Speaking Directly

hivizman

Two comments on the long post from the_new_mr:

A German (I think) psychologist called Klaus Conrad coined the term "apophenia" in 1958 to refer to the phenomenon where we perceive connections between events where there is no obvious relationship or cause, and as a consequence attribute "abnormal meaningfulness" to the connections. Although Conrad was writing about mental illness, apophenia is not in itself a symptom of mental illness, and is often a sign of creativity in making unusual connections. Examples of apophenia include seeing meaningful pictures in objects (such as an image of Jesus in a pizza), hearing structured sounds within white noise, and reading meaning into coincidences.

But the possibility that there may be a "rational explanation" for something does not, I believe, exhaust all the meaning or significance from an event. So if what happened had a special meaning to you, and the best way you can make sense of this is to see it as a sign from God, then you just won't buy the argument that coincidences happen, and we remember the ones that are significant for us rather than the ones that don't have significance.

That's one comment. The other is a bit different. While I was down under earlier this month, someone suggested that I should read the poems of the 13th century Persian poet and scholar Rumi. One short extract from his writings seems quite relevant here:

"It is said that after Muhammad and the prophets revelation does not descend upon anyone else. Why not? In fact it does, but then it is not called 'revelation.' It is what the Prophet referred to when he said, 'The believer sees with the Light of God.' When the believer looks with God's Light, he sees all things: the first and the last, the present and the absent. For how can anything be hidden from God's Light? And if something is hidden, then it is not the Light of God. Therefore the meaning of revelation exists, even if it is not called revelation."

Fihi ma fihi [Discourses of Rumi]
quoted from William C. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Love:
The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi

the_new_mr

Thanks for that post hivizman.

I think the phenomenon of apophenia coined by Klaus Conrad is similar to the confirmation bias mentioned by some people in a few posts on this thread so far.

But, as you already know, it's not applicable to me. I'm a very rational person but some things are just too weird and impossible to be a mere coincidence... so I guess Rumi's statement has more relevance to me

Although, I don't think anyone can see the first and the last and the present and the absent. I imagine that that is something that only God is capable of seeing. Still, I know that God guides those with His light and I believe that God has guided me in that situation (amongst others).

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote: »

Thanks for that post hivizman.

I think the phenomenon of apophenia coined by Klaus Conrad is similar to the confirmation bias mentioned by some people in a few posts on this thread so far.

But, as you already know, it's not applicable to me. I'm a very rational person but some things are just too weird and impossible to be a mere coincidence... so I guess Rumi's statement has more relevance to me

Although, I don't think anyone can see the first and the last and the present and the absent. I imagine that that is something that only God is capable of seeing. Still, I know that God guides those with His light and I believe that God has guided me in that situation (amongst others).

Well in some cases the principle of Occam's razor should be used:

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

How is such communication seen from an Islamic point of view. I always thought such personal "revelations" were frowned upon in Islam. Have you any reference that the prophet said allah communicates to people in this way ?

hivizman

There's a lovely and quite funny "convert to Islam" video on YouTube that involves signs from God (or just weird coincidence).

Occam's Razor needs to be used judiciously. Using DinoBot's form of the principle (strictly, Occam's principle is "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"), what actually is the simplest solution? Is is (a) that the_new_mr's experience is just a bizarre coincidence (if not an example of wishful thinking or even some mental abnormality), or (b) signs sent by God to provide guidance? It's not obvious to me that one of these solutions is plainly simpler than the other.

My own worry is an epistemological one: how can we be sure that an apparent personal "sign" is actually coming from God rather than the Devil?

Standman

the_new_mr wrote: »

Thanks for that post hivizman.

I think the phenomenon of apophenia coined by Klaus Conrad is similar to the confirmation bias mentioned by some people in a few posts on this thread so far.

But, as you already know, it's not applicable to me. I'm a very rational person but some things are just too weird and impossible to be a mere coincidence... so I guess Rumi's statement has more relevance to me

Although, I don't think anyone can see the first and the last and the present and the absent. I imagine that that is something that only God is capable of seeing. Still, I know that God guides those with His light and I believe that God has guided me in that situation (amongst others).

