Friday, July 15, 2016

Challenge to antheists debate my God argument

fun filled Friday

Image hosted by Photobucket.com



RE = Religious experoemce of the kind called "mystiocal"

*The criteria: If our experiences are: (RCS)

*Regular
*consistant
*inter=subjective
*navigational

Argument:

(1) we trust perceptions that work for us in navigating the world

(2) we juge by criteria RCS*

(3) RE fits this criteria

(4 )enables navigation

(5) :. we are warranted to trust RE as indicative



you don't have to do the I am nt a robot thing, just press the button and post 9t.





48 comments:

Eric Sotnak said...

Here is a reconstruction of your argument that renders it explicitly deductively valid:

(1) If a category of experiences is generally regular, consistent, intersubjective, and navigational, then if those experiences are indicative of X, then we are warranted in accepting X.
(2) Religious experiences are generally regular, consistent, intersubjective, and navigational.
(3) Therefore, if experiences are indicative of the existence of God, then we are warranted in accepting the existence of God.
(4) Religious experiences are indicative of the existence of God.
(5) Therefore, we are warranted in accepting the existence of God.

Do you think this is a fair reconstruction of your argument?

Mike Gerow said...

Eric, that's a good write-up, I think.

Joe Hinman said...

thanks Eric I appreciate it can we discuss the content?

im-skeptical said...

(1) We trust sensory experiences that work for us in navigating the world
(2) Criteria: correspondence to objective reality
(3) Therefore, if sensory experiences correspond to objective reality, we are warranted in trusting those experiences.
(4) Religious experiences are subjective and don't correspond to objective reality.
(5) Religious experiences are interpreted in different ways by different people.
(6) Religious experiences tend to confirm beliefs that we already hold. They never give us any new information.
(7) :. we are not warranted in believing whatever interpretation we make of those religious experiences

Joe Hinman said...

(1) We trust sensory experiences that work for us in navigating the world
(2) Criteria: correspondence to objective reality
(3) Therefore, if sensory experiences correspond to objective reality, we are warranted in trusting those experiences.
(4) Religious experiences are subjective and don't correspond to objective reality.
(5) Religious experiences are interpreted in different ways by different people.
(6) Religious experiences tend to confirm beliefs that we already hold. They never give us any new information.
(7) :. we are not warranted in believing whatever interpretation we make of those religious experiences

8:07 PM Delete


the studies in my book prove that experiences are inter subjective, you are just ignoring two premoses. you have no data to contgradioct them.

that people explain then differently doesn't change the experience itself, they have the same experiences and that indicstres an objective reality is experienced

Joe Hinman said...

Eric I think your version masks the thing the argument turns on, the criteria

im-skeptical said...

the studies in my book prove that experiences are inter subjective, you are just ignoring two premoses. you have no data to contgradioct them.
- Brain starved of oxygen, people see something resembling a "light" at the end of the tunnel. That's the inter-subjective experience.

that people explain then differently doesn't change the experience itself, they have the same experiences and that indicstres an objective reality is experienced
- Christian thinks it's Jesus. Atheist thinks it's a brain starved of oxygen. The experience doesn't prove anything at all.

Joe, your argument is nothing more than wishful thinking. There's no proof of anything there.

Joe Hinman said...

the studies in my book prove that experiences are inter subjective, you are just ignoring two premoses. you have no data to contgradioct them.
- Brain starved of oxygen, people see something resembling a "light" at the end of the tunnel. That's the inter-subjective experience.


not applicable those kinds of studies don't pertain to mystical experience which does not involve visions,no one's braim is denied oxygen

that people explain then differently doesn't change the experience itself, they have the same experiences and that indicstres an objective reality is experienced
- Christian thinks it's Jesus. Atheist thinks it's a brain starved of oxygen. The experience doesn't prove anything at all.

that does not change the fact that when they describe then they are same,when they try to understand them they may resort to different ideas in describing what is experienced it's the same,



Joe, your argument is nothing more than wishful thinking. There's no proof of anything there.


stop ignoring there evidence .you dominant know shit about these studies. you have no concept ofwhat I'm, talkimng about,

Joe Hinman said...

this page gives a lot of summaries of the studies

More detailed article written for academic comnfderence


part 2

My Book

Joe Hinman said...

that should say "academic conference," I was focussed on the link

Mike Gerow said...

