Saturday, May 28, 2016

Challenge to atheists, any atheistd out there

Argument: (1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.

(2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.

(3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.

(4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.

(5) Inersubjective

RE of this type has a commonality shared by bleievers all over the world, in different times and diffrent places, just as the exeternal world seems to be percieved the same by everyone.

(6) Real and Lasting effects.

(7) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experince as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

*We assume reality by means of a Jugement

*we make such jugements based upon criteria

*Because RE fits the same criteria we are justfied in making the same assumption; ie that these experinces are idicative of a reality.

The criteria: If our experiences are:

*Regular
*consistant
*inter=subjective
*navigational



Argument:
(2) Argument from Universal Nature of Mystical Experience

<>
(1) Religious experience is an individual personal experience

(2) Religious symbols are cultural

(3) scientific knowledge is far from proving a gene for religion

(4) therefore, we should not expect to find that mystical experience is universal

(5) we do find that mystical experiences are universal in the nature of what is experienced.

(6) Therefore, we are rationally warranted in thinking that there is an external stimulus being experienced.

(7)Since universal mystical experience leads people to faith, the content of it is about God, and is life transforming we are warranted in the assumption that this external stimulus experienced is God


Empirical Studies show Long-Term Positive Effects of Mystical Experience Research Summary

From Council on Spiritual Practices Website

"States of Univtive Consciousness"

Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:

(1) Studies Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.

Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.

Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.

Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)

(2)Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

(3) Trend toward positive view among psychologists. Spiriutal Emergency MYSTICAL OR UNITIVE EXPERIENCE "Offsetting the clinical literature that views mystical experiences as pathological, many theorists (Bucke, 1961; Hood, 1974, 1976; James, 1961; Jung, 1973; Laski, 1968; Maslow, 1962, 1971; Stace, 1960; Underhill, 1955) have viewed mystical experiences as a sign of health and a powerful agent of transformation." (4) Most clinicians and clinical studies see postive. (Ibid) "Results of a recent survey (Allman, et al,. 1992) suggest that most clinicians do not view mystical experiences as pathological. Also, studies by several researchers have found that people reporting mystical experiences scored lower on psychopathology scales and higher on measures of psychological well-being than controls (Caird, 1987; Hood, 1976, 1977, 1979; Spanos and Moretti, 1988)".

 Article written for academic conference

this is all in my book with much greater details see side bar

78 comments:

Anonymous said...

(4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.

There are at least three problems here.

1. Religious experiences are not regular and consistent in the same way as our other experiences. I can walk outside my house right now and look at my car, and I know that what I experience will be the same make and colour as it was yesterday and the day before. It will feel the same to drive. It will sound the same.

2. The confidence these experiences give us is way lower than, say, the confidence I have that my car is there. That should correspond to a lot of uncertainty in the claim about God. Religious experiences suggest God may exist. It would be wrong to conclude that therefore God does exist.

3. There is no evidence these so-called religious experiences are connected to God. Sure, Metacrock says there is no evidence that a Gene causes them, but that leads to the conclusion "we do not know".

The Pixie

Joe Hinman said...


1. Religious experiences are not regular and consistent in the same way as our other experiences. I can walk outside my house right now and look at my car, and I know that what I experience will be the same make and colour as it was yesterday and the day before. It will feel the same to drive. It will sound the same.

I said not to the same degree but in the same way., they are. we learn that from the consistency of experience and we do have that over time in prayer we learn it but it's not as certain. but it is consistent over time.

2. The confidence these experiences give us is way lower than, say, the confidence I have that my car is there. That should correspond to a lot of uncertainty in the claim about God. Religious experiences suggest God may exist. It would be wrong to conclude that therefore God does exist.

for me and for these people inn the studies they are more trustable than a lot things, Maybe not the same level as waking reality but certainly more so than say the trustworthiness of otters. It doesn't have to be more so than waking reality. it's enough to live by trust in God. It is certain enough to base a life time of trusting God on it.


3. There is no evidence these so-called religious experiences are connected to God. Sure, Metacrock says there is no evidence that a Gene causes them, but that leads to the conclusion "we do not know".

you didn't read the material did you? there's a huge amount of evidence for that.

the universal nature of them implies an external reality

that's the second argument

the experiences are demystified as presence of the divine by most people who have them.

im-skeptical said...

Joe,

I know you place a lot of faith in this m-scale thing. Can you give a brief explanation of how it helps you turn a subjective experience into objective evidence?

Anonymous said...

I said not to the same degree but in the same way., they are. we learn that from the consistency of experience and we do have that over time in prayer we learn it but it's not as certain. but it is consistent over time.

And as they are not to the same degree, the rational response is to consider them less certain. Do you agree?

And in what sense are they "regular and consistent" "in the same way" that my car is regularly and consistently the same shape and colour, and where I left it?

for me and for these people inn the studies they are more trustable than a lot things, Maybe not the same level as waking reality but certainly more so than say the trustworthiness of otters. It doesn't have to be more so than waking reality. it's enough to live by trust in God. It is certain enough to base a life time of trusting God on it.

No one has faith in otters. They are not trustworthy, so people do not trust them. Our experiences of reality are trustworthy, so we trust them. By your own admission, these religious experiences are less trustworthy, so again the rational position is to be uncertain.

you didn't read the material did you? there's a huge amount of evidence for that.

Yes I did. The so-called universal nature can be readily explained when you realise the experience are reported by a single species. It could be something intrinsic to humans. Sure, they might come from God, but they could come from chemical imbalances in the brain or space aliens even. From my perspective, the claim they come from God is as wacky as claiming they come from space aliens.

The Pixie

Joe Hinman said...


I know you place a lot of faith in this m-scale thing. Can you give a brief explanation of how it helps you turn a subjective experience into objective evidence?


The M scale provides a means of delineating real mystical experiences from other kinds of experience, qualia and wool gathering. What is defined as "real" mystical experiences is the likeness to W.T. Stace's definition of mysticism. Stace based his definition upon the great writings of the mystics from around the world. The great mystics such as Arobindo from India and St. Catherin if Cinema from Italy. The original purpose of the scale was to validate Stace's theory. To do that Hood made this scale which is administered as a survey. It compares they experiences to modern people to those of Stace's mystics. From this they see people around the world are really having these experiences so they define those as 'real mystical experiences.: That doesn't mean there aren't other experiences but people are having the stace kind of experience.

Using that as a template we can study other spects as we a control to which we can compare so if you make a statement such as "religious experience is a form of neurosis" we can give subjects the Mscale test and tests designed to detect neurosis and see if mystical experience people are neurotic. They have doe this and it shows they are not. I know you will attack it being a survey. 80% of social science research is survey. I've heard them all just make an argument.

Joe Hinman said...


3:03 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Meta "I said not to the same degree but in the same way., they are. we learn that from the consistency of experience and we do have that over time in prayer we learn it but it's not as certain. but it is consistent over time."

And as they are not to the same degree, the rational response is to consider them less certain. Do you agree?

Less certain than something that is absolutely certain can still be certain.


And in what sense are they "regular and consistent" "in the same way" that my car is regularly and consistently the same shape and colour, and where I left it?

regular: whenever I pray seriously and for more than a couple of minutes I get certain kinds of feelings that don't come under other conditions. Consistent : those experiences always have retain qualities that are basically the same.

Meta:for me and for these people in the studies they are more trustable than a lot things, Maybe not the same level as waking reality but certainly more so than say the trustworthiness of others. It doesn't have to be more so than waking reality. it's enough to live by trust in God. It is certain enough to base a life time of trusting God on it.

No one has faith in others. They are not trustworthy, so people do not trust them. Our experiences of reality are trustworthy, so we trust them. By your own admission, these religious experiences are less trustworthy, so again the rational position is to be uncertain.

Of course I means Other people. those of us who are not huts do trust some other people. not all but some anyway it was just a benchmark.


Meta:you didn't read the material did you? there's a huge amount of evidence for that.

Yes I did. The so-called universal nature can be readily explained when you realise the experience are reported by a single species. It could be something intrinsic to humans.

Obviously not since not everyone has them, if they did there would be no variation in the m scale. there is. some people score high and some low



Sure, they might come from God, but they could come from chemical imbalances in the brain or space aliens even. From my perspective, the claim they come from God is as wacky as claiming they come from space aliens.

Yes they would but we can rule that out, that's what the tie breakers are for. I have 8 tie breakers. read the long article I list about six of them.

Joe Hinman said...

gentlemen, the long article. you say you read it but it has answer to both the brain chemistry argument and the six tie breakers.

im-skeptical said...

