist argument, I found myself wondering if philosophers confuse themselves and others by using colloquial language and poorly defined concepts to answer poorly defined questions. Obviously there are a lot of technical jargon and concepts in philosophy (and that makes it incomprehensible to somebody like me unfortunately), but I wonder if there is not enough technical precision given the goals of most philosophical efforts? Compare philosophy to geometry for example. It seems to me that the ratio of technical precision to problem complexity is higher in geometry, and the result is that people don't debate the conclusions in geometry as much. Of course I am reading summaries of philosophical arguments and not the arguments themselves, and I couldn't understand the actual arguments, but that is my impression. (EDIT: Maybe the difference between geometry and philosophy is that the abstractions in geometry are less debatable. We know why we care about the "area" of a "rectangle", because we need to know how much seed to sow in a field. "Nominalism" - what the heck is that and why do we care? LOL)

So back to the issue of anti-nominalism. How is nominalism an assumption of metaphysical naturalism (if that is not too hard to summarize)? That seemed to be glossed-over in the links I skimmed.

 

[Silmarien]

Thats a darn shame.

Yeah, it is, but it's kind of the nature of the beast when dealing with medieval philosophy. I think Edward Feser is the best entry point for people interested in it, since he's really dedicated to trying to make Thomism accessible at the popular level, but this is really Matrix level "take the red pill" stuff. The argument is basically that everything that you think you know is wrong.

As I was skimming some links in search of an overview of that anti-nominalist argument, I found myself wondering if philosophers confuse themselves and others by using colloquial language and poorly defined concepts to answer poorly defined questions. Obviously there are a lot of technical jargon and concepts in philosophy (and that makes it incomprehensible to somebody like me unfortunately), but I wonder if there is not enough technical precision given the goals of most philosophical efforts? Compare philosophy to geometry for example. It seems to me that the ratio of technical precision to problem complexity is higher in geometry, and the result is that people don't debate the conclusions in geometry as much. Of course I am reading summaries of philosophical arguments and not the arguments themselves, and I couldn't understand the actual arguments, but that is my impression. (EDIT: Maybe the difference between geometry and philosophy is that the abstractions in geometry are less debatable. We know why we care about the "area" of a "rectangle", because we need to know how much seed to sow in a field. "Nominalism" - what the heck is that and why do we care? LOL)

So back to the issue of anti-nominalism. How is nominalism an assumption of metaphysical naturalism (if that is not too hard to summarize)? That seemed to be glossed-over in the links I skimmed.

Nominalism is basically the idea that only particular objects exist, and that things like properties and numbers are just mental categories, not features of reality. So the fact that both an apple and a rose might be red doesn't mean that there's an objective property called "redness" that they both share, but that the property of redness is just part of our way of conceptualizing reality.

Nominalism is really the default position these days, but I think at a certain level it starts to have real problems. Being composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is a property that every water molecule shares. Being composed of eight protons organized in a certain fashion is a property that every oxygen atom shares. It's these properties that determine how atoms behave; they're not aspects of our own mental categories.

Nominalism and naturalism usually go together simply because naturalism does not allow for abstract realities. It doesn't make sense to say that an abstract realm of numbers is somehow interacting with physical reality and determining how atoms behave, so naturalists are stuck trying to figure out why there appear to be multiple concrete entities in existence that function according to similar principles. It's the problem of the one and the many.

Now, the sort of argument that someone like Edward Feser makes is that naturalism cannot account for consciousness and intentionality without illegitimately stepping outside of naturalism. Thus the only form of naturalism that is consistent is a pretty hardcore eliminative materialism, which ultimately collapses into incoherence. He's actually got a blog here, where a lot of this stuff gets discussed. (Though he's largely switched over to social conservative polemics recently, unfortunately.)

 

[cloudyday2]

Being composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is a property that every water molecule shares. Being composed of eight protons organized in a certain fashion is a property that every oxygen atom shares. It's these properties that determine how atoms behave; they're not aspects of our own mental categories.

This makes me think about the link between physics and information theory. Information theory seems kind of abstract - almost like an argument against nominalism. But if information is the true reality, then it would be the other concepts that are the abstractions, and it would NOT be an argument against nominalism.

 

[Silmarien]

This makes me think about the link between physics and information theory. Information theory seems kind of abstract - almost like an argument against nominalism. But if information is the true reality, then it would be the other concepts that are the abstractions, and it would NOT be an argument against nominalism.

Oh, I would say that information theory is highly Platonic in nature, which means extremely anti-nominalist. It doesn't get much more so than that.

 

[cloudyday2]

Oh, I would say that information theory is highly Platonic in nature, which means extremely anti-nominalist. It doesn't get much more so than that.