So far, not too many people have tried to deal with your core argument at all, I don't think, at least not from what I've seen...but then again, it's not really stated here either, as I'm Skeptical has pointed out. I agree with him that just the consistency of the experience itself doesn't do much for your case - you need to show the more far reaching effects.

The real point is about longterm efficacy, personality changes for the better, measurable by sociological methods & correlated with those whose experiences scored high on the M-scale. That's what points at some " reality."

Otoh, that's more than what you said here....

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

Brain starved of oxygen, people see something resembling a "light" at the end of the tunnel. That's the inter-subjective experience.

Christian thinks it's Jesus. Atheist thinks it's a brain starved of oxygen. The experience doesn't prove anything at all.

Joe, your argument is nothing more than wishful thinking. There's no proof of anything there.


Skeppy, that oxygen canard has been debunked as a cause of NDE's. And, in my reading (on NDERF), a lot of people that go out of their body (and ones that go to the light and tunnel) don't claim to see Jesus or any other religious figure, no matter what their affiliation.

Also, it seems to me that the only thing you do is come on to Christian-oriented sites and make stupid statements with no knowledge. Why is that? On DI and Feser, you seemed to irritate several people with your stupid statements. So did your plagiarizing buddy.

im-skeptical said...

From your article:
Buddhists recognize Buddha mind as ultimate reality, while Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christians recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality, Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality, but all say they experience ultimate reality. This is a good indication that the same basic reality stands behind this experience, or to say it another way they are all experiences of the same reality.

This is just a groundless assertion. Every human shares certain kinds of experience with the rest of humanity. We all feel pain, for example. That's an inter-subjective experience. We all have some kind of sense of awe. The well-known fact is that many people interpret this feeling in a manner that is consistent with their religious beliefs. But that doesn't in any way imply that those religious beliefs are true, or that it is God causing these feelings. We know for a fact that there are many ways of inducing feelings like this, by electro-chemical means, or even through psychological manipulation. What this tells an objective observer is that these experiences are triggered by non-supernatural causes.


Mystical experience is universal and identical in phenomenological terms.

It is impossible to know such a thing. We can't say that the phenomenological experience of so-called qualia, such as redness, is identical among people. These experiences are subjective. There is no way to describe them in an objective manner. All we can do is have people answer questions about their experience, but the questions themselves may be leading, or make unjustified assumptions. This is the major problem with your M-scale. The underlying experience may indeed be common among different people, but to say that it conveys "a sense of undifferentiated unity of all things" is only the result of asking leading questions. The M-scale was designed by a theist for the purpose of producing such results. It's pure bullshit.


The body of work to which I refer consists of about 200 studies (one could say 300 but let’s be conservative).

I've looked at your "body of work" before. Just copying the bibliography from a book on spirituality and well-being doesn't support your claim. The vast majority of these citations have nothing to do with "mystical experiences", or M-scale, or anything relevant to the claims you make at all. This is sheer intellectual dishonesty. The fact is that there is very little that you can reasonably cite as being relevant to your claims.

Mike Gerow said...

Well, those are pretty serious accusations, Skept?

Got any proof?

JBsptfn said...

Well, those are pretty serious accusations, Skept?

Got any proof?


Mike, this is Im Skeptical we are talking about. He never has any proof. He just rambles on and on about things that he doesn't know about.

People on other sites have had problems with him, and have gotten sick of him quickly. One commenter (site and username won't be shared) said that they would get more intellectual satisfaction by throwing peanuts at a monkey than arguing with Skeppy.

im-skeptical said...

I would remind you that the one making claims here is Joe. I have asked him to show his proof again and again. I asked him to explain how subjective experiences can be objectively measured, or how they can be linked to knowledge of God. I asked him to show me the questions in the M-scale survey. He won't. I asked him to show me the "300 studies" that support his case. All he has is a long list of irrelevant citations. All we can get from him is assertions about how mystical experiences provide warrant for God belief, but zero explanation of how that actually works, or at best, vague statements about how those experiences are *Regular, *consistant, *inter=subjective, and *navigational. This doesn't explain anything. This is the very definition of pseudo-science.

Joe Hinman said...

..but then again, it's not really stated here either, as I'm Skeptical has pointed out. I agree with him that just the consistency of the experience itself doesn't do much for your case - you need to show the more far reaching effects.

The real point is about longterm efficacy, personality changes for the better, measurable by sociological methods & correlated with those whose experiences scored high on the M-scale. That's what points at some " reality."


niether f yoou othered to read thye material I lined to
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)".