(1) The transformative effects
- LSD does that. Makes us think we've gained some kind of insight that changes our outlook on life. This is a real effect, although you can't get a cogent explanation of what that insight is.

(2) Noetic aspects to the experiences
- LSD does that, too. So does any kind of human experience, whether is is seen as mystical or not. If you are religiously inclined, you tend to see everything as religiously meaningful.

(3) The experience contains the sense of the numinous or sense of the holy.
- The distinction between this and noetic eludes me. If you see everything as religiously meaningful, it's only because you are predisposed to believe that there is some kind of "holy" presence.

(4) why positive?
- It's just chemistry in the brain. Some brain chemicals always make us feel good.

(5) bad evolutionary theory
- In other words, you don't understand why evolution would produce this kind of human experience, so it must not be a natural effect?

(6) Navigation in life
- That's psychology.

Bottom line: In general, the mystical experience is common to all humans. It is produced in a variety of ways, including certain types of physical inducement. The interpretation of the experience is what makes it seem religious. Note that religious people interpret this experience in a religious manner, but there is nothing objectively religious about it. The work of Stace tells us nothing objective about the nature of this experience. If you interview mystics about their experience, then you will get a mystical interpretation of it. That does not make the M scale an objective measure of what's happening in their brain.

Joe Hinman said...

tie breakers. The tie being that the experiences could be chemical or they could be God using chemicals of the brain to produce the effects. either way they involve chemicals but one way it has to be an accident, misfire or heritable trait, the other it would be that perhaps but as proximate cause ,the distal cause being God.

(1) The transformative effects


- LSD does that. Makes us think we've gained some kind of insight that changes our outlook on life. This is a real effect, although you can't get a cogent explanation of what that insight is.

first of all "transformative is not merely thinking you have an insight." It's a dramatic measurable positive change from one form of life or problem to a better way of life. Like kicking a drug habit or a scum bag becoming a loving person.
these things do not happen by taking acid. they are dramatic they can't faked and are not accidents. It is well documented that mystical experience produces this kind of change, LSD des not. It might on occasion but could just as easily [produce no effect or a negative one. mystical experiences never produces a long term negative effect.



Joe Hinman said...



(2) Noetic aspects to the experiences


- LSD does that, too. So does any kind of human experience, whether is is seen as mystical or not. If you are religiously inclined, you tend to see everything as religiously meaningful.

No it doesn't. It's clearly silly to say any kind of human experience is noetic,. Most experience are not. noetic means you learn positive knowledge directly imparted by the experience. it's not talking about trivial insights like washing my clothes taught me I hate Laundromats. If an experience is consistently noetic then it's a big deal because it can't be just an accident.


(3) The experience contains the sense of the numinous or sense of the holy.

- The distinction between this and noetic eludes me. If you see everything as religiously meaningful, it's only because you are predisposed to believe that there is some kind of "holy" presence.

sense of the numinous is more than just positive knowledge it's a special sense of overwhelming presence of love together with a sense of special sacred ooky-spooky thing, noetic experience doesn't contain that tall.


(4) why positive?

- It's just chemistry in the brain. Some brain chemicals always make us feel good.

that is not an answer. I can't think of any experience that is heritable that always produces dramatic positive effects and changes your life for the better. There are things are usually pleasurable but they don't necessarily change your life for the better. To say it's an accidental misfire of neurons is really stretching credibility.



(5) bad evolutionary theory


- In other words, you don't understand why evolution would produce this kind of human experience, so it must not be a natural effect?

It's Lamarckian. No aspect of Darwinian theory says you can inherit positive experiences from cultural associations.



(6) Navigation in life


- That's psychology.

That's not am asunder. the reason we have psychologists is because there are aspects of the field that work. Ah the good old atheist fear of the experiential!you slough that off and it totally answers the argument, you can't show me any other example of brain chemistry doing this.





Joe Hinman said...

Bottom line: In general, the mystical experience is common to all humans.

No they are not. No study ever said that. They all show most people don't have them. The most prevalent any study shows them to be is 1 in 4 people.

does not make the M scale an objective measure of what's happening in their brain.

sure as hell does. Rather what makes it so is that the data conforms to the prediction of the theory around the world .they did them in places like Iran among peasants who can't red at all or who don't speak English and they conform of Stace's theory. Certainly does verify the M scale because the data corroborates the original findings in Iran, India, Japan,
Saudi Arabia, Swedem and UK.



It is produced in a variety of ways, including certain types of physical inducement.

there are physical triggers but they are not causes Mozart's music is a trigger and a lot of other kinds of music, LSD, Peyote, beauty of nature. none of that disproves the role of God in the process. none of those are actual causes.,



The interpretation of the experience is what makes it seem religious.


wrong. The experience is intrinsically so, overwhelming love, since of higher power, since of the ineffable, sense of unity of all things, sense of the holy it's all religious. Many times it's a conversion experience.


Note that religious people interpret this experience in a religious manner, but there is nothing objectively religious about it.

I just told you spoke. It's true that religious people use their doctrines to explain it. it's also true that non religious people have them wand refuse to call it God but that is not proof that Go's not involved. (note my argument does no t say I am proving God exists but that religion is good for you a md belief is warranted).



The work of Stace tells us nothing objective about the nature of this experience.

you do not know what Stace's theory said,. but I just told you the data corroborates his theory, in six countries around the world modern living mystic's experiences conformed to the predictions of the theory,l


If you interview mystics about their experience, then you will get a mystical interpretation of it. That does not make the M scale an objective measure of what's happening in their brain.


they weren't interviewing mystics. They were interviewing all kinds of elope from college students to dirt farmers. they became regarded as "mystics" after scouring high on the scale. 45% were children when they had their experiences (in a couple of studies) and for many it was a conversion. for many it contradicted their doctrines. So it can'[t be just the influence of belief.


im-skeptical said...

It's a dramatic measurable positive change from one form of life or problem to a better way of life.
- So how do you measure this transformation, and why do you insist that other things can't produce the same effect?

It's clearly silly to say any kind of human experience is noetic
- So nothing but a religious experience qualifies as being noetic? Isn't that special pleading?

it's a special sense of overwhelming presence of love together with a sense of special sacred ooky-spooky thing
- Again, why don't you think this can come from other sources? I think it does.

I can't think of any experience that is heritable that always produces dramatic positive effects and changes your life for the better. There are things are usually pleasurable but they don't necessarily change your life for the better. To say it's an accidental misfire of neurons is really stretching credibility.
- What is heritable about a religious experience? I don't even know what you mean by that. And saying it comes from God is what really stretches credulity.

It's Lamarckian. No aspect of Darwinian theory says you can inherit positive experiences from cultural associations.

- Apparently, you're saying that the ability of humans to have these experiences is an inherited trait, but there's no genetic mechanism that can account for that trait? How can you justify that?

Ah the good old atheist fear of the experiential!you slough that off and it totally answers the argument, you can't show me any other example of brain chemistry doing this.
- Uh, we empiricists do rely on experience as a basis for knowing what we know. Some of us have feelings that we attribute to God, but that's an unjustified assumption. The feeling we have is what we experience. The God part of it is not - it's just what we assume.

No study ever said that. They all show most people don't have them. The most prevalent any study shows them to be is 1 in 4 people.
- Everybody has some kind of experience like this. There are different levels of intensity, and different wats of interpreting the experience.

Certainly does verify the M scale because the data corroborates the original findings in Iran, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Swedem and UK.
- All that means is that it is something all humans share. It doesn't tell you anything at all about what causes it.

there are physical triggers but they are not causes.
- And how do you know this? What possible reason do you have to say such a thing?

The experience is intrinsically so, overwhelming love, since of higher power, since of the ineffable, sense of unity of all things, sense of the holy it's all religious.
- That's just the way some people interpret it.

It's true that religious people use their doctrines to explain it. it's also true that non religious people have them wand refuse to call it God but that is not proof ...
- not proof of anything at all.

I just told you the data corroborates his theory, in six countries around the world modern living mystic's experiences conformed to the predictions of the theory
- And I told you it is a common experience. Doesn't make Stace's theory true.

they weren't interviewing mystics.
- No, they interviewed a variety of people, found that one in 4 had "mystical" experiences based on the way they answered a survey - not based on knowing what they actually experienced, and declared that those people are "mystical".

Joe Hinman said...



Meta:im-skeptical said...
It's a dramatic measurable positive change from one form of life or problem to a better way of life.

IMS
- So how do you measure this transformation, and why do you insist that other things can't produce the same effect?

By administering psychological tests that already exist and have already been verified. one measures degrees of self actualization--mystic experiencers score high on it.

Meta:It's clearly silly to say any kind of human experience is noetic

IMS- So nothing but a religious experience qualifies as being noetic? Isn't that special pleading?

