How Does an Atheist Come to Believe in God?:

[Nick_A]

Jacob Needleman describes his spiritual atheism. Is it a contradiction?

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... needleman/

When I was younger I was totally allergic to what I saw as religion: Judaism and even worse, Christianity—it was my enemy. But I loved nature, and for me nature was sacred. I didn't use that word, but it made me quiet; it made me feel a sense of something greater than myself; it made me wish to serve something. So I was an atheist, but I recall it as spiritual—a spiritual atheism.

Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17

Do you believe there is truth in what they offer or do you think they are just dreamers?

[Resha Caner]

It was a very interesting article, and Needleman comes across as a man of sincerity and integrity, but I don't know if I'd say he has found any truth. The article never really made any attempt to answer the question, did it?

[Nick_A]

It was a very interesting article, and Needleman comes across as a man of sincerity and integrity, but I don't know if I'd say he has found any truth. The article never really made any attempt to answer the question, did it?

It wasn't a matter of answering the question as much as distinguishing qualities of emotion. I've noticed from my dealings with atheists that they don't distinguish between intellectual doubt and emotional denial and justify emotional denial by uniting them. Prof. Needleman seems to be describing how he gradually outgrew emotional denial so as to experience another quality of emotion.

That in itself is a big thing IMO

[ForgedinHell]

It was a very interesting article, and Needleman comes across as a man of sincerity and integrity, but I don't know if I'd say he has found any truth. The article never really made any attempt to answer the question, did it?

It wasn't a matter of answering the question as much as distinguishing qualities of emotion. I've noticed from my dealings with atheists that they don't distinguish between intellectual doubt and emotional denial and justify emotional denial by uniting them. Prof. Needleman seems to be describing how he gradually outgrew emotional denial so as to experience another quality of emotion.

That in itself is a big thing IMO

You must not have met too many atheists then. We are human beings.

[Nick_A]

It was a very interesting article, and Needleman comes across as a man of sincerity and integrity, but I don't know if I'd say he has found any truth. The article never really made any attempt to answer the question, did it?

It wasn't a matter of answering the question as much as distinguishing qualities of emotion. I've noticed from my dealings with atheists that they don't distinguish between intellectual doubt and emotional denial and justify emotional denial by uniting them. Prof. Needleman seems to be describing how he gradually outgrew emotional denial so as to experience another quality of emotion.

That in itself is a big thing IMO

You must not have met too many atheists then. We are human beings.

I haven't met many atheists. I asked on Project Reason if atheists would be open to Simone Weil's assertion about a "supernatural part" I only received emotionally negative replies since it cannot be denied intellectually. It got me thinking how much our doubts are purely intellectual and how many are connected to the emotional need for self justification. Jacob Needleman seems to be one who needs truth more than emotional self justification so was able to become more emotionally open.

Anyhow, for the record, here is Simone's remark on atheism

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

I experienced that there was something emotionally offensive about considering an unawakened part of our being.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not surprised by Jacob Needleman's change of attitude at his age.
The very vociferoud strong atheist, Anthony Flew, turned to deism in the later part of his life.

Studies have also shown that older men are likely to turn to God.

You're more likely to believe in God as you get older: Study reveals almost half of over-68s are 'certain' that He exists
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z21tbTebnH

Arising from severe cognitive dissonance as a result of the conflict of self-consciousness and the subliminal primordial fear of inevitable death, humans turn to god (some greater being other themselves) from their teens onward quite naturally, or are brainwashed by their theistic parents. This is an inherent impulse from the deepest part of the brain.

However, generally, there are a minority of humans (the non-theists) who are able to resist the above primal impulse and be non-theistic with some strands of higher cortical neurons. This is possible to the young rational neurons set. This is like a small car holding in tension against a 40-tons truck with its engine on, brakes off, but gears not yet engage.

However as human ages, the neurons are subject to atrophy. The later evolved neurons from the higher rational brain will die first in comparison to the older primal neurons re fear of death.

When these newer irreplaceable neurons of the rational brain die and the primal impulse surges (the truck engaging its gear), it will over-run the higher brain and one will seek out God via pure raw reason. (Kant).