When I was an undergrad studying physics I was lucky to attend a lecture by Richard Feynman somewhat on that topic. He was describing the relationship between entropy and computation and how a computation created a certain amount of heat regardless of the mechanism due to nature of the computation itself and then how a reversible transformation was preferable due to its lack of impact on entropy. At that point, I suddenly started thinking how odd that seemed - as though the abstract computation itself had a physical reality. Then I cocked my head to one side and made an audible "hmmmmm" ... and Feynman paused his lecture just a moment and winked at me and continued while I turned red with embarrassment and everybody started chuckling. LOL (I think they were recording that lecture. I have some audio CDs of Feynman's last lectures, and that is probably one of them.)

I wish I had been able to become a physicist, because I didn't make it far enough to answer a lot of the questions that I have (such as that one). There may be something there, but I am too dumb to know for certain.

 

[cloudyday2]

Having a background of mental illness including some probably psychosis, I don't know if my own personal anecdotes hold any credibility (even for me). The problem is that my experience of psychosis did not have a definite end and it wasn't obvious enough to get a formal diagnosis at the time or treatment. So I can't say I can believe all the experiences after date X, because that is when the psychosis ended. I kind of suspect that my brain may have been having hallucinations and delusions even before it hit me hard and became somewhat obvious. ... So I don't know if I can believe a word I say LOL ... but FWIW here is an experience:

I had not been attending church for about 10 years, but I still had a hope that the Christian God might confirm his existence to me, so I began visiting a different church each Sunday. I went to one Evangelical church in a strip mall and sat down. Then a guy came in the chair next to me even though there were plenty of seats in that aisle. After the service this guy followed me out the door and told me that the Holy Spirit wanted him to pray for me. I hurried away from that weird guy and drove away. Then I started feeling that I had missed an opportunity where I might have experienced the Holy Spirit and the confirmation I wanted. I was really angry at God for possibly giving me an opportunity knowing that my knee-jerk reaction would be to flee. So I said something like "God, I wish you would just kill me." Then at that very instant my car spun-out on a freeway ramp and almost flipped over. I was backwards on a bunch of dirt beside the road. So then I drove home feeling chastened I suppose.

That happened about 15 years before I experienced any obvious signs of psychosis, but maybe my brain has always had those tendencies a little bit.

 

[Silmarien]

When I was an undergrad studying physics I was lucky to attend a lecture by Richard Feynman somewhat on that topic. He was describing the relationship between entropy and computation and how a computation created a certain amount of heat regardless of the mechanism due to nature of the computation itself and then how a reversible transformation was preferable due to its lack of impact on entropy. At that point, I suddenly started thinking how odd that seemed - as though the abstract computation itself had a physical reality. Then I cocked my head to one side and made an audible "hmmmmm" ... and Feynman paused his lecture just a moment and winked at me and continued while I turned red with embarrassment and everybody started chuckling. LOL (I think they were recording that lecture. I have some audio CDs of Feynman's last lectures, and that is probably one of them.)

I wish I had been able to become a physicist, because I didn't make it far enough to answer a lot of the questions that I have (such as that one). There may be something there, but I am too dumb to know for certain.

Are you talking about something like this? https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos576/papers/bennett03.pdf

Yeah, it's way above my pay grade also, but I get the impression that they're talking about the energy expended by information processing itself. Actually, the type of "information theory" that I was thinking about was some of the stuff I've seen from string theorists whereby the universe itself is an emergent phenomenon of quantum information. That's the stuff that starts looking very Platonic, not information processing itself, so it might be different than what you were thinking of.

 

[cloudyday2]

Are you talking about something like this? https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos576/papers/bennett03.pdf

Yeah, it's way above my pay grade also, but I get the impression that they're talking about the energy expended by information processing itself. Actually, the type of "information theory" that I was thinking about was some of the stuff I've seen from string theorists whereby the universe itself is an emergent phenomenon of quantum information. That's the stuff that starts looking very Platonic, not information processing itself, so it might be different than what you were thinking of.

I am not familiar with string theory other than knowing the name, but there is a connection between entropy and information which is pretty well accepted I think. Entropy is one of the most fundamental physical properties of the universe, so to say that entropy is a measure of information is kind of to say that information is a real thing rather than a convenient abstraction. At least that is how it seems to me. ... Maybe I am making too much out of nothing.

EDIT: I guess what I was getting from the lecture was that information was not merely a meaning given to physical things such as the beads in various positions on an abacus or the electrical activity in computer chips. Information was a real thing governed by physics that is independent of the physical mechanism of abacus or computer or human brain.