Page 2

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
From your article:
Buddhists recognize Buddha mind as ultimate reality, while Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christians recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality, Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality, but all say they experience ultimate reality. This is a good indication that the same basic reality stands behind this experience, or to say it another way they are all experiences of the same reality.

This is just a groundless assertion. Every human shares certain kinds of experience with the rest of humanity. We all feel pain, for example. That's an inter-subjective experience. We all have some kind of sense of awe.

No. those are the words of the Major psychiatrists who study mystical experience have made this argumemt. some of the top names such as Abraham Maslow and William James. None of the psychiatrists agree with you,l the regalement I made is from 'Stace , Hood and Maslow. There are no universal religious concepts. they are all culturally ground so the fact that expediences are universal s extremely significant,I have a more elaborate answer you have read gthe article link to above.



The well-known fact is that many people interpret this feeling in a manner that is consistent with their religious beliefs.

sorry not the issue, got it wrong, The interpret them that way so what? they experience them the same. that's distinction.


But that doesn't in any way imply that those religious beliefs are true, or that it is God causing these feelings. We know for a fact that there are many ways of inducing feelings like this, by electro-chemical means, or even through psychological manipulation. What this tells an objective observer is that these experiences are triggered by non-supernatural causes.


No. That they interpret them is unimportant. that they experience them the same is the issue and they do.


Mystical experience is universal and identical in phenomenological terms.


that's the point genius you dom't know what phenomenology means,

It is impossible to know such a thing. We can't say that the phenomenological experience of so-called qualia, such as redness, is identical among people.

No but we can compare their description and see they say the same things


These experiences are subjective. There is no way to describe them in an objective manner.

they are also inter subjective because they describe the same things


All we can do is have people answer questions about their experience, but the questions themselves may be leading, or make unjustified assumptions. This is the major problem with your M-scale.

that';s enough because igt canker be flaked and statistically impossible to be coincidence


Joe Hinman said...

Me>>>The body of work to which I refer consists of about 200 studies (one could say 300 but let’s be conservative).

Skep>>>>I've looked at your "body of work" before. Just copying the bibliography from a book on spirituality and well-being doesn't support your claim.


have you read any study in your lice? do you know what a Liker scale is? I know because I was a sociology major. That means i got my first degree studding how to do these kinds of studies. I researched the book by painstakingly squaring study after study and reading them. I looked every study I could find it took 10 years of constraint Sears wouldn't know anything a out this kind of research you wouldn't know a liker scale from an open ended essay question. I do. I got a degree in it.

You are slandering my work. you couldn't do it. bit your soamdering it e en don't really know lying about it, you made up the lie that I just copies names fromk a book on well being whist book is that? tell me the same of the book where I got a buch of names on well being?

how are you so deeply brain washed to hate religion and hate religions people tacit you just lie abouit something like thins rather tan ace a mouthy you don't lie?



The vast majority of these citations have nothing to do with "mystical experiences",

I can mother fucking prove they do you lying little shit hole you would see that ifiou weren't stupid to read teeing link. how od you palimpsest the fact that a psychiatrist, the lead reseal hair imn the field inventor f the Mscale writes om my cover of my book I got it righ it? how do you explain thiat moron?>

I am going to check into lengthy possibly of law suits retrain mt of trade. thiatkimndo flioe couild effet bookssalesso youowe me momneyi jkacckass.




or M-scale, or anything relevant to the claims you make at all. This is sheer intellectual dishonesty. The fact is that there is very little that you can reasonably cite as being relevant to your claims.

Joe Hinman said...

skpetic you are a liar you are makeweight stuff you don't know because you can't face the truth, keep lying about my work I will not allow you to post hire or on the cadre blog, i just got arguing them don from banning you on-cadre


I said hey we can't ban someone for being an idiot. we suare as hell can for slandering my work.

im-skeptical said...

Joe I am referring to the bibliography you showed me earlier that you said was hundreds of studies that support your claims. I looked at them. Most of them weren't even relevant to your topic. A lot were about the correlation between spirituality and well-being. Other were not even remotely relevant. I asked you to show me some actual on-line papers that I could read about the M-scale. The best you came up with was a couple of abstracts for papers that I couldn't access. Those abstracts were about two-factor versus three-factor measurements, but didn't discuss the basic claims you make about warranted belief, as far as I can tell. I have asked you repeatedly to show me something from the scientific community that is accessible and that actually supports your claims, and you have shown me nothing. I have asked to to provide just a basic explanation of the concept, and you have explained nothing. Zero. Nada.

