Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Phenomenology and Religious Experience

Image result for religious experience



This post was originally written in 2012 when I was still on CARM. The HRG  U refer  to is now a face book friend, the original post to this  post is the religious a priori.

HRG (poster on CARM) sort of walked into it. This is a look at a response that MkeWC gave. Mike is a pretty bright guy. In 13 years of arguing with atheists on the net he's the first one I've met who really understands Derrida.

It's interesting that you say religion is derived phenomenologically, therefore it has a kind of epistemic autonomy, that it carries its own terms of justification within it.

The problem is that phenomenology has been critiqued into the dust. It can't do without something that synthesizes the manifold of phenomena, and no one has ever offered a coherent account of how that could be. It always ends up in metaphysical speculation: Husserl, Heidegger, Jean-Luc Marion, they all end up finding a substrata of presence that  finally cannot be supported.
Of course that's a pretty exaggerated claim. Any popular school of thought has been "critiqued ad nausium." Or "into the dust." That is not to say that he has any real criticisms of the way I used Tillich's Heideggerian based phenomenology in understanding the religious a prori. Although his initial description of the a proriit has a kind of epistemic autonomy, that it carries its own terms of justification within it, is a good description of what that means. The claim that phenomenology has never offered a coherent account of the manifold nature of phenomena is a question begging and ironic claim. The thrust of Heidegger's phenomenology is to impressing sense data into preconceived categories and allow the data to suggest it's own category. A good example of what I mean is seen in a recent 'discussion' (p'ing contest) with an atheist on CARM who keeps habitually refereeing t religoius experience as "funny feelings." This atheist will not alter that term no matter how I have explained that it's purposely derisive, doesn't describe anything that corresponds to RE and is not ever used in any of the studies. The typical atheist fear of the subjective and hatred of experience is used as a preconceived category in which this atheist heard any kind of data that would contradict the usual atheist ideology.

Since the point of Heideggerian phenomenology is to allow the data to suggest the categories themselves, in the above example this would be done by perhaps description RE the way those who experience it describe it, then the claim that it has never found a coherent explication of the manifold nature of experience is just saying "gee these guys don't want preconceived categories don't have any preconceived categories." How about that? That like criticizing the army as "too military." That's like criticizing the courts system as "too bound by legal conventions."

Mike goes on:
Besides that, phenomenology was developed as a philosophical tool. That contradicts your statement that religion is not derived from other disciplines.
I didn't say religion is derived from phenomenology. I said we should use a phenomenological approach to understand it.

Induction is not a cheat. In your example about balls dropping from a tower, we know they will fall at the same rate because physics tells us they will. You're right we only ever see particular balls, but that doesn't matter to physics.
That's really circular reasoning, by way of being question begging. He doesn't understand that this example is right out of Karl Popper's major work. Without extrapolating by way of inductive logic we would have to watch every case of the dropping of balls to make sure that it always worked the same say. Yet in using inductive we automatically consign a lot of things to falling between the cracks. Of course Popper's point was that you can't derive regular law like statements from general principles. The nature of empiricism demands empirical observation. If this is not to be endless it must be extrapolated inductively. His statement assumes there's a rule book of physics already written and waiting to be consulted even in the very early days before Newtonian physics. If laws of physics are derived entirely descriptively when how can we have a preconceived rule that "physics tells us they will." That's really cheating empiricism. It's quite ironic because it means he's evoking the preconceived category that phenomenology seeks to avoid.


Causal induction is an entirely valid principle. However, this does not disprove miracles.
I didn't say that induction is not valid. I said it has problems it runs afoul of impossing a preconceived rule upon experience, and in the need to extrapolate things fall through the cracks. What I meant by that was miracles. Just because 99.9% of cases work a certain way, dead men don't rise and walk, doesn't mean 100% of cases work that way. Since miracles are supposed to be impossibilities where's the sense in evoking standard expectation?

You're right that science cannot finally chase away the possibility of miracles, defined as an event caused by a supernatural force. But that just establishes a negative knowledge: "we don't know if miracles are possible or not." Note that this is different from saying "we know miracles are, in principle, possible."
All epistemic gaps must be crossed with the assumption of positive side rules. We do this in everything. Otherwise we would have to sit down, stay silent and starve to death because we can never bee 100% sure of anything. In all of our major epistemic gap crossings we assert the positive side. The cogito, "I think, therefore, I am" taken by foundationalists to be absolute proof of the most indubitable premise, is a positive affirmation of the lack of knowledge that the "I am isn't a different I than the I that says "I am." Any principle that says "I have no reason to make that assumption" is mere turning the negative aspect of knowledge in the face of a gap in knowledge into a possessive assertion.