Where did I say that? I said not all experiences are noetic, where do you get everything has to be religious? do you think noetic means religious? It does not.

Meta:it's a special sense of overwhelming presence of love together with a sense of special sacred ooky-spooky thing

IMS- - Again, why don't you think this can come from other sources? I think it does.

I told you why it links to God, you have the burden of proof to show that there are other causes , it's not enough to jut show other things have similar effects. I never said only God makes you feel good, you have to show the specific people who link it to 'God are wrong.

Rudy said...

I wonder if a better comparison is to the experience of art? My wife and I watched the short animated film "The World of Tomorrow" tonight, and I found it poignant and funny, while she was "meh." Similarly, one person might respond to a Jackson Pollock painting with enthusiasm while it is just a mess of paint to another person. So the aesthetic experience is not common, and there is certainly no gene for it. It also can come and go, like faith or belief: there's art that means nothing to me now though it once did.

This doesn't prove that mystical experience is the same, only that it's strange properties (compared to ordinary physical perceptions) are not unusual.

Rudy said...

Actually art replaces religion for many people, nowadays, so they might be really closely linked. In "Unapologetic: Why, Despite Everything, Christianity Can Still Make Surprising Emotional Sense", the British writer Francis Spufford comments that the slow movement of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto is the sound of mercy, which instantly made sense to me, though I imagine that not everyone would hear that, or would hear something else - or wish Mozart had used a rock beat and a faster tempo :) Have Mercy!! as Little Richard would say...

Joe Hinman said...

Meta:I can't think of any experience that is heritable that always produces dramatic positive effects and changes your life for the better. There are things are usually pleasurable but they don't necessarily change your life for the


IMS- What is heritable about a religious experience? I don't even know what you mean by that. And saying it comes from God is what really stretches credulity.


No I am answering the objection that it's naturalistic. The alternatives there are accident or genetic (adaptation) "heritable trait" is an old term meaning genetic.

Meta:It's Lamarckian. No aspect of Darwinian theory says you can inherit positive experiences from cultural associations.

IMS- Apparently, you're saying that the ability of humans to have these experiences is an inherited trait, but there's no genetic mechanism that can account for that trait? How can you justify that?

Right. I am not saying that. Atheists have said it that's why I thought you would , In Fact Dennett says it.


Meta:Ah the good old atheist fear of the experiential!you slough that off and it totally answers the argument, you can't show me any other example of brain chemistry doing this.

IMS- Uh, we empiricists do rely on experience as a basis for knowing what we know. Some of us have feelings that we attribute to God, but that's an unjustified assumption. The feeling we have is what we experience. The God part of it is not - it's just what we assume.

To claim it['s unjustified you must do two things: (1) disprove the connections I[ e already argued. (2) show counter causes. since can do neither hour statement ids null and void.


Meta:No study ever said that. They all show most people don't have them. The most prevalent any study shows them to be is 1 in 4 people.


IMS- Everybody has some kind of experience like this. There are different levels of intensity, and different wats of interpreting the experience.

that's true but most people don't have them to the extent that they can be called mystical. of they did there would be no need to study it and probably not as much social problems. That level is represented by a high score on the M scale.

Meta:Certainly does verify the M scale because the data corroborates the original findings in Iran, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Swedem and UK.


IMS- All that means is that it is something all humans share. It doesn't tell you anything at all about what causes it.

Nope if that were true everyone would have high score on the M scale, try to pay attention., people all over the world have them but everyone.

Joe Hinman said...

Meta:there are physical triggers but they are not causes.

IMS- - And how do you know this? What possible reason do you have to say such a thing?

Because I've read or read about studies that say it obviously,. I have listed 200 studies on this subject.


Meta:The experience is intrinsically so, overwhelming love, since of higher power, since of the ineffable, sense of unity of all things, sense of the holy it's all religious.

IMS- - That's just the way some people interpret it.

That's like saying "you just don't know how miserable you are." If someone feels an overwhelming sense of love there's a good reason to assume they feel love. One study I read about finds that when people have their eyes closed and they feel someone is looking at them 60% of the time they are right. Those experiences are proved to change the lives for the better of those who have them., That is a good reason to assume the object o fit is real. people don't have lives renovated by nothing, that's not proof bit it is warrant.


Meta:It's true that religious people use their doctrines to explain it. it's also true that non religious people have them wand refuse to call it God but that is not proof ...

IMS- - not proof of anything at all.

That's actually in favor of your side. Don't worry there's a "but" coming.-


Meta:I just told you the data corroborates his theory, in six countries around the



IMS-- And I told you it is a common experience. Doesn't make Stace's theory true.

but your comment is based upon nothing, you have no proof no evidence not even a reason to say it, I told you several studies how that not all people have them the most is 2 in 4 that means 3/4 of humans do not have them and that's a liberal estimate. btw that study was by Abraham Maslow



Meta-they weren't interviewing mystics.

IMS-- No, they interviewed a variety of people, found that one in 4 had "mystical" experiences based on the way they answered a survey - not based on knowing what they actually experienced, and declared that those people are "mystical".

Atheists on carm always argued that then they would true right arousing and argue things based surveys. all the stuff like atheist better adjured and have more confidence and less shame that is all surveys., My point was they were not interviewing people running around eating brown rice and wearing robes or Bible thumping Pentecostals they were average people.

I totally slaughtered you on that point,. half were children many were not even religious and the experience converted them and many found the experience contradicted their cherished doctrines, now that proves they are NOT just finding confirmation for their beliefs they have a real experience that really changes them, you have no maser, no answer, no answer,.

Rudy said...

Some mysticism goes past me... the theophony in the Bhagavad Gita is scary (as it is to Arjuna) and I hope God doesn't turn out to be like that...

On the other hand the mysticism of Julian of Norwich, with God showing her the world in a small nutshell, besides being really really English! ... is quiet enough for me to relate to.

Rudy said...

My own mystical experiences have been really quiet and years and years apart, separated by long periods where nothing seems mystical at all, and when it's hard to recover the feelings that they created or even believe I had them... second hand mysticism (through art and literature) help create the "mood" but still that is not MY experience, so it is hard to know what to do with it.

Joe Hinman said...

hey Rudy great to see you man! Talked to Lantz the other day I'll give you a call soon


Blogger Rudy said...
I wonder if a better comparison is to the experience of art? My wife and I watched the short animated film "The World of Tomorrow" tonight, and I found it poignant and funny, while she was "meh." Similarly, one person might respond to a Jackson Pollock painting with enthusiasm while it is just a mess of paint to another person. So the aesthetic experience is not common, and there is certainly no gene for it. It also can come and go, like faith or belief: there's art that means nothing to me now though it once did.

This doesn't prove that mystical experience is the same, only that it's strange properties (compared to ordinary physical perceptions) are not unusual.


you are comparing apples and oranges. art is not a mystical experience although it could be a trigger. there is a subjectivity in the experiences but alsoo an inter-subjectivity in that certain characteristics are present that enable comparison.

Joe Hinman said...

Actually art replaces religion for many people, nowadays, so they might be really closely linked. In "Unapologetic: Why, Despite Everything, Christianity Can Still Make Surprising Emotional Sense", the British writer Francis Spufford comments that the slow movement of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto is the sound of mercy, which instantly made sense to me, though I imagine that not everyone would hear that, or would hear something else - or wish Mozart had used a rock beat and a faster tempo :) Have Mercy!! as Little Richard would say...

Music is a strong Trigger for mystical experience, especially Mozart. It's a trigger and not a cause.

I would be interested in hearing from you about mystical expertise in the Quakers, every heard of that?

JBsptfn said...

I see that IMS is continuing his trolling program. Doesn't he ever stop? That's why he was kicked off of Reppert's blog (and probably Feser's as well).

Joe Hinman said...

I issued the challenge. Pixie never came back

im-skeptical said...

Joe,

The trouble with your theory is that you have latched on to one set of beliefs (and "empirical" studies that have been designed to support those beliefs) that have been promulgated by Stace and Hood, to the exclusion of all other research. The fact is that their work has been widely criticized on a number of grounds, not the least of which is its lack of scientific rigor. When I ask a question like "How do you know ...", you just reply "there are studies that show it." BULLSHIT. There are studies that CLAIM to show it, but serious scientists and skeptics don't believe them, because they're not good science, and they don't show what they purport to show.

I strongly urge you to take a broader view. Do some more reading. Find out for yourself what's going on in neurological research that relates to mystical experiences. Don't just stick to one theory that has little support in the scientific community, if you want to claim that you have empirical evidence on your side.

JBsptfn said...