It is not my objective to slander you or your work. I just want you to back up what you claim. The argument that you presented in this post needs a lot of substantiation if you expect people to buy it. You haven't provided that substantiation. Maybe you're just trying to get people to buy your book. Having read reviews of it, I have good reason to believe that they won't get the answers they're looking for if they do.

Eric Sotnak said...

Religious experiences are generally regular, consistent, intersubjective, and navigational.

Can I start with the last of these? What do you mean "navigational"? To me this suggests that an experience can be used to avoid bumping into stuff.

Joe Hinman said...

Can I start with the last of these? What do you mean "navigational"? To me this suggests that an experience can be used to avoid bumping into stuff.

LOL actually that is a metaphor I've used for to illustrate it. I'k saying these criteria are habitual, they are the assumptions we make in deciding reality. We don't decide to use them, it's not a proposal. We do it this the way this is how we do it,

By that navigational I mean we use as part of criteria the notion that a certain understanding works,analogously we see walking though solid walks doesn't work so we don't try.we do what works. Religious experience enables us to navigate emotionally it gives us wherewithal to manage the vicissitudes of life. A great example is a study on people who chronic illness and chronic pain, They found that of those who had mystical experience and were either dying or in constant pain. those who had these experiences were much better able to cope than those who did not, In fact one guy said he saw his infirmity as a gift, they all felt they were growing as people even while dying, this was all due to the experiences,

Joe Hinman said...

Joe I am referring to the bibliography you showed me earlier that you said was hundreds of studies that support your claims. I looked at them. Most of them weren't even relevant to your topic.

that's bullshit they are reliant, I know about each one they all apply, you are going by titles but you don't enough about the subject to say that, (btwv there are 95 on that list and another 50 on Hood's Viota and around 50 more. I always said 200. _ball park

A lot were about the correlation between spirituality and well-being.

so? that;s part of the argument genius. mystical experience is part of spirituality did you really not know that?


Other were not even remotely relevant. I asked you to show me some actual on-line papers that I could read about the M-scale.

I did they are on Jstor you didn't want to pay the money. some are on pub med you disn't even know mystical is spiritual you don't know enough to judge


The best you came up with was a couple of abstracts for papers that I couldn't access.

I had tgo pay to see them too stupid. what do you want me to do about it? do you think I run pubmed? look you can get any study free or copy cost from your public library inter library loan,


Those abstracts were about two-factor versus three-factor measurements, but didn't discuss the basic claims you make about warranted belief, as far as I can tell.

three factor solution's is the M scale right down the middle of the topic, You could find as lot aboiut if you read the stuff I'v limned too you are too laz to read the article I linked to but want to make me think you would read a study?

I have asked you repeatedly to show me something from the scientific community that is accessible and that actually supports your claims, and you have shown me nothing. I have asked to to provide just a basic explanation of the concept, and you have explained nothing. Zero. Nada.


read the Goddamn article you moron then get the sources and look them up.are so fucking stupid>? You are not going to read a study. try buyuing they book that;s tye best way

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

https://www.holosuniversity.org/content/uploads/files/dissertations/rossiDissertation.pdf



here is a doctoral. dissertation in 2006, as I started working om Trace of God. He does a lot of good research on women with cancer who have mystical experiences and show strong correlation between spiritual well being and mystical.

One think I thin you write off spiritual well beings S but its correlated to physical well being a lot, I don't mean miracles or just psychology.

this desertion was not part of my search but she uses a lot of the studies I did. look at her quantitative work,impressive I just found this by accident.

Joe Hinman said...

here is Hood's book read chapter 11 that should be enough to prove the M scale

Mike Gerow said...

Well, at least he's dealing a bit with your core claim now, & not just saying, "Oh, it's experience, so it could be brain chemistry or illness or drugs or something" ...i.e. all the things you feel you've already proven NOT TO BE THE CASE in your book.