There is no way for an individual fallible and fragile, especially older person to deal with the terror of cognitive dissonance. The solution is these surrendering persons will be seduced by whatever faculty of reason (raw and pure) into adopting a belief in God as an optimal choice within the contraints they are facing.

That is how non-atheists turned to God, as the get older and death is imminent and inevitable. Every non-theist is vulnerable to the above temptation. The most effective way is to ensure one's God resisting neurons do not die in larger number, and this can be cultivated via philosophy-proper.

It is not an issue for older person to turn from non-theist to theists as there is no high degree of them taking down some twin-towers on a theistic suicidal mission.

In anycase, theism must be wean off gradually from now onwards and significantly ASAP.

[Nick_A]

Veritas

There is no way for an individual fallible and fragile, especially older person to deal with the terror of cognitive dissonance. The solution is these surrendering persons will be seduced by whatever faculty of reason (raw and pure) into adopting a belief in God as an optimal choice within the contraints they are facing.

Do you believe the experience of awe and wonder suggesting an order of something greater than oneself is due to cognitive dissonance? A dog doesn't experience it and has no use for it.

Being open to the question of God and belief are two different concepts. Prof. Needleman is necessarily distinguishing between them. The experience of opening happened when he was very young. He called it the first breathing of the soul.

http://www.ciis.edu/About_CIIS/Public_P ... cerpt.html

To think about God is to the human soul what breathing is to the human body.
I say to think about God, not necessarily to believe in God-that may or may not come later.
I say: to think about God.

I clearly remember the moment something deep inside me started breathing for the first time. Something behind my thoughts and my desires and fears, something behind my self, something behind "Jerry," which was and is my name, the name of me, from my earliest childhood.

I can say this now, more than sixty years after my first conscious experience of this second breathing, this first breathing of the soul.

Let me explain.

I read him as suggesting the same supernatural part Simone Weil referred to.

The experience really cannot be explained through cognitive dissonance and a fear of death a child deoesn't have. Thinking about and believing are two different functions. IMO they are unnecessarily grouped when they shouldn't be.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas

There is no way for an individual fallible and fragile, especially older person to deal with the terror of cognitive dissonance. The solution is these surrendering persons will be seduced by whatever faculty of reason (raw and pure) into adopting a belief in God as an optimal choice within the contraints they are facing.

Do you believe the experience of awe and wonder suggesting an order of something greater than oneself is due to cognitive dissonance? A dog doesn't experience it and has no use for it.

Being open to the question of God and belief are two different concepts. Prof. Needleman is necessarily distinguishing between them. The experience of opening happened when he was very young. He called it the first breathing of the soul.

http://www.ciis.edu/About_CIIS/Public_P ... cerpt.html

To think about God is to the human soul what breathing is to the human body.
I say to think about God, not necessarily to believe in God-that may or may not come later.
I say: to think about God.

I clearly remember the moment something deep inside me started breathing for the first time. Something behind my thoughts and my desires and fears, something behind my self, something behind "Jerry," which was and is my name, the name of me, from my earliest childhood.

I can say this now, more than sixty years after my first conscious experience of this second breathing, this first breathing of the soul.

Let me explain.

I read him as suggesting the same supernatural part Simone Weil referred to.

The experience really cannot be explained through cognitive dissonance and a fear of death a child deoesn't have. Thinking about and believing are two different functions. IMO they are unnecessarily grouped when they shouldn't be.

The human mind and brain comprised of parallel and interdependent modular neural circuits of various responses.

1. 'Awe and wonder' is one specific neural module that is adaptive for the necessary survival of the individual and specie. The human mind is programmed to react with 'pleasure' to order, symmetry, patterns, system etc. That is why the seemingly order in nature impress most humans.

2. Completeness, Certainty and Closure, cause and effects (note Hume) are the other modular programs inherent within the human mind and brain.

3. Cognitive dissonance is another modular program and when connected with pain, give rise to terror and fears (mostly subliminal).