Here is the Wikipedia page on it.
Entropy (information theory) - Wikipedia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you talking about something like this? https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos576/papers/bennett03.pdf

Yeah, it's way above my pay grade also, but I get the impression that they're talking about the energy expended by information processing itself. Actually, the type of "information theory" that I was thinking about was some of the stuff I've seen from string theorists whereby the universe itself is an emergent phenomenon of quantum information. That's the stuff that starts looking very Platonic, not information processing itself, so it might be different than what you were thinking of.

...It might look Platonic until you read Lee Smolin. ( And no, I didn't say Lee Strobel. That's a different kind of guy.) Of course, I'm not talking about information theory per say, but simply some complications with a certain "version" of physics.

 

[Silmarien]

...It might look Platonic until you read Lee Smolin. ( And no, I didn't say Lee Strobel. That's a different kind of guy.) Of course, I'm not talking about information theory per say, but simply some complications with a certain "version" of physics.

Hmm, I'm not sure. I've never read him, but the fact that something doesn't look Platonic might not mean that it isn't. I had a bit of a fascination for Ontic Structural Realism a while back, which on the surface looks like a really hardnosed form of physicalism, but if you really look at it, it kind of comes full circle and lands you back at some sort of extremist Platonism where the material world doesn't exist at all. Clothe it in scientific jargon and pretend it's naturalism, I guess.

I can't really talk about information theory, though. Aside from running across the quantum side of it once or twice and being stricken by how Plotinian it seemed, I've never looked into it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm, I'm not sure. I've never read him, but the fact that something doesn't look Platonic might not mean that it isn't. I had a bit of a fascination for Ontic Structural Realism a while back, which on the surface looks like a really hardnosed form of physicalism, but if you really look at it, it kind of comes full circle and lands you back at some sort of extremist Platonism where the material world doesn't exist at all. Clothe it in scientific jargon and pretend it's naturalism, I guess.

I can't really talk about information theory, though. Aside from running across the quantum side of it once or twice and being stricken by how Plotinian it seemed, I've never looked into it.

"Ontic," ay? Hmmmm......... I'll have give it a looksie.

 

[cloudyday2]

I hope some people will share their anecdotes. We've got @Silmarien and nobody else yet.

I had a dream last night. It was kind of strange and religious.

So it begins with a former employee coming to ask me for his cot that he had left when he quit. (None of our employees have cots on the premises, but in my dream I said something like "yes, of course, I will try to locate your cot and let you know so you can come get it.)

Then I am discussing this former employee and how it would be nice to have him back if he ever decided to return. My father is across the table saying something he would typically say, but then I realize that my father is dead, so who is this impersonating my father? This must be a demon who appears to be my father, and then the demon begins behaving meanly and impishly while still having the appearance of my father (which is pretty unsettling). So I try to think of something to say to make the demon stop. For some reason I begin to say "Jesus Christ is Lord" to the demon, but this accomplishes nothing. Then I suddenly realize that I should say "Jesus Christ is Lord" to myself rather than to the demon. At that moment I look back to where the demon in the guise of my father had been, and there is nobody. Everything is normal again.

In my dream I also had a mental image of a cheesie-looking icon with the caption "Jesus Christ is Lord", so I googled for icons with that caption. "Jesus Christ is Lord" is not a common phrase in most of the churches I have attended, so it was odd to have that phrase in my dream. The idea that exorcising demons is actually about the human host rather than the demon is kind of interesting too.

The whole thing made me wonder if I am supposed to accept that "Jesus Christ is Lord", but I don't know how to accept something that seems impossible given what I have learned of the historical Jesus.

So there is another anecdote. Hopefully some others will share some anecdotes.

 

[JohnClay]

See:
Hearing songs with seemingly supernatural significance

Also: the post about Connect 4 / Upside-down Bible
JohnClay's 5th hospital visit

I have come to believe in an intelligent force but I don't know when it is deceptive and malicious or when it is genuinely helpful. Maybe it is just chance whether my thoughts are ultimately helpful or short-sighted and overly optimistic. I think at least it exists though and is giving signs of its presence. I sometimes have hubris and think everything is working out perfectly - but now I wish I didn't go to the mental hospital and have 6 treatments of ECT because now my cognitive abilities are a lot worse. I used to do programming for 30 hours a week but now I can't even cope with 8 hours a week.

 

[Freodin]

I don't give a lot on "random occurances", like chance encounters, events with "spiritual significance". If you analyse these closer, you will most likely find that these are just stochastic events that you attribute a certain value to. But in effect, it is nothing more than "stuff happens".

Dreams are a similar category, only here you subconscious does not only attribute value, it generates the whole event from various real-life occurances. Depending on your thoughts, values and interests, you might or might not have such dreams. I've never had a "religious" dream in all my life... but I still dream about pestering my dead brother to teach me cooking.