;-)

im-skeptical said...

read the Goddamn article you moron then get the sources and look them up.are so fucking stupid>? You are not going to read a study. try buyuing they book that;s the best way
- Joe, I have read everything you provided for me to read. I am not going to provide financial reward for someone engaging in pseudo-science. Of all the material you have showed me, none of it answers the fundamental question I have been asking: How does any of this show that mystical experience provides warrant for belief?


here is a doctoral. dissertation in 2006
- Yeah. It's about the relationship between spirituality and well-being. That's wonderful, but what does that have to do with your claims of warrant for belief? This is just a red herring.

here is Hood's book read chapter 11 that should be enough to prove the M scale
- Perhaps so, but Chapter 11 is absent. I can't read it. This is just like everything else you've "shown" me. There's nothing to see.


at least he's dealing a bit with your core claim now
- I've been asking Joe these same questions for some time now, not just in this post. And he has been stonewalling from the very beginning.

Mike Gerow said...

Well, I'd be of the opinion that if you want to critique Joe's book, there are already enough authoritative endorsements & it has sufficient prima facile credibility that he's well within his rights to expect you to BUY ( or otherwise acquire) your own copy and read it! It's not up to him to just lay it all out for you.


"The book cites study after study to show that there is unbiased, scholarly evidence for the reality of these experiences as well as their benefits."
Dave Stump ( educator & social sciences Ph.D.)
from his review of "Trace" on Amazon.com.

There. That should be sufficient. Which is why authors like Joe put years of work into a piece, after all....

im-skeptical said...

There. That should be sufficient. Which is why authors like Joe put years of work into a piece, after all....

Not sufficient for me. Maybe it is for you. Notice that Stump is talking about the reality of these experiences (which nobody disputes) and their relationship to psychological well-being (which the studies show) but not Joe's claims of warranted belief based in any of that, which is pseudo-scientific bullshit. He's not going out on a limb and stating that Joe's conclusions are correct. Show me a real scientist who buys that crap.

JBsptfn said...

Show me a real scientist who buys that crap.

By real scientist, you are referring to an atheistic materialist, aren't you?

Mike Gerow said...

I just meant sufficient for any serious critic to have been expected to READ THE BOOK! - & that all.... Im not meaning to either endorse or deny Joe's argument here. Just that it seems to have enough prima facie credibility to deserve a reading -- ie "real effects have real causes" seems pretty sound. The bulk of Joe's work here, as Stump mentions, is refuting other theories, so you guys need to either rebut his rebuttals or find a logical hole in his args, which afaik no-one has really done all that well, yet. It may, however, still be possible. Perhaps, trying a conceptual approach to critique, it's the case that (as Stump kinda suggests) 'mystical experiences' are too vague to use to hold up any kind of specific religious dogma? What ideas, exactly, coming from which religion(s) does mystical phenomena make 'true'? (The Xian Church, after all, has a history of opposition to mysticism, of lighting mystics on fire, and so forth.....) Or, perhaps 'effects' sometimes don't need 'causes'--as some of the post-structuralists would have it?-- so perhaps ' nothing' or 'unknown' would be a better category for the causes of these phenomena than 'God'?

I dunno; you guys work it out ... ;-)


im-skeptical said...

All I've been asking Joe to do is give me some hint about how this is supposed to work. How do you get from mystical experiences to warrant for belief? He doesn't need to give away the details in the book. But if he wants people to buy it, he can appeal to a gullible audience, or he can give the rest of us some indication that the book provides some real support for his claims.

He has consistently failed to provide even the most rudimentary explanation. All he does is talk about all these studies that don't show any such thing. He says things like "Look at this doctoral thesis", and the thesis doesn't talk about warrant for belief. He says "Read chapter 11 in this link", and there is no chapter 11 to read. And so it goes. He has never shown me ONE SINGLE THING that supports his claims, or provided EVEN THE MOST BASIC EXPLANATION of how it works.

Based on what I've heard from Joe, and other reviews of the book, I have ZERO confidence that the book delivers what he promises. I'm not about to spend my money on it.

Joe Hinman said...

Well, at least he's dealing a bit with your core claim now, & not just saying, "Oh, it's experience, so it could be brain chemistry or illness or drugs or something" ...i.e. all the things you feel you've already proven NOT TO BE THE CASE in your book.

he he is not dealing with my core argument, He's saying I'm not going to believe anything you say and i'm too lazy and stupid to look it up. that's not limeade with it.

Joe Hinman said...

you cased Eric away, Eric teach philosophy he would have contributed to a real discussion you are not willing to deal with the material on the terms it deserves . it doesn't take a genius to see these are real academics in peer reviewed journals. in peer revolved journals.




here is a doctoral. dissertation in 2006


- Yeah. It's about the relationship between spirituality and well-being. That's wonderful, but what does that have to do with your claims of warrant for belief? This is just a red herring.