Generally (there are more to it), the combination of 1, 2, and 3 give rise to the notion of God to resolve the cognitive dissonance.
A dog is not capable of the above due a lack of a highly developed self-awareness of humans.

[Nick_A]

Veritas

1. 'Awe and wonder' is one specific neural module that is adaptive for the necessary survival of the individual and specie. The human mind is programmed to react with 'pleasure' to order, symmetry, patterns, system etc. That is why the seemingly order in nature impress most humans.

You've lost me here. Does the experience of awe and wonder cause pleasure? I don't think so. A pleasurable experience is felt in another part of our collective psych. A movie or good dinner could be a pleasurable experience but IMO awe and wonder leads to a different quality of emotional experience and contemplation which is not pleasurable.

Also you suggest that awe and wonder contributes to survival. It seems to me to be the opposite. The experience of awe and wonder takes our mind off of bettering our condition in the world which is the usual perception of survival. A person can make a lot of money and not once contemplate an experience that produces awe and wonder. Wouldn't this experience if it happens just get in the way of their survival in the world?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas

1. 'Awe and wonder' is one specific neural module that is adaptive for the necessary survival of the individual and specie. The human mind is programmed to react with 'pleasure' to order, symmetry, patterns, system etc. That is why the seemingly order in nature impress most humans.

You've lost me here. Does the experience of awe and wonder cause pleasure? I don't think so. A pleasurable experience is felt in another part of our collective psych. A movie or good dinner could be a pleasurable experience but IMO awe and wonder leads to a different quality of emotional experience and contemplation which is not pleasurable.

Also you suggest that awe and wonder contributes to survival. It seems to me to be the opposite. The experience of awe and wonder takes our mind off of bettering our condition in the world which is the usual perception of survival. A person can make a lot of money and not once contemplate an experience that produces awe and wonder. Wouldn't this experience if it happens just get in the way of their survival in the world?

Note Evolutionary Psychology.

The more complex single-cell entity will move towards whatever that promote survivor (positive) and turn away from what is 'sense' as a threat to survival (negative).

Higher up in the animal scale, there is the addition of the pleasure and pain circuit to correspond with to the above 'promote survivor' and 'threaten survival' respectively.

The 'pain' and 'pleasure' manifest in different forms and in as many degrees. Whichever form or degree, they are reduced to either 'promote survivor'(positive) or a 'threat to survival' (negative).

There are exceptions and variation to the above, but the fundamentals remains. 'Wonder and awe' is related to the positive aspects, i.e. pleasure principle, it is refined pleasure, not crude raw orgasmic pleasure.

"Awe and wonder' definitely contribute to survival. It works at the subliminal and primal level as something positive. Otherwise why do not think most will want to duplicate 'heaven' on Earth rather than 'hell', because in one way, it facilitates survival for the individual and the specie!

[Resha Caner]

Prof. Needleman seems to be describing how he gradually outgrew emotional denial so as to experience another quality of emotion.

An interesting observation. It also reveals someone content in their position that they can admit the intelligence of those who disagree - the enticing aspects of their argument - and yet still think them wrong.

Still, I dislike journalists who create a headline designed to catch someone's attention - only to find the article doesn't live up to it.

[mtmynd1]

An interesting question, Nick, and one that deserves commenting on.

Any conversation about god(s) seems to bring out the atheists, the agnostics, the believers, the skeptics, the seekers, religious minds and philosophers alike. Each of these if asked what the word "god" signifies for them, we'd find just as many viewpoints as there are listed here (and I sure more).

There will be the majority who envision "God" as a male, therefore the common use of "He" (capitalized, of course). Amongst those are the believers and even some agnostics who believe this "God" they envision has hu'man-like features like eyes, a mouth, ears and hands. Why? Their religious books speak of their "God" as one who sees what they are doing, ears what they say, speaks to the faithful and has even written the Bible.