But you cheat and say that science's inability to discern miracles produces that positiveknowledge. Hence, you just say there have been 100 resurrections in the past, without feeling the need to provide any details.
That's not true at all. I did actually document a couple of sources. I was speiifically reffering the book by Duffin (recently reviewed here) Medical Miracles about her research i the Vatican Archives. I don't have space to reproduce her whole book in a text box. That's a cheap attack because no one does on a message board have that kind of space. No one expects that. Giving a printed source is fine for official intercollegiate debate it should be fine for a message board. There's a gap on the message board where one guys "I don't have time to look it up but I doubt it" the one says "It's true I read it" but he doesn't give it. What can you do it's not a official event? you just let it go. One can go look it up if one cares, and rarely anyone does.

You can't get from that negative knowledge (we don't know if supernatural caused events are possible) to positive knowledge (we know they are possible) without first providing a rigorous concept of what that force is. Which means you have to prove God exists before you can claim miracles exist.

That's horse manure. What he's saying is we have to know all about God with absolute certainty before we can assume God. That's not fair. physicists don't play that way. When atheist use the multivariate as an example to the fine tuning argument they are using an argument that has absolutley  no empirical backing. We have no evidence other than hypothetical mathematics that such a thing exits. Notice Mike is also diong a "hide the ball" maneuver in asserting that my only basis for argument is negative side assertions, we can't disprove miracles. He's ignoring the fact that I've given a pile of miracle evidence in Lourdes miracles and in Casdroph and Catholic saint making miracles and Vatican archival research.

Without proof that God exists, the hypothesis that a supernatural force caused a particular event will only ever be that, a hypothesis. And one that is entirely untestable. It can never be wrong; it can only be accepted as right on the basis of faith.
That is a totally ludicrous statement. The miracle appeals are a ratioanl warrant for beleif in God. He's saying you have to prove God before you an argue for proof of God.If that were the case you could never make the argument. If we did physics that way before we do any research on dark matter we must already prove it exists. If we take that dictum down a peg to providing some form of verisimilitude then have that in spades with the 200 studies on religious experience. The Lourdes evidence supplys that concern a prori.

The other thing is, miracle stories always come with caveats that limit investigation. They always happen in the distant past, or in distant countries, or they are on the order of  "God healed my sore back."
That is obviously not true. My father was dead then came to life. That event coincided with my dream that the Pope brought him to me and said "he will be ok." That was not long ago or in a foreign country, not the time it happened it was right then. The Lourdes miracles are immediate they are not long ago and far away.

With the exception of the resurrection of Jesus and the creation act itself, these events are never used as explanations of anything in the historical record. They never seem to have much effect on history at all. Maybe they happened, maybe then didn't.

That's because of the way modern historiography is construed. The ground rules for history as a modern social scinece rule out any but a naturalistic account. Jurgen Moltmann's rules change argument, the "history making" aspect, allows miracles to be brought in the back door. Moreover, the HRG (yes the guy on CARM) peremise that laws of physics an nature are totally descriptive open the door to further descriptions. There is no law-like statement in the universe that say "thou shalt not have violation of naturalism." Violations are just further observation of the behavior of the universe.

The whole post of Monday's post was that HRG steped in the trap by arguing in a circular fashion that physical laws are nothing but descriptions yet we have to rule out any miraculous idea on its face because we don't have such descriptions. Yet we do have them so there is no basis upon which to rule them out.

48 comments:

Joe Hinman said...

this essay is 0ne of the best Ive written

Kristen said...

Agreed. :) As I'm reading through your upcoming book, I'm seeing many of these points addressed. It's like they're saying, "We'll force God into the categories of science, treat Him as a hypothesis and then reject the hypothesis for want of empirical evidence, but then when empirical evidence arises that does suggest God as a viable hypothesis, we won't consider that evidence."

im-skeptical said...