As for anecdotes: I'm sorry not to post any. I had one single event in my life that I might consider "supernatural" in some regard, as I tried to check out every possible "natural" solution at the time it happened. I still wouldn't definitly consider it "supernatural" - there are a few options I didn't check back then, and some that I just cannot check.
And that event did not have any religious significance. It was just weird.

I would explain further, but I like to use this event as a test for people who proclaim to have "supernatural answers", so I prefer not to give out spoilers.

 

[cloudyday2]

I don't give a lot on "random occurances", like chance encounters, events with "spiritual significance". If you analyse these closer, you will most likely find that these are just stochastic events that you attribute a certain value to. But in effect, it is nothing more than "stuff happens".

Dreams are a similar category, only here you subconscious does not only attribute value, it generates the whole event from various real-life occurances. Depending on your thoughts, values and interests, you might or might not have such dreams. I've never had a "religious" dream in all my life... but I still dream about pestering my dead brother to teach me cooking.

As for anecdotes: I'm sorry not to post any. I had one single event in my life that I might consider "supernatural" in some regard, as I tried to check out every possible "natural" solution at the time it happened. I still wouldn't definitly consider it "supernatural" - there are a few options I didn't check back then, and some that I just cannot check.
And that event did not have any religious significance. It was just weird.

I would explain further, but I like to use this event as a test for people who proclaim to have "supernatural answers", so I prefer not to give out spoilers.

I agree that anecdotes are not conclusive, but don't you think a Christian needs some anecdotal evidence to claim even a mustard seed of faith? Obviously some Christians were indoctrinated as children and have never had the need or the courage to examine their faith, but for the other Christians there must be some reason for believing. Without anecdotes what do they have - a religious text similar to dozens of other contradictory religious texts and maybe some dusty old philosophical arguments for the existence of an "unmoved mover"? How could any thinking person get from that frail evidence to faith in Christianity?

Whenever I start a discussion like this, I am dismayed and disgusted by the lack of Christian participation. Can't they see that they have nothing unless they have some personal experiences? Why not be a Muslim instead of a Christian - they have a religious text too and the same philosophical arguments for an "unmoved moved" and so forth. If they have no personal experiences validating the existence of a Christian God, then they ought to find the courage to be atheists IMO. If they do have some personal experiences, they why are they ashamed to admit it? Do they prefer the approval of skeptics to the approval of God?

I am glad I am not a Christian. I may have made a lot of mistakes in my life and missed a lot of opportunities, but at least I cared enough to face the facts on Christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree that anecdotes are not conclusive, but don't you think a Christian needs some anecdotal evidence to claim even a mustard seed of faith? Obviously some Christians were indoctrinated as children and have never had the need or the courage to examine their faith, but for the other Christians there must be some reason for believing. Without anecdotes what do they have - a religious text similar to dozens of other contradictory religious texts and maybe some dusty old philosophical arguments for the existence of an "unmoved mover"? How could any thinking person get from that frail evidence to faith in Christianity?

Whenever I start a discussion like this, I am dismayed and disgusted by the lack of Christian participation. Can't they see that they have nothing unless they have some personal experiences? Why not be a Muslim instead of a Christian - they have a religious text too and the same philosophical arguments for an "unmoved moved" and so forth. If they have no personal experiences validating the existence of a Christian God, then they ought to find the courage to be atheists IMO. If they do have some personal experiences, they why are they ashamed to admit it? Do they prefer the approval of skeptics to the approval of God?

I am glad I am not a Christian. I may have made a lot of mistakes in my life and missed a lot of opportunities, but at least I cared enough to face the facts on Christianity.

I'd probably just sit back and more or less offer up every single OP thread I've ever created here on CF as what I might call my "minimal anecdotal evidence."

I know you say you're disgusted by the lack of Christian participation, but I'm just the obverse of that. I'm disgusted by offering up upteen numbers of OP topics only to have about two-thirds of them either given the short treatment or just outright ignored without any level of intensive delving into the subject.

And in those last cases, I'm not going to take one-------------not one shred-------------of blame for some kind of shortcoming on 'my' part when others decide to go their own epistemological ways. That's not on me; that's on THEM!

So, forgive me Cloudy if I only partly empathize with you on this particular thread you've started.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'd probably just sit back and more or less offer up every single OP thread I've ever created here on CF as what I might call my "minimal anecdotal evidence."

You must be defining "anecdotal evidence" differently than me. For me, an anecdote is an account of a personal event where credibility of the account depends entirely on the credibility of the person. Therefore anecdotal evidence is far more valuable to the original person than others who are told by that person.

Where are these threads you have been creating with accounts of your personal experiences that make you more confident of Christianity? I have seen a few allusions to some personal experiences from you, but they are rare.