What scientific research are you referring to, CSICOP?

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

What scientific research are you referring to, CSICOP?

There is a reason I didn't point out any particular items. Anyone who is interested can find a wealth of material. Here's an idea that has evidently never occurred to you: Read some books on the topic - and not just that ones that appeal to your confirmation bias.

Joe Hinman said...

The trouble with your theory is that you have latched on to one set of beliefs (and "empirical" studies that have been designed to support those beliefs) that have been promulgated by Stace and Hood, to the exclusion of all other research.

first that is your canned approach anytime an apologist is beating you. It wont work with me because I almost never use apologetics as sources. For this very reason. I got that from college debate when I was an atheist. I was an atheist so it's not like I've never heard atheist stuff.

Secondly all of my studies are from secular academic peer reviewed journals. so none of them are by Christian apologists and most of them were not by Christians none of them were done to convert people to anything.

Thirdly Hood is the top name in psychology of religion for researching mystical experience and the M scale is used by researchers now because it's the most corroborated scale,. It has the most backing of other studies. Hood is not
Christian he's sort of a Unitarian but liberal for them. Psychology of religion is a secular sub discipline has nothing with proving religion.

Hood did 50 studies but I have 200 so that's a lot m ore than just Hood. I also use Maslow and Wuthnow who are both atheists.,



Joe Hinman said...

The fact is that their work has been widely criticized on a number of grounds, not the least of which is its lack of scientific rigor.

That is total BS. Hood is commended for his rigor and M scale has become standard, atheists on CARM are idiots that's who you mean when you say that, they are so stupid. they have no understanding. The main academic Critic of Hood is Katz and he doesn't do empirical research. I took his stuff apart at the seams. Hood has not been widely criticized in real academic circles. only by idiots on message boaredsl



When I ask a question like "How do you know ...", you just reply "there are studies that show it." BULLSHIT. There are studies that CLAIM to show it, but serious scientists and skeptics don't believe them, because they're not good science, and they don't show what they purport to show.

wrong. First of all you say "serious scientists and skeptics." people who do the studies are serious scientist and many of them are atheists. none of them have empirical basis to their criticisms there are no counter studies, 200 pro anon con,


I strongly urge you to take a broader view. Do some more reading.

I wrote a 450 page book the bib is 45 pages long. researched it for seven years. I read way over 200 sources. I can list 200 studies I read probably 500 things, books articles and other stuff. Almost none by Christians and none by Christians apologists. One Christian source I used was William
Alston who is totally respected world renown philosopher in philosophy of religion. I read some writers in mysticism. theologians like Tillich. No apologists no fundamentalists,




Find out for yourself what's going on in neurological research that relates to mystical experiences. Don't just stick to one theory that has little support in the scientific community, if you want to claim that you have empirical evidence on your side.

I read Raymond Talis who is a atheist and Andrew Nweberg who is the leader researcher in the field of brain science and religious belief. I did a chapter on it for my book and read Pinker and bunch of others. Moreover, the journal I published did articles on Dennett when consciousness explained first came out and I have been researching it since then, My next books includes chapters on it so I have research a lot for that,. I know far more about this and most things than you, you are like a grade school kid trying to correct a college student.

Joe Hinman said...



List of about half the studies
That is not my bib for the book it's a list I compiled early on but it['s part of the 200 I speak of.

defense of the M scale

Katz vs Hood


atheist propaganda and religious experience.

If you had read the article IU linked to way back at the top you would have seen all this is a waste of time on your part.



JBsptfn said...

Tallis is an atheist? I didn't know that. He did an article (that you provided a link for on Atheistwatch in the side) against the atheist belief that consciousness is caused by the brain.

Joe Hinman said...

exactly. they can't dismiss it as some fundie diatribe.

im-skeptical said...

exactly. they can't dismiss it as some fundie diatribe.

Yes, you can. Science does not support any such bullshit. The people you cite are not mainstream scientists. They have bizarre theories that are rejected by most scientists. If you google M scale, most of what comes up is the stuff you've written about it. That just shows how narrow the support for this stuff is. Why don't you ever cite REAL science in your articles, instead of this left-field religious fundie crap? (And please don't try to tell me that the guys who do this, like Hood, are not religious.)

im-skeptical said...

On Defense of the M scale:

It would be ridiculous to assume that pest ants in Iran and India read Stace. the things they saying they experienced are unique they are not things people normally experience. Since the people can't ling, the odds of them all in six countries saying exactly what they need to say in 32 items to confirm Stace, then it's pretty obvious that Stace got it right.

Aside from the fact that you you torture your readers with language that is barely recognizable as English, this whole paragraph is an example of your self-contradictory approach to justifying what you want to believe. First, you say that the things people report about their mystical experiences are "unique" and "not things people normally experience". Then you go on to say that they report the the exact same things, even though they are from Iran or India.

So what are they, unique experiences or common experiences? And if they are indeed common experiences, how can that possibly justify that Stace got anything right? On the other hand, if they are unique experiences, how would that justify that Stace got anything right?

JBsptfn said...

And again, IMS, you show what you are: A scientismist.

And, you can't refute him, so you attack his writing (he has Dyslexia), and then you ramble on about some BS that really isn't relevant.

im-skeptical said...

Joe,

Can you show us the actual survey used for m scale?

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
exactly. they can't dismiss it as some fundie diatribe.

Yes, you can. Science does not support any such bullshit.

(1) It is absolutely stupid to call it that but you call it Christian fundamentalism it's actually contrary to fundamentalism a lot of fundies thik mysticism is the occult so they see it as satanic deception. none of my sources are fundies. pay attention to the words genius.

(2)you do not know anything about science, you know about a kind of propaganda that atheists websites tell you to believe in, that is based upon science, you be3lieve in scientism. you don't know shit about real science. you think science is a sub category of atheism.

(3) I passed my qualifying exams for Ph.D. that means I know everything I am supposed go know to have a Ph.D in history of ideas and I studied history of science, I know more about science than you do.


(4) you have no counter studies. you haven o one single quotation by anyone saying N scale is no good or anything else,.


im-skeptical said...

So no survey? The only answer you have to my questions is "I passed my qualifying exams" and "you do not know anything about science"?

Why can't you answer my questions with ... oh, I don't know ... answers?


Joe Hinman said...

They have bizarre theories that are rejected by most scientists.

total bull shit. I've already told you Abraham Maslow (an atheist) is one of the first to do a study and is one of the 200. You are so ignorant you don't know who he is do you? The inventor of the hierarchy of needs. He considered great one of the top social scientists of all time.



If you google M scale, most of what comes up is the stuff you've written about it. That just shows how narrow the support for this stuff is.

that's because it's too technical and scholarly it's in the popular mainstream. You are not a sociologist. You need to be researching Jstor and Springer, the publishers and indexers of academic journal of

Why don't you ever cite REAL science in your articles, instead of this left-field religious fundie crap? (And please don't try to tell me that the guys who do this, like Hood, are not religious.)

why is it you have no counter evidence? So far all you've told us is that you don ;'t real science you don't know psychology of religion an d you can't research.


Joe Hinman said...

Ralph Hood who invented the M scale is a major figure in the field.

Katherine A. MacLean, Roland R. Griffithis, et al

"Factor Analysis of the mystical experience Questionnaire: A study of experiences occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion PDF
http://www.heffter.org/docs/2013pdf/Mystical%20experience%20questionnaire.pdf


"Beginning with Hood (1975), the modern empirical study of mysticism has focused on char-

acterizing mystical experiences that individuals have had across their lifetime. Hood’s Mysticism

Scale ...developed according to Stace’s (1960) framework, is the most widely used quantitative mea-sure of mystical experience. The Mysticism Scale has generally been shown to be a reliable

and cross-culturally valid measure of lifetime experiences."




Michael E. Neilsen
Georgia Southern University
Feb, 2000
Psychology of Religion in USA


Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief.







Joe Hinman said...

Dale Caird
originally in journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126

"Research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated over the last decade by Hood (1975). Utilizing the conceptual framework of Stace (1960) he devised a 32 item questionnaire tapping eight categories of mysticism. This questionnaire the M scale was shown by Hood to have respectable internal consistency and reasonable construct validity.