It's like they're saying, "We'll force God into the categories of science, treat Him as a hypothesis and then reject the hypothesis for want of empirical evidence, but then when empirical evidence arises that does suggest God as a viable hypothesis, we won't consider that evidence."
- That may be what certain religionists tell you, but it doesn't even come close to describing how science actually works. If you begin with a hypothesis, and then set out to find evidence for it, you are not following scientific method, because that would likely cause you to ignore evidence that is relevant, but might lead to a different conclusion. That's exactly what "ID science" does. Similarly, if you start with and a hypothesis and then reject any evidence that might support it, you are committing a cardinal sin in scientific practice. Science must take into account ALL the evidence, no matter what direction it might lead. No real scientist would ever reject valid evidence.

Science begins with observation. A hypothesis is just an attempt to explain what is observed, and it can't ignore any part of what is observed. Any legitimate hypothesis must be based on evidence. And if an alternate hypothesis does a better job of accounting for everything that has been observed and explaining it, that hypothesis should be favored. Most religious forays into the scientific arena make the mistake of rejecting or ignoring evidence. They limit the scope of what they examine, because they're more interested in supporting their favorite hypothesis than in discovering the truth. The other big mistake they make is failure to test and verify their hypothesis. It isn't enough to simply gather evidence. You have to put your hypothesis to the test. Use it to predict what should be observed under various conditions, and then employ all available means to verify that those predictions are borne out. This is yet another aspect of science that religionists typically ignore.

We often see religionists making two contradictory claims: one is that God is beyond science. The other is that science supports their belief. You can't have it both ways. If God is not subject to scientific verification, so be it. But then you shouldn't complain that science doesn't take God into account, or that science ignores evidence for God. If there is objective evidence, then science CAN investigate it. On the other hand, they love to claim just that. But when it comes down to using legitimate practice, they refuse to look at ALL the evidence, or to subject their hypotheses to appropriate testing and validation.

Kristen said...

You know, IM, what you're saying seems a lot like mansplaining. You see, having been to high school and then college, I do have an understanding of scientific method and what a hypothesis is. I don't need it explained to me as though I were a child. You start with a hypothesis, which is a sort of educated guess based on things you do know, and then you do experiments and gather data to test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis can be neither proved nor disproved, it's unfalsifiable. This, contrary to the way some atheists argue, doesn't mean "false." It simply means that scientific methods can't reach the question.

What you have said is a colossal example of missing the point. I never said God was subject to scientific verification-- I said that certain atheists wanted to MAKE God subject to scientific verification. But there is a difference between not being subject to scientific verification, and being beyond rational warrant. Atheists act as if there is NO evidence of any kind that could support a rational warrant to believe in God. But atheists, like everyone else, believe any number of non-scientific things themselves because of rational warrant-- the things aren't falsifiable and thus can't be verified scientifically, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence at all.

God is not a hypothesis and can't be treated like one. But if a person insists on treating God like a hypothesis, he ought at least to be open to the evidence that might support that hypothesis. Many atheists are not open to such evidence. It is they who want to have it both ways.

im-skeptical said...

What you have said is a colossal example of missing the point. I never said God was subject to scientific verification-- I said that certain atheists wanted to MAKE God subject to scientific verification
- Um, you tell me I miss the point, and then you go on to say exactly the same thing again that misses the point of what I was telling you. Anything that is subject to scientific investigation must have a basis in objective evidence - and anything that has a basis in objective evidence is subject to scientific investigation. That goes for God just as much as anything else. If you're saying that God is beyond science, then you're saying that your belief is NOT based in objective evidence. If you say you have a rational "warrant for belief", then you are saying that you have evidence. After all, what constitutes this "warrant" if not evidence? But you're also making the claim that it's "rational" - in other words, not based on feelings and emotion, but on some kind of argument that is itself based on supporting evidence. This is exactly what Joe does - using scientific studies. The problem is there are better hypotheses for the observed data he has amassed. Remember what I said about focusing only on the material that he finds helpful for his favored hypothesis, while ignoring everything that would lead in a different direction? That's classic pseudo-science.

But of course THAT wasn't the point you wanted to make. Your point is that atheists have it all wrong, not religionists. I can tell you that most atheists would never try to make a scientific hypothesis of something they think there is no objective evidence for. But perhaps you're referring to Victor Stenger, who wrote God: The Failed Hypothesis. What he did in his book was to show that the idea of God as a scientific hypothesis just doesn't work. If we ever should treat God as a serious scientific hypothesis, it fails miserably. And that's because there simply isn't a basis in evidence to support it, but there are other hypotheses and theories that actually work far better, and fit with the evidence we observe.