I answered that above that proves are not reading my answers,that's part of the argument try to follow what;s being said. see you don;t even know the basics of the argument, you are thrashing people who would really contribute with your childish obfuscation. I will not have this

here is Hood's book read chapter 11 that should be enough to prove the M scale


- Perhaps so, but Chapter 11 is absent. I can't read it. This is just like everything else you've "shown" me. There's nothing to see.


It used to be there there are others I put up for you to read.

at least he's dealing a bit with your core claim now


- I've been asking Joe these same questions for some time now, not just in this post. And he has been stonewalling from the very beginning.

I supplied all you need to know its true. you are not seeking truth, there is no reason on earth why I should have to supply you with the studies,as it so happens there aren't any for free on the net, they just do that a lot. these areal studies You can know the are rea; by where they are published, have you tried googling Ralph Hood you are not seeking trutyh you seeking to fuck up my discussion.

I researched all this stuff when I wrote the book I should not have to do it again, yourefuise to read gthie sourcesI uput down


1:24 PM Delete

Joe Hinman said...

He has consistently failed to provide even the most rudimentary explanation. All he does is talk about all these studies that don't show any such thing. He says things like "Look at this doctoral thesis", and the thesis doesn't talk about warrant for belief. He says "Read chapter 11 in this link", and there is no chapter 11 to read. And so it goes. He has never shown me ONE SINGLE THING that supports his claims, or provided EVEN THE MOST BASIC EXPLANATION of how it works.

I wrote a a book, i did the research I am not going to do all that research again every time some ignorant person demands proof of poorf of proof. what would John Loftus sayIf I asked himjto prove all his research to me? "buy my book"

you are chasing off realcontributors.do not ome back here

Joe Hinman said...

All I've been asking Joe to do is give me some hint about how this is supposed to work. How do you get from mystical experiences to warrant for belief? He doesn't need to give away the details in the book. But if he wants people to buy it, he can appeal to a gullible audience, or he can give the rest of us some indication that the book provides some real support for his claims.

that is not what you are asking, that's totally different from all the harping on "how can I know scientists really accept this?" I've explaimned thye links thyere ar obvius, this argument is not the same argumemt as before the limnks here are obvious.

'(1) there id a criterias''(2) it fits the criteria

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike Gerow said...

let me try to put the gist of it like this....

Joe's empirical argument is that 'true" mystical experiences are unique, in comparison to other, so-called "similar" experiences ( eg drug-induced ones and so forth) in terms of their far-reaching , long-term (positive) effects are on the personality. Unlike with other states, that may seem superficially similar, but the effects 'wear off much more quickly', so to speak. As Stump said, that is all tracked carefully in his book.

Now, his logical argument is, if these effects are the result only of a subjective change, only of the experience-in-itself, then the effects of similar experiences should also be similar, no matter what their "cause." But, he claims, this is (empirically) NOT the case.

Therefore, as Joe argues - and I think it's a pretty defensible point - the unique results of mystical experiences would seem to have some OTHER (or further) cause(s) beyond the mere exigencies of the experience. Hence, it is reasonable to assume these are actual experiences of some real "something", and this is a "rational warrant for belief." - Which does not seem like a particularly radical claim?

Okay, well, that's my take on it...

Joe Hinman said...

good answer Mike. But Skep is banned.

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Hinman said...

I'll put it on moderation if I have to. stop flaming or I will call your ISP

Mike Gerow said...

Okay, well,thx for your nice compliment ... just the same!

:-D

Joe Hinman said...

I want skeptics to criticize my arguments but valid criticisms do not include running down the value of they research,i consulted with /dr, Hood a lot songwriting tho catheterize rhiNscale, he;s the top researcher he grooved my book,

Mike Gerow said...

Yeah, I tend to agree. I said similar things above. Your book has enough endorsements and reviews to imply a certain level of reliability and acceptance, so you've already done a lot of work to ensure that, achieve enough credibility so you don't need to put up with some of the kinds of comments he was making....

I'm glad you have sufficient respect for your work to put your foot down.

JBsptfn said...

I agree, Mike. But, it's not surprising that Joe eventually banned that loser considering his track record. Skep and his buddy, Papalinton, were banned on Ed Feser's blog and DI for similar antics (and, Papa was also caught plagiarizing).