Michael E. Nielsen, Ph.D.
Georgia Southern University
feb 2000

"Ralph Hood (1998), a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief. Although Freud reduced religious belief to a natural, if ultimately flawed, attempt to cope with life's stresses, contemporary psychoanalytic interpretations are not necessarily hostile to religious faith. Analytical schools find their inspiration in Jung's description of spiritual life. Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. Object relations schools also draw from psychoanalysis, but focus their efforts on maternal influences on the child. Each of these three schools rely on clinical case studies and other descriptive methods based on small samples, which runs counter to the prevailing practice of psychology in America." \\

"Modern social scientific evidence does not refute the possibility that some mystical experiences are associated with scientifically unknown processes. Parapsychologists have accumulated a body of evidence supporting belief in paranormal phenomena (Broughton 1992). Even though their evidence has been criticized, the existence of universal features within collections of mystical experience accounts supports the argument that some forms of these perceptions are not fully cultural products but have important impacts on religious belief (Hufford 1982, McClenon 1994)"



The Religious Studies Project (blog) May 20, 2013.

http://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/podcast/podcast-ralph-hood-on-mysticism/
"Dr. Ralph W. Hood Jr. has extensive experience in the field of psychology of religion and particularly in the study of mysticism and mystical experience. As an early pioneer in the renaissance of the field of psychology of religion, Hood’s work is extensive and prolific exploring a variety of research topics in the social sciences of religion. Moreover, much of his collaborative work extends beyond the field of psychology to include sociology, religious studies, medicine, and a variety of other disciplines in the social scientific study of religion. In this week’s podcast, Chris SIlver is joined by Ralph Hood to discuss in detail his work on mysticism and the benefits and disadvantages of this academic exercise."

Joe Hinman said...

Michael E. Nielsen, Ph.D.
Georgia Southern University
feb 2000

"Ralph Hood (1998), :a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief. Although Freud reduced religious belief to a natural, if ultimately flawed, attempt to cope with life's stresses, contemporary psychoanalytic interpretations are not necessarily hostile to religious faith. Analytical schools find their inspiration in Jung's description of spiritual life. Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. Object relations schools also draw from psychoanalysis, but focus their efforts on maternal influences on the child. Each of these three schools rely on clinical case studies and other descriptive methods based on small samples, which runs counter to the prevailing practice of psychology in America." \\


Major guy, most psychologists agree, get it?

Joe Hinman said...

Aside from the fact that you you torture your readers with language that is barely recognizable as English,

You are blaming me for your limited education. I you can't keep up you should not be shooting your mouth off about ideas you don't understand,

this whole paragraph is an example of your self-contradictory approach to justifying what you want to believe. First, you say that the things people report about their mystical experiences are "unique" and "not things people normally experience". Then you go on to say that they report the the exact same things, even though they are from Iran or India.


You are really desperate to find a criticism. Not all people have these experiences but they are found in all faiths and all cultures. Among those who heave them there is remarkable similarity,. what's so contradictory about that?.

So what are they, unique experiences or common experiences? And if they are indeed common experiences, how can that possibly justify that Stace got anything right? On the other hand, if they are unique experiences, how would that justify that Stace got anything right?

Universal to all cultural and faiths not to all individuals, try to keeo up

Joe Hinman said...

ims you say you could not find anything about it on google, even on the regular google search I found a whole page full of stuff. I bet you were looking right at it and didn't know what you were seeing,. Of course I' sure you don't know to use google scholar or what it means that google scholar has a bunch of stuff a out it. It means it's scholarly.

search on google scholar

I've linked to a lot of things and you have not looked at any of them.

You want to see the survey as though you have the expertise to debunk it. you don 't. It will look real simple to you and since you don't know anything about it you will be dismissive of it.

there is no attack you can make that I have not answered. you can find a copy in Hood's book Psychology of religion an empirical approach. Hood and Spilka

Joe Hinman said...

M "scale widely used and Most effective" that's what this article says about it. That was 2001 so she's talking about the old 1975 two factor approach. Her criticisms re out of date but she does say most effective and widely used. The three factor version is even better.

another page full of studies about the M scale

im-skeptical said...

Joe,

First, you are correct that I am not a sociologist. Also, I am not in academia now, so I don't have access to all the research material. But don't mistake me for a scientific ignoramus like most of the people you usually preach to.

You found a lot of quotes that sing the praises of Hood, but I was asking you to give me some understanding of the alleged science. You have completely failed to do this. I asked you to show me the survey, so I can see what kind of questions it includes, and you refused, What are you hiding? If this is legitimate, you shouldn't have to keep it hidden.

Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. [bolded by you] ... Major guy, most psychologists agree, get it?
- Um, that's not what it says. In fact, it says the opposite of that.

You are blaming me for your limited education. I you can't keep up you should not be shooting your mouth off about ideas you don't understand,
- No. Your writing is atrocious. If you have dyslexia, that may contribute to typing errors, but you should take extra time to read what you have written and make corrections. Sometimes it is impossible to make out what you are saying. That's not my fault.

You are really desperate to find a criticism. Not all people have these experiences but they are found in all faiths and all cultures. Among those who heave them there is remarkable similarity,. what's so contradictory about that?
- It's a legitimate question. You say it's unique, and you say it's universal. Those two things have opposite meanings. You're contradicting yourself. I asked you to clarify, because what you said makes no sense.

Universal to all cultural and faiths not to all individuals, try to keeo up
- So then why did you call it unique? Please clarify, because I don't understand what you're saying.

ims you say you could not find anything about it on google
- I didn't say that. There are books that I don't want to buy, and abstracts for papers that I don't want to buy.

search on google scholar
- A few abstracts and books. But again, nothing for me to read. (And don't ask me to spend my hard-earned money to obtain this material. That's why I was asking you to explain it.)

M "scale widely used and Most effective" that's what this article says about it. That was 2001 so she's talking about the old 1975 two factor approach. Her criticisms re out of date but she does say most effective and widely used. The three factor version is even better.
- You say SHE. The article was written by two men. But this article is about whether it's better to allow a neutral response in the questionnaire. It has nothing to do with your position is valid, but you were searching for that phrase: "widely used and most effective". Of course, a phrase like that must be placed in context. Widely used for what? Effective for what? I looked at the journal where this appears. Ammons Scientific publishes non-mainstream, alternative, and speculative stuff. It's one of those pay-to-be published things, like what the ID "scientists" use. To quote Mr. Ammons: "I’m the direct outgrowth of my parents’ attitude towards science as being a wonderful but limited problem solving tool."

another page full of studies about the M scale
- I see two different studies here. One is the above-mentioned "does the presence of a neutral response-item affect response style". The other is "Hood's Mysticism Scale Revisited: A Factor-Analytic Replication". Both of these are abstracts, and provide nothing substantial for me to read. One of them appears to be completely irrelevant to your thesis.

Joe Hinman said...

First, you are correct that I am not a sociologist. Also, I am not in academia now, so I don't have access to all the research material. But don't mistake me for a scientific ignoramus like most of the people you usually preach to.


When I first saw your posts on cadre blog I thought at the time you knew a fair amount about science. you do. you know as lot facts of science but science is not just a pile of facts. It's method and philosophy of method. Never underestimate your opponent. you are myopic because y0u assume that guys thinks stuff I don't like so he must be dumb..


You found a lot of quotes that sing the praises of Hood, but I was asking you to give me some understanding of the alleged science. You have completely failed to do this.

that is clearly not true. you would have learned all the stuff you asked bout if you had read the fist article I linked to when I said to you and Pixie "gentleman the long article."



Joe Hinman said...

I asked you to show me the survey, so I can see what kind of questions it includes, and you refused, What are you hiding? If this is legitimate, you shouldn't have to keep it hidden.


why would you think it would magically be there to link to just because you want to see it? I did look. show me the instrument used by the Borg study. Why can't you show it what are you hiding? Besides I've been thought the same stupid thing with atheists on CARM for year. you think you are going to find some flaw in it. you wont, you don't have the expertise to criticize it. I know you are going say I






Joe Hinman said...

Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. [bolded by you] ... Major guy, most psychologists agree, get it?
- Um, that's not what it says. In fact, it says the opposite of that.

here is thye whole quote again.v this is not me the whole thing is the quote. se3e the quote marks?


"Ralph Hood (1998), :a major figure in American psychology of religion, suggests six psychological schools of thought regarding religion. The psychoanalytical schools draw from the work of Freud, and attempt to reveal unconscious motives for religious belief. Although Freud reduced religious belief to a natural, if ultimately flawed, attempt to cope with life's stresses, contemporary psychoanalytic interpretations are not necessarily hostile to religious faith. Analytical schools find their inspiration in Jung's description of spiritual life. Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology. Object relations schools also draw from psychoanalysis, but focus their efforts on maternal influences on the child. Each of these three schools rely on clinical case studies and other descriptive methods based on small samples, which runs counter to the prevailing practice of psychology in America."

the very first sentence says he's a major figure. It does not say the opposite of "most agree" it says contemporary shrinks don't see religion as a bad thing that is n a sense agreement with Hood's poit. It sure as hell does not say thie opposite that would be that none of them like it.

you think this next statement refers to Hood, it does not.