Personally, I think this is an obvious example of wishful thinking. I mean, if you had not read the Quran and never heard of Islam would you still have known this was a message from Allah, the god of Islam? I presume the answer is no. I think it is as simple as that.

hivizman

Standman wrote: »

Personally, I think this is an obvious example of wishful thinking. I mean, if you had not read the Quran and never heard of Islam would you still have known this was a message from Allah, the god of Islam? I presume the answer is no. I think it is as simple as that.

The_new_mr will, I am sure, have a response to this, but I think that, if we are to believe that people receive revelations, signs or messages from God (rather than just interpret external or mental phenomena as messages), we need to think about the form and the content of the messages. If for the moment we accept that God provides us with signs that he wants us to respond to, then it is surely reasonable to deduce that God will "speak" in our own language and within our own culture. So the form of the message should be something that we are capable of receiving and reacting to (this doesn't mean that we will react: given the existence of free will it is open for us to reject God's signs and messages). So, even though the content of the message may be strange, the form in which it is communicated has to be something that the recipient is receptive to.

As an example, consider the conversion of Saul as told in chapter 9 of the Acts of the Apostles. Saul is on the road to Damascus, where he is going to persecute the followers of Jesus, when "suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' He asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' The reply came' 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.' In this episode, Saul must be culturally able to interpret this light and voice in a particular way, rather than simply saying to himself "Oh dear, another of my bad migraines." However, the chapter goes on to discuss how Saul was provided with corroboration of his experience (others with him heard the voice; later in Damascus, Ananias came to Saul in response to a vision of his own), and I think that it is when signs and messages not only seem to pile up but also appear to be corroborated that people start to say that the "coincidence" and "wishful thinking" explanations seem less convincing than the explanation that this is in some way a message from God.

Similarly, when the first revelation came to Muhammad, it was during a period when he had retreated into the hills around Mecca to pray and meditate, and he was already receptive to the idea that God would communicate with people on Earth and make them His prophets. So the "cultural" context was already there to make him receptive to being the recipient of revelation. However, if the Islamic historian At-Tabari is to be believed, Muhammad went through a period of doubt, wondering whether he was in some way possessed, or even that he had made the revelation up himself in the manner of an ecstatic poet. His wife Khadija helped him to calm his nerves, and Khadija's cousin Waraqa, a Christian, also provided moral support. However, there was still some initial doubt in Muhammad's mind about whether the messenger bringing the revelation from God (whom Muhammad had identified as the angel Gabriel) was indeed an angel or a devil (shaytan).

However, I agree with Standman that modern-day "signs" and "messages" are more likely to come from within ourselves (you could call that "wishful thinking" if you want to) than from a divine source. Many years ago when I was much younger, there was a fashion for using the Chinese book the I Ching as a way of looking for answers to questions and advice on what to do. To use the I Ching involved a rather complex series of ritual actions and then heavy concentration on trying to interpret arcane and elliptical statements. Of course, some people claimed that they found genuine and useful answers and advice, but I thought that the more plausible explanation was that the ritual activity and the thinking process involved in trying to interpret that answers given put people into a frame of mind in which they were able to concentrate fully on the issue involved rather than being distracted. In such a mental state they were more likely to come up with reasonable answers to their issues, which they would then attribute to the I Ching. And of course we tend to remember the "positive" outcomes when we get an answer that seems to make sense and leads to fruitful consequences rather than the "negative" outcomes when the answer doesn't make sense. So once again it's confirmation bias.

the_new_mr

Standman wrote:

Personally, I think this is an obvious example of wishful thinking. I mean, if you had not read the Quran and never heard of Islam would you still have known this was a message from Allah, the god of Islam? I presume the answer is no. I think it is as simple as that.

Did you read this post of mine? Or this one? Or this?

I find it fascinating that some people are so prepared to dismiss such things as coincidence or confirmation bias when the events unfold in this manner. Everybody is free to their own opinion I guess...

Standman

the_new_mr wrote: »

Did you read this post of mine? Or this one? Or this?

I find it fascinating that some people are so prepared to dismiss such things as coincidence or confirmation bias when the events unfold in this manner. Everybody is free to their own opinion I guess...

Ok, apologies, I hadn't previously read those posts!

So short answer is; no, if you had not read the Quran before this incident you would not have known the sign or message was from the Islamic god.