Amongst the atheists these types of qualities ensures complete doubt and furthers their own belief in No God versus God. Afterall when conceptualizing a God that closely resembles that of our own species, the atheist along with the skeptic and even the agnostic must curl their lips and squint their eyes finding it impossible that a God who has created all things actually looks like us. But the true believer easily accepts this as having been written in the Bible itself under Genesis 1:27 (and other areas as well with various descriptions depending upon the author(s) at the time. )

Skeptics have a great time with this as there really is no true consensus on the interpretation of this verse. If there was there would not be so many different interpretations. Even the agnostic's belief is strengthen when this comes up. Who to believe? Afterall aren't we talking about our God who made us and everything else?

This is the common understanding of "God'... a hu'man-like presence who when speaking invokes cherubs in the sky and a beautiful halo surrounding "His" head as "He" is speaking. This is God as the majority understand their God to be. This image is powerfully ingrained in the minds of the true believers and anything another would say to spoil this vision would undoubtedly be an agent of Satan. Years and years of conditioning by the local priests and preachers, the reverends and pastors... those who interpret the Holy Book for the followers who must believe their leaders.

Is it any wonder that the non-believer loves these stories and images? The stories paint these pictures of myths... fantasies, imaginings of super hu'man beings called "gods" like the Romans and Greeks did. A good non-believer takes pride in refuting such fantasies as perilous to their own thinking... the purity of reality and fact-given truths based upon scientific evidence. You'll never convince those believers in science that there is anything to religiosity. The non-believers are just as assured their belief system is the only path just as the true believer is in their path.

However, despite what name we call ourselves regarding a "God" or the "God", it is incumbent upon ourselves to seek out the Truth for it is the Truth (capital 'T') that outlives any and all Gods that we, ourselves have created to bring us comfort and security, no matter how marginal that may be. It's been good enough for our parents and their parents and the parents before them and it is good enough for us.

Is it? Is that all we need... this continuing belief system of God versus No-God, agnostic versus skeptic, believer versus atheist...? After all, it is what WE ourselves envision as a God that makes us believers or non-believers. Our vision is what makes our belief system what it is. Whatever we envision is in our mind... that wondrous tool that has been with us on our journey, our evolution since we became cognizant of being. But despite all that time and effort we've put into being, we still fall short in living a life of awareness. We are still sleep walking, in a dream-state filled with illusions and ideas that trick us... fooling ourselves into believing are supreme beings with super powers just like God Himself. How foolish we are. The truth is we are in our infancy upon this singular planet we call Earth. We are still evolving, we are still adapting to this planet, we are still growing up. We are far from the pinnacle we long to attain. But given our potential, we will attain our completeness, our fullness, our awakened state that will outshine the best of our ideas of a God.

[Nick_A]

An interesting question, Nick, and one that deserves commenting on.

Any conversation about god(s) seems to bring out the atheists, the agnostics, the believers, the skeptics, the seekers, religious minds and philosophers alike. Each of these if asked what the word "god" signifies for them, we'd find just as many viewpoints as there are listed here (and I sure more).

There will be the majority who envision "God" as a male, therefore the common use of "He" (capitalized, of course). Amongst those are the believers and even some agnostics who believe this "God" they envision has hu'man-like features like eyes, a mouth, ears and hands. Why? Their religious books speak of their "God" as one who sees what they are doing, ears what they say, speaks to the faithful and has even written the Bible.

Amongst the atheists these types of qualities ensures complete doubt and furthers their own belief in No God versus God. Afterall when conceptualizing a God that closely resembles that of our own species, the atheist along with the skeptic and even the agnostic must curl their lips and squint their eyes finding it impossible that a God who has created all things actually looks like us. But the true believer easily accepts this as having been written in the Bible itself under Genesis 1:27 (and other areas as well with various descriptions depending upon the author(s) at the time. )

Skeptics have a great time with this as there really is no true consensus on the interpretation of this verse. If there was there would not be so many different interpretations. Even the agnostic's belief is strengthen when this comes up. Who to believe? Afterall aren't we talking about our God who made us and everything else?