"Analytical schools find their inspiration in Jung's description of spiritual life. Most psychologists, however, consider such descriptions to be undemonstrated by scientific research, and therefore it plays a limited role in psychology."


that is not saying the M scale is undemonstrated it says Jung is talking about jnung not Hood. Hood is not Jungian.

Joe Hinman said...

You are blaming me for your limited education. I you can't keep up you should not be shooting your mouth off about ideas you don't understand,


- No. Your writing is atrocious. If you have dyslexia, that may contribute to typing errors, but you should take extra time to read what you have written and make corrections. Sometimes it is impossible to make out what you are saying. That's not my fault.

you are not willing to lean I don't have time to waste on your idiocy.


Joe Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said...

Dale Caird
originally in journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126

"Research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated over the last decade by Hood (1975). Utilizing the conceptual framework of Stace (1960) he devised a 32 item questionnaire tapping eight categories of mysticism. This questionnaire the M scale was shown by Hood to have respectable internal consistency and reasonable construct validity.

Joe Hinman said...

I have obviously wont the debate. you have no idea what you are reading, you are refusing to look at good evidence that destroys your feeble arguments and answers your questions. you refuse to look at it because you don't get what it is. One study says "f2 factor analysis" you don'/t even see that as about the M scale but it is. The M scale is the factor analysis, or the out of date version is. So you are not eve willing to investigate enough to see how wrong you fare.

you think you re really making big point with this aging bullshit but all it says to me is "I don't know nothing.,'

Then complaining because guy has command of a more sophisticated vocabulary nothing says' Hey I'm stupid" faster.

you refuse to read the stuff iv give you. you have no evidence you makes assertion based upon prejudices and no data. not one counter study.

I have no more time to waste on your crap. you obviously are out gunned and have no arguments.

Joe Hinman said...

M "scale widely used and Most effective" that's what this article says about it. That was 2001 so she's talking about the old 1975 two factor approach. Her criticisms re out of date but she does say most effective and widely used. The three factor version is even better.


- You say SHE. The article was written by two men. But this article is about whether it's better to allow a neutral response in the questionnaire. It has nothing to do with your position is valid, but you were searching for that phrase:


Can't you follow as simple sentence? you said there was nothing about it except my stuff. so I', showing you how stupid that is,. here is a thing about it. it does say widely used and most effective. If they found a problem it doesn't say it's a piece of shit.



"widely used and most effective". Of course, a phrase like that must be placed in context. Widely used for what? Effective for what? I looked at the journal where this appears.

if actually read the stuff I linked to you would know the context. you know absolutory nothing about this topic because you refuse to read anything

Ammons Scientific publishes non-mainstream, alternative, and speculative stuff. It's one of those pay-to-be published things, like what the ID "scientists" use. To quote Mr. Ammons: "I’m the direct outgrowth of my parents’ attitude towards science as being a wonderful but limited problem solving tool."

look you don't shit from shinola about academic publishing
Donald.




another page full of studies about the M scale

- I see two different studies here. One is the above-mentioned "does the presence of a neutral response-item affect response style". The other is "Hood's Mysticism Scale Revisited: A Factor-Analytic Replication". Both of these are abstracts, and provide nothing substantial for me to read. One of them appears to be completely irrelevant to your thesis.

you didn't look at the link Donald.

Joe Hinman said...

I have quoted way more than enough to how the M scale works and the most corroborated scale of it's kind. He said there's nothing on it. so I linked a whole page and he says it's just tgw3o studies. here's the page.



Hood Mysticism Scale Questions Mysticism and Religion



















The Hood Mysticism Scale: does the presence of a neutral ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11351868

1. Psychol Rep. 2001 Apr;88(2):335-8. The Hood Mysticism Scale: does the presence of a neutral response-item affect response style. Mercer C(1), Durham TW.


www.jstor.org

www.jstor.org/stable/1387407

Title: The Structure of Hood's Mysticism Scale: A Factor-Analytic Study Created Date: 20160330213258Z


Theories, Concepts, and Measurements | Mysticism Scale

wiki.thearda.com/tcm/measures/mysticism

Hood (1975) developed a series of questions based on Stace (1960) that were designed to tap into experiences perceived as transcending cultural and temporal ...


www.jstor.org

www.jstor.org/stable/1387178

Title: Hood's Mysticism Scale Revisited: A Factor-Analytic Replication Created Date: 20160330004148Z


Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social ...

hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/mysticism.htm

Encyclopedia of Religion and Society ... Surveys of Mystical Experience. Hood's ... His Mysticism Scale, Research Form D ...


Hood Mysticism Scale: Good Friday Experiment, Religion ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qeLfh7E9mA

Hood Mysticism Scale: Good Friday Experiment, Religion, and the Mystical Experience from Psilocybin ... Ralph Hood, PhD Talks About His Mysticism Scale…


THE HOOD MYSTICISM SCALE: DOES THE PRESENCE OF A NEUTRAL ...

www.amsciepub.com/…dfplus/10.2466/pr0.2001.88.2.335

HOOD MYSTICISM SCALE METHOD Participants included 48 students who were enrolled in one of two sec- tions of a senior undergraduate psychology course in Tests ...


I put up a link with 100 studies that I use in my book ,he didn't say anything. he did't read it.

Joe Hinman said...

I linked to this way up there back in the gaining,.vhe didn't look because he doesn't want to know. it's about half the studies in my book about 100 of them these studies are not all om the M scale but they show the value of religious experience in some way,.

List of studies

Joe Hinman said...

here's one of the first things I linked to. of course he didn't even try to read it. If he had he would have found answers to everything he's asked.

HERE

im-skeptical said...

Joe,

you know as lot facts of science but science is not just a pile of facts. It's method and philosophy of method. Never underestimate your opponent. you are myopic because y0u assume that guys thinks stuff I don't like so he must be dumb.
- You're wrong about me. You see, I don't go around touting my academic credentials the way you and many others do, just to impress people. But by the time I got my BS, I'll wager I knew more about science than you will ever know. And it's pretty easy to tell when people are pretending, or when they're just plain full of shit. Now I'm not saying Hood's work is of no value. I am saying it is not mainstream. It's not what you make it out to be. And it's definitely not the final word in understanding religious experiences.

that is clearly not true. you would have learned all the stuff you asked bout if you had read the fist article I linked to when I said to you and Pixie "gentleman the long article."
- I read what you wrote. There are many questions unanswered. The problem is that you describe it in a qualitative way, but you don't explain how it works. You make claims like "supernature manifests itself in the natural realm through brain chemistry". This is not based on ANY scientific information that I can discern, other than your mysterious M scale. Your six "tie-breakers" are nothing more than interpretations of the experience, based on beliefs already held.

why would you think it would magically be there to link to just because you want to see it? I did look. show me the instrument used by the Borg study. Why can't you show it what are you hiding? Besides I've been thought the same stupid thing with atheists on CARM for year. you think you are going to find some flaw in it. you wont, you don't have the expertise to criticize it. I know you are going say I
- I just want to understand it better. For one thing, I don't see how people answering a survey could give the researcher any true understanding of the subjective phenomenological experience. This is the same issue that undergirds the whole "hard problem of consciousness". It's our inability to objectively grasp what is inherently subjective in our conscious experience.

the very first sentence says he's a major figure. It does not say the opposite of "most agree" it says contemporary shrinks don't see religion as a bad thing that is n a sense agreement with Hood's poit. It sure as hell does not say thie opposite that would be that none of them like it. you think this next statement refers to Hood, it does not.
- You think that paragraph says most psychologists agree with Hood. It does not. What it says is that there is a lot of disagreement. Nowhere does it say that "most psychologists agree" with Hood, or anyone else.

you are not willing to lean I don't have time to waste on your idiocy.
- And if you are not willing to correct your own bad typing, why should I spend the time trying to figure out what you're saying? I did a little analysis of my own. I really don't know how much of this is attributable to dyslexia, but I can see clearly that much of it is just what we call "fat fingers". Like when you want to type 's' and you end up hitting the 'd' key. Or sometimes "d' and 's' together. I do that all the time, and I don't always correct it, but I do correct the majority of typing errors I make.

im-skeptical said...


One study says "f2 factor analysis" you don'/t even see that as about the M scale but it is. The M scale is the factor analysis, or the out of date version is. So you are not eve willing to investigate enough to see how wrong you fare.
- No. It's just an abstract, and there's nothing for me to read so that I can understand it. That's what I told you. Or could it be the case that you wrote your whole book on the basis of a group of abstracts, without understanding the actual papers? Because honestly, I have seen no evidence that YOU understand any of this. You can't explain how it works. You can't give me any details so that I can get a better understanding of it. All I see from you is jacket-cover praises of Hood and his work, along with a few abstracts for studies of dubious relevance (which you can't even explain).

Can't you follow as simple sentence? you said there was nothing about it except my stuff. so I', showing you how stupid that is,. here is a thing about it. it does say widely used and most effective. If they found a problem it doesn't say it's a piece of shit.
- You don't understand what I'm telling you. All you did was find something on the internet that has a sentence claiming the M scale is widely used. But that article was a abstract for an article that has nothing to do with your thesis, as far as I can tell. So you spent the whole day searching the internet for sentences like that, when what I want to know is what does it do, how does it do it, and how does it fit into mainstream science? You completely ignore the questions I have, because (as I'm increasingly convinced) you have no answers to them.

if actually read the stuff I linked to you would know the context. you know absolutory nothing about this topic because you refuse to read anything
- I read it. It was just an abstract. I've asked you over and over to show mw something more than that, so I can understand it better.

look you don't shit from shinola about academic publishing
- I read a whole interview of Ammons. He revealed a lot about his publication business, including how much he charges per page. I would suggest that you don't know the difference between mainstream and "alternative" science publications.

you didn't look at the link Donald.
- I don't know about Donald, but I certainly looked. Not only that, but I looked at everything that came up in the first page of the search. That's why I can say that there were only two studies. But you think it's a whole lot more than that, because YOU didn't bother looking.

I put up a link with 100 studies that I use in my book ,he didn't say anything. he did't read it.
- I don't think there are 100 studies on this. All you did was list your references, and the references of others. Those aren't all scientific studies, and I know you haven't read all of that material. There's plenty there that apparently has little or nothing to do with your thesis.

Joe Hinman said...

I don't think there are 100 studies on this. All you did was list your references, and the references of others. Those aren't all scientific studies, and I know you haven't read all of that material. There's plenty there that apparently has little or nothing to do with your thesis.


you have such respect for science that you can't even look at the evidence it's so unthinkable to you that some evidence might really disprove your view. you can't bring yourself to examine it. O yea you really have such a great love of learning and thinking! you can't even risk knowing you might be wrong.

Here is an article, it's not a study it's an article but it explains about several of the studies and it proves they eixst and that they are good studies.



Krishna K. Mohan, “Spirituality and Wellbeing: an Overview.” An Article based upon a Presentation made during the Second International Conference on Integral Psychology, held at Pondicherry India 4-7 January 2001, published in hard copy, Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) (2001) Consciousness and Its Transformation. Pondicherry: SAICE.On line copy website of the India Psychology Institute. Site visited 9/3/12. URL:http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php Accessed 2/7/2016

http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php

Joe Hinman said...

read the article before you say anything else

im-skeptical said...

Joe,

Why don't you listen? I never said there were no studies about spirituality. I never said there were no studies relating to your M scale. I asked you for some information that would help me understand your arguments better. You say your article provides all the answers, but it doesn't answer my questions. Then you start talking about all these studies that prove whatever your argument is. Fine. I read your article. I read your links. I still don't have answers to the questions I have. And your response is that I just don't want to read the material, or that I don't understand science. But you haven't shown me anything that gives the kind of information I would like to see.

Your latest link is more of the same. Yes, I read it. It summarizes some studies relating to spirituality and its correlation to well-being. OK, great. How does that relate to your own thesis? It never even mentions the M scale. I don't see how you think this answers my questions. It doesn't.

There was one thing I noted about it, though. It talks about how spirituality has been neglected in science, and that there may now be some awakening of this field. (The paper appears to be about 18 years old.) But none of that discussion says anything at all about what you claimed to be "widely used". If it's so widely used, why doesn't it merit a single mention in this paper that gives an overview of what's going on in the field?

Joe Hinman said...

Why don't you listen? I never said there were no studies about spirituality. I never said there were no studies relating to your M scale. I asked you for some information that would help me understand your arguments better.

That's really changing your tune because you did say exactly that "Can't find anything on it."



You say your article provides all the answers, but it doesn't answer my questions. Then you start talking about all these studies that prove whatever your argument is. Fine. I read your article. I read your links.

Nope never said that. I've always been very specific about what studies say. I said the Mohan article discusses several of the studies since you questioned that studies even exit. you know you did, it's right there a couple of posts back everyone can see it.



Joe Hinman said...

I still don't have answers to the questions I have.

I've answered everything

And your response is that I just don't want to read the material, or that I don't understand science. But you haven't shown me anything that gives the kind of information I would like to see.

if the answer is on a link then 'read the link" is an answer. I also tell you what the answer is. now instead of whining like this you could be asking questions.



Your latest link is more of the same. Yes, I read it. It summarizes some studies relating to spirituality and its correlation to well-being. OK, great. How does that relate to your own thesis? It never even mentions the M scale. I don't see how you think this answers my questions. It doesn't.

let's think about it real careful now, since I told you the debate was about religion is a good thing and enhances well being that makes the article pretty central to the debate doesn't it? since you made the claim that you bet there are no studies I'm just listing references then article proves there are studies and you JUST ADMIOTTTED IT!!!1



There was one thing I noted about it, though. It talks about how spirituality has been neglected in science, and that there may now be some awakening of this field. (The paper appears to be about 18 years old.) But none of that discussion says anything at all about what you claimed to be "widely used". If it's so widely used, why doesn't it merit a single mention in this paper that gives an overview of what's going on in the field?


that's the kind of specific I do go into in detail in the book. Several of the studies he mentioned use the M scale. Not all the studies use it and that's ok because it means we are getting a parallax view. they still agree in their conclusions. Mohan is not a methodology guy he doesn't go that much into detail about the methodologies so not strnage that he doesn[t nention the M scale.

Joe Hinman said...

we are losing sight of the point of the debate. two fold:

I. religion is good thing. It's not evil it's not something to avoid or outgrow. it makes your life better in dramatic ways and it' a positive force. That doesn't mean any particular church is good but in general religion is positive.

I.then I have two God arguments, that is argument that belief in God is rationally warranted.

(1) we can trust this type of religious experience (Stace's mystical) because it conforms to the criteria we use to determine reality.

(2) Religious symbols and ideas are cultural they are not genetic. thus the universality of experience among those who have mystical experience implies that there is an objective reality they are experiencing.

im-skeptical said...

So what is this discussion about?

In your OP, you introduced two different topics for discussion. First, the notion that mystical experiences provide epistemic warrant for belief in God. Second, that mystical experiences have positive effects. Neither of these addresses the issue of whether religion is a good thing, so I don't know why you're trying to change the subject now.

Central to your ideas about mystical experiences is the claim that they are empirically identifiable and measurable, and that they imply the reality of God. In support of that you introduced the discussion of the M scale. That happened in your very first comment. I have followed up on your claims about the M scale by asking questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer. And now, you're telling me that we are losing sight of the debate and trying to change the topic.

You keep accusing me of saying things I didn't say. You even put words in quotes attributed to me: you did say exactly that "Can't find anything on it." But I never said that. Please feel free to quote me on what I say, but you have no right to put your own words in my mouth. Furthermore, I told you repeatedly that you are misrepresenting what I said, and you keep lying about it. You even came over to my blog and repeated your lies there (completely off-topic, I might add). What I've been trying to tell you all this time is that I have been unable to find something more than links to books and abstracts of papers - I'm looking for something I can read online without spending my money to get it. My goal is to understand what you have been talking about. And you turn that into a claim that such material doesn't exist. But I never said that. Why don't you listen? Are you daft?

Joe Hinman said...

So what is this discussion about?

In your OP, you introduced two different topics for discussion. First, the notion that mystical experiences provide epistemic warrant for belief in God. Second, that mystical experiences have positive effects. Neither of these addresses the issue of whether religion is a good thing, so I don't know why you're trying to change the subject now.

positive effects are obviously a good thing. If not thn nothing is."Positive" m means good. The list in the op of results includes all kinds of good stuff like being a better person being more confidant self assured getting off drugs and so on.


Central to your ideas about mystical experiences is the claim that they are empirically identifiable and measurable, and that they imply the reality of God. In support of that you introduced the discussion of the M scale. That happened in your very first comment. I have followed up on your claims about the M scale by asking questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer. And now, you're telling me that we are losing sight of the debate and trying to change the topic.

I've answered every question you asked. I alluded to studies I've linked to studies I've e given list of studies and I've linked to papers where I list the studies and explain about them and I linked to an article by a psychologist explaining about the studies. Mohan. I can't put the whole study kin the text box.