This is the common understanding of "God'... a hu'man-like presence who when speaking invokes cherubs in the sky and a beautiful halo surrounding "His" head as "He" is speaking. This is God as the majority understand their God to be. This image is powerfully ingrained in the minds of the true believers and anything another would say to spoil this vision would undoubtedly be an agent of Satan. Years and years of conditioning by the local priests and preachers, the reverends and pastors... those who interpret the Holy Book for the followers who must believe their leaders.

Is it any wonder that the non-believer loves these stories and images? The stories paint these pictures of myths... fantasies, imaginings of super hu'man beings called "gods" like the Romans and Greeks did. A good non-believer takes pride in refuting such fantasies as perilous to their own thinking... the purity of reality and fact-given truths based upon scientific evidence. You'll never convince those believers in science that there is anything to religiosity. The non-believers are just as assured their belief system is the only path just as the true believer is in their path.

However, despite what name we call ourselves regarding a "God" or the "God", it is incumbent upon ourselves to seek out the Truth for it is the Truth (capital 'T') that outlives any and all Gods that we, ourselves have created to bring us comfort and security, no matter how marginal that may be. It's been good enough for our parents and their parents and the parents before them and it is good enough for us.

Is it? Is that all we need... this continuing belief system of God versus No-God, agnostic versus skeptic, believer versus atheist...? After all, it is what WE ourselves envision as a God that makes us believers or non-believers. Our vision is what makes our belief system what it is. Whatever we envision is in our mind... that wondrous tool that has been with us on our journey, our evolution since we became cognizant of being. But despite all that time and effort we've put into being, we still fall short in living a life of awareness. We are still sleep walking, in a dream-state filled with illusions and ideas that trick us... fooling ourselves into believing are supreme beings with super powers just like God Himself. How foolish we are. The truth is we are in our infancy upon this singular planet we call Earth. We are still evolving, we are still adapting to this planet, we are still growing up. We are far from the pinnacle we long to attain. But given our potential, we will attain our completeness, our fullness, our awakened state that will outshine the best of our ideas of a God.

Hello Mtmynd1

Yours is one of the most meaningful posts I've read on the internet regarding this question of "understanding." You convey a depth of contemplation without the apparent necessity to be nasty or antagonistic. In short, you've made my day.

"The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil." Simone Weil

When I first read this quote I was shocked that she of all people would write such a thing. Not only was she a great intellect but her brother is Andre Weil, a peer of Einstein.

Then if finally dawned on me that she was referring to emotional skepticism which is an ATTITUDE of emotional denial rather than a healthy intellectual doubt in the face of the absurd.

I am hopeful for the eventual unity of science and religion. In fact if it doesn't occur, I believe our technological advances will create an imbalance with our primitive moral nature assuring far more efficient wars the results of which are not too inviting to contemplate.

It does seem that there is an underground movement of people, past and present, knowing that the essence of religion and science are both true so by definition cannot be in conflict. They must be complimentary.

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Albert Einstein

I believe that one identical thought is to be found--expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality-- in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil....Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

These ideas of course suggest an "intelligent design," However you know that even the suggestion of such a thing is feverishly denied emotionally since there is no way to deny it intellectually. This denial prevents awakening to it.

I don't know how this will all end and if emotional denial will assure the destruction of humanity. I do know that there is an underground of great thinkers not hampered by emotional denial consisting of men and women of the past and present open to the question of the "pearl of great price" who support this essential open minded influence within society I believe necessary if we are to survive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

These ideas of course suggest an "intelligent design," However you know that even the suggestion of such a thing is feverishly denied emotionally since there is no way to deny it intellectually. This denial prevents awakening to it.

I don't know how this will all end and if emotional denial will assure the destruction of humanity. I do know that there is an underground of great thinkers not hampered by emotional denial consisting of men and women of the past and present open to the question of the "pearl of great price" who support this essential open minded influence within society I believe necessary if we are to survive.

Manifested emotions come in many shades and degrees.