Joe Hinman said...

You keep accusing me of saying things I didn't say. You even put words in quotes attributed to me: you did say exactly that "Can't find anything on it." But I never said that.

that is a lie because said exactly that.


Please feel free to quote me on what I say, but you have no right to put your own words in my mouth. Furthermore, I told you repeatedly that you are misrepresenting what I said, and you keep lying about it. You even came over to my blog and repeated your lies there (completely off-topic, I might add).


that's total bull shit, you change what you say, you probably don't realize how it sounds.so you don't recognize my paraphrasing,

What I've been trying to tell you all this time is that I have been unable to find something more than links to books and abstracts of papers - I'm looking for something I can read online without spending my money to get it.



that one thing by merchant and that other guy, there one you say is an abstract, the whole study is there, you have to pay to read it. I don't have the money to pay for you. That's the way it is with most studies. You are just going to have to sigh up with Jstor on a trail basis they wet you look at a couple of articles that way..


My goal is to understand what you have been talking about. And you turn that into a claim that such material doesn't exist. But I never said that. Why don't you listen? Are you daft?
8:15 AM

ok I am doing my bet to help you

Joe Hinman said...

here isan example of you saying something totally provocative, insulting nd factually wrong.

Yes, you can. Science does not support any such bullshit. The people you cite are not mainstream scientists. They have bizarre theories that are rejected by most scientists. If you google M scale, most of what comes up is the stuff you've written about it. That just shows how narrow the support for this stuff is. Why don't you ever cite REAL science in your articles, instead of this left-field religious fundie crap? (And please don't try to tell me that the guys who do this, like Hood, are not religious.)

I documented several sources that Hood is valued and his work is accepted and M scales is widely used.

when I said you said you could not fid anything about it, /the statement above sets the tone so when you say "nothing about it;: it means to me there are not studies, you actually did accurse me of passing off references as studies, so clearly you did try to imply that there are no studies,

having proved there are you now back peddel ,try to spin it like you just mean you want an actual study to real which I'k sire you do you said both.

im-skeptical said...

So you are daft.

I told you what I was looking for. I told you that you were misrepresenting my words. I told you not to put your own words in my mouth. And there you go again. You have again put quotes on words that you attribute to me that I never said. This is bullshit. You don't understand simple, plain English. It's no wonder you keep citing articles that don't say what you think they do.


Joe Hinman said...

so you now deny that every said my 100 studies weren't real studies?

Joe Hinman said...

"- I don't think there are 100 studies on this. All you did was list your references, and the references of others. Those aren't all scientific studies, and I know you haven't read all of that material. There's plenty there that apparently has little or nothing to do with your thesis."

you deny saying that?

im-skeptical said...

Joe, you don't listen to a word I say, do you? There aren't 100 studies on the M scale, are there?

Every time I ask you to show me something, all you do is point to a lot of crap about spirituality in general. Most of those studies aren't even about mystical experiences, let alone the M scale. I told you, I never denied that people have studied spirituality. But you make claims about how empirical evidence shows that God-belief is warranted, and you say that there are hundreds of studies that show it. These studies show no such thing. Most of them are about psychological factors (associated with spirituality) that correlate with health and well-being. They don't even show causality, but simply correlations, for the most part.

All that's fine, but it doesn't help to make the case for your claims. If you want me or anyone else to believe what you claim, you need to show some convincing evidence for it, and you haven't done that. Saying there are hundreds of empirical studies that support it, without being able to show me anything that actually does that, only leads me to conclude that you're slinging hot air. As someone who appreciates the value of scientific investigation, I want to see the evidence. As far as I can tell, you don't have any.

Joe Hinman said...

Every time I ask you to show me something, all you do is point to a lot of crap about spirituality in general. Most of those studies aren't even about mystical experiences, let alone the M scale.

you don't know that,. you have not read a one of then you are full of sht. yo8u have not even looked at the no way you think if you have even half a brain.

here are a bunch of them

References

Adams, N. (1995). Spirituality, science and therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 16 (4), 201-208.


you saw that title and said 'that's nota out mysticism i's about spirituality" that takes real sptidi8tyl because spirituality is a general category that might housie mystical experience. you have no valid reason to doubt it you arte desperate and cltchimg at straw.

Alexander, C. (1978). A literature review of the individual differences approach to mystical states of consciousness and a proposed alternative perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Cambridge, MA.

now that can't be about mystical experiencer because it say is mystical states hu duh.In the books I talk about specific studies and what they say. buy the book!

Alexander, C. (1982). Ego development, personality and behavioral change in inmates practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique or participating in other programs: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Alexander, C., Boyer, R. & Orme-Johnson, D. (1985). Distinguishing between transcendental consciousness and lucidity. Lucidity Letter, 4(2), 68-85.

TM often known to produce mystical experience.

Alexander, C.N., Chandler, K. & Boyer, R.W. (in press). Experience and understanding of pure consciousness in the Vedic Science of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In Gackenbach, J.I. & Hunt, H. (Eds.). Higher states of consciousness: Theoretical and experimental perspectives, N.Y.: Plenum. 1990

pure consciousness is a synonym for mystical experience.

Joe Hinman said...

Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Dixon, C.A., Dillbeck, M.C., Oetzel, R.M., Muehlman, J.M. & Orme-Johnson, D.W. (in press). Higher stages of consciousness beyond formal operations: The Vedic psychology of human development. In C.N. Alexander and E.J. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Adult growth beyond formal operations, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Allman, L.S., Dela, R.O., Elins, D.N., & Weathers, R.S. (1992). Psychotherapists attitude towards mystical experiences. Psychotherapy, 29, 564-569





Savage, C., Fadiman, J., Mogar, R. & Allen, M. (1966). “The effects of psychedelic therapy on values, personality, and behaviour”. International Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 2, 241-254.

Anson, O., Antonovskay, A., & Sagy. (1990). “Religiosity and well-being among retirees: A question of causality”. Behaviour, Health & Aging, 1, 85-87.

Armstrong Hickey, D. (June, 1988). A psychological and self-report study of lucid dreams in school age children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Dreams, Santa Cruz, CA.
Armstrong, T. (1984). Transpersonal experience in childhood. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(2), 207-230.



Atchley, R.C. (1997). “The subjective importance and being religious and its effects on health and morale 14 years later”. Journal of Aging Studies, 11, 131-141.

Ball, R.A & Goodyear, R.K. (1991). “Self-reported professional practices of Christian psychotherapists”. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 10, 144-153.

Balodhi, J.P., Chowdhary, J.R. (1986). “Psychiatric concepts in Atharva Veda: A review”. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 63-68.

Banquet, J.P., & Sailhan, M. (1976). Quantified EEG spectral analysis of sleep and Transcendental Meditation. In D.W. Orme-Johnson & J.T. Farrow (Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation program: Collected papers, Vol. 1 (p. 182-186). West Germany: MERU Press.

Becker, M. & Herter, G. (1973). Effect of meditation upon SREM. Sleep Research, 2, 90.






Bergin, A.E. (1980). Psychotherapy and religious values. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 95-105.

Bergin, A.E. (1983). “Religiosity and mental health: A critical reevaluation and meta analysis”. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 170-184.

Bergin, A.E. (1991). “Values and Religious issues in Psychotherapy and mental health”. American Psychologist, 46, 394-403.

Bergin, A.E. & Payne, I.R. (1993). “Proposed agenda for a spiritual strategy in personality and psychotherapy”, in E.L. Wothington, Jr. (Ed.). Psychotherapy and Religious Values, (pp. 243-260). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Bhagawad Gita. (1905). Translation by Besant, A. & Das, B. London and Benares: Theological Publishing Society.

Joe Hinman said...

reqd the whole list

im-skeptical said...

OK, Joe. I told you, I'm not going out to buy a hundred books. I told you I would like to see something online that would corroborate what you claim. I've seen nothing.

Why don't you help me put a little. You can provide a few directly quoted passages from these sources that show how the M scale is used to give us an empirical understanding of the phenomenological experience of mysticism. Not necessarily a full explanation, but just enough to prove that it's what that source is talking about, and that there's some real science behind your claims. Or how about the epistemological justification for God-belief that we supposedly get from this. Which of these sources cover that, and exactly what does it say on the matter?

Your list includes crap like this:
Ring, K. & Rosing, C.J. (1990). The Omega project: A psychological survey of persons reporting abductions and other UFO encounters. Journal of UFO Studies, 2, 59-98.
Are you serious?

Joe Hinman said...

I can't put a study in a text box. just buy two books .Mine and Hood's

Hood and Spilka Religious experience: empirical approach