When someone accepts or rejects something, it could be due to a combination/set comprising the following 3 elements amongst others;

Emotional + intellectual + philosophical + others = Accept or reject God

For example a fundy who accepts god, would have the following
Emotional (90%) + intellectual (5%) + philosophical + others (5%) = Accept God

A mystic like Simone Weil acceptance of mysticism may be,
Emotional (20%) + intellectual (30%) + philosophical (40%) + others (10%) = Accept God

What I had been implying was, Simone Weil's set should be revised to the following refined set, i.e.

Emotional (2%) + intellectual (20%) + philosophical (70%) + others (8%) = No God

The revision takes into account a reduction of the emotional levels to the minimum. In this case, the emotion circuits in the primal part of the brain are not removed (they are still pulsating as usual), but rather are modulated by the higher human brain with the theories and practicals of philosophy. There should be effective rewirings in the brain to make the higher human brain more active philosophically and in overall control.

Similarly, while you keep denouncing others of being emotional in rejecting God, you should be fair to know thyself (Socrates) to understand why you have a relatively higher degree (say 30%, not 90%) of emotional 'attachment', 'clinging' or 'grasping' to the notion of God.

When there is a critical mass of people with higher degrees of the philosophical elements in the set, humanity will wean-off God and progress efficiently and harmoniously without the possibility (fool-proof) of any evils associated with God.

[Nick_A]

These ideas of course suggest an "intelligent design," However you know that even the suggestion of such a thing is feverishly denied emotionally since there is no way to deny it intellectually. This denial prevents awakening to it.

I don't know how this will all end and if emotional denial will assure the destruction of humanity. I do know that there is an underground of great thinkers not hampered by emotional denial consisting of men and women of the past and present open to the question of the "pearl of great price" who support this essential open minded influence within society I believe necessary if we are to survive.

Manifested emotions come in many shades and degrees.

When someone accepts or rejects something, it could be due to a combination/set comprising the following 3 elements amongst others;

Emotional + intellectual + philosophical + others = Accept or reject God

For example a fundy who accepts god, would have the following
Emotional (90%) + intellectual (5%) + philosophical + others (5%) = Accept God

A mystic like Simone Weil acceptance of mysticism may be,
Emotional (20%) + intellectual (30%) + philosophical (40%) + others (10%) = Accept God

What I had been implying was, Simone Weil's set should be revised to the following refined set, i.e.

Emotional (2%) + intellectual (20%) + philosophical (70%) + others (8%) = No God

The revision takes into account a reduction of the emotional levels to the minimum. In this case, the emotion circuits in the primal part of the brain are not removed (they are still pulsating as usual), but rather are modulated by the higher human brain with the theories and practicals of philosophy. There should be effective rewirings in the brain to make the higher human brain more active philosophically and in overall control.

Similarly, while you keep denouncing others of being emotional in rejecting God, you should be fair to know thyself (Socrates) to understand why you have a relatively higher degree (say 30%, not 90%) of emotional 'attachment', 'clinging' or 'grasping' to the notion of God.

When there is a critical mass of people with higher degrees of the philosophical elements in the set, humanity will wean-off God and progress efficiently and harmoniously without the possibility (fool-proof) of any evils associated with God.

Veitas, you avoid the most important thing: experience. What good is philosophy iof we do not verify it experientially? Susan Sontag wrote of Simone Weil:

The principal value of the collection is simply that anything from Simone Weil’s pen is worth reading. It is perhaps not the book to start one’s acquaintance with this writer—Waiting for God, I think, is the best for that. The originality of her psychological insight, the passion and subtlety of her theological imagination , the fecundity of her exegetical talents are unevenly displayed here. Yet the person of Simone Weil is here as surely as in any of her other books—the person who is excruciatingly identical with her ideas, the person who is rightly regarded as one of the most uncompromising and troubling witnesses to the modern travail of the spirit.

How can we understand a person who lives their philosophy? This is absurd in modern times where BS is the cultural standard. But she sought to experientially verify Greek philosophy and most of all her beloved Plato. That is how she became a Christian mystic. It was the result of experiential verification.

"Truth is sought not because it is truth but because it is good." Simone Weil

This is the idea. The attraction of wisdom is not that it is true but because it is good. Thos like Simone seek the experience of the "Good" which leads to its verification.