Joe Hinman said...

Anything that is subject to scientific investigation must have a basis in objective evidence - and anything that has a basis in objective evidence is subject to scientific investigation. That goes for God just as much as anything else.

You can;t prove that with objective evidence. You can only find objective evidence of something that is given in sense data. There are lots of things scientists are willing to accept that are not available to immediate sense data such as dark matter and string membrains. God is not given in sense data.


If you're saying that God is beyond science, then you're saying that your belief is NOT based in objective evidence.

wrong, you can't learn, we've been trough this time and time a gain. o yea but you don't read,so you can't learn,


If you say you have a rational "warrant for belief", then you are saying that you have evidence. After all, what constitutes this "warrant" if not evidence? But you're also making the claim that it's "rational" - in other words, not based on feelings and emotion, but on some kind of argument that is itself based on supporting evidence.


The feeling is the evidence as the effect of God's presence.

This is exactly what Joe does - using scientific studies. The problem is there are better hypotheses for the observed data he has amassed. Remember what I said about focusing only on the material that he finds helpful for his favored hypothesis, while ignoring everything that would lead in a different direction? That's classic pseudo-science.

No there is no such data you wish there was, you have none,I have beaten every attempt. you don't read the answers.

time after time I;ve knowledge your head off theoretically you keep coming back because you don't pay attention,


But of course THAT wasn't the point you wanted to make. Your point is that atheists have it all wrong, not religionists.

atheizers and Dawkies have it wrong

I can tell you that most atheists would never try to make a scientific hypothesis of something they think there is no objective evidence for. But perhaps you're referring to Victor Stenger, who wrote God: The Failed Hypothesis. What he did in his book was to show that the idea of God as a scientific hypothesis just doesn't work.

I take Stenger to task in my fourth coming book. That whole line of reasoning is just mumbo jumpbo. It's dishonest to construct a phony little hypothesis out of God belief, God is not an hypothesis. This is what the phenomenology stuff is about. you don't say one word about phenomenology because you don't know what it is.


If we ever should treat God as a serious scientific hypothesis, it fails miserably.

that's because it's not one. you've heard me say science is not the only form of knowledge.here;s an other one: phenomenology that's what this is that leads to understanding God belief; go read,

And that's because there simply isn't a basis in evidence to support it, but there are other hypotheses and theories that actually work far better, and fit with the evidence we observe.


It's not based upon the kind of evidence you are looking for because you have trained yourself to ignore all other forms of knowledge so you don;t understand them like phenomenology which you can;t even talk about,

Joe Hinman said...

Me in OP[Phenomenoly] has a kind of epistemic autonomy, that it carries its own terms of justification within it, is a good description of what that means. The claim that phenomenology has never offered a coherent account of the manifold nature of phenomena is a question begging and ironic claim. The thrust of Heidegger's phenomenology is to impressing sense data into preconceived categories and allow the data to suggest it's own category. A good example of what I mean is seen in a recent 'discussion' (p'ing contest) with an atheist on CARM who keeps habitually refereeing t religoius experience as "funny feelings." This atheist will not alter that term no matter how I have explained that it's purposely derisive, doesn't describe anything that corresponds to RE and is not ever used in any of the studies. The typical atheist fear of the subjective and hatred of experience is used as a preconceived category in which this atheist heard any kind of data that would contradict the usual atheist ideology.


Unless you deal with that statement you have not said a damn thing,

Joe Hinman said...

It's like they're saying, "We'll force God into the categories of science, treat Him as a hypothesis and then reject the hypothesis for want of empirical evidence, but then when empirical evidence arises that does suggest God as a viable hypothesis, we won't consider that evidence."
- That may be what certain religionists tell you, but it doesn't even come close to describing how science actually works.

so what? it' not about what science does it;s about what atheiods do and you do it, That's exactly what you did the arguments above,

Kristen said...

IM said: "Anything that is subject to scientific investigation must have a basis in objective evidence - and anything that has a basis in objective evidence is subject to scientific investigation. That goes for God just as much as anything else."

But God doesn't have a basis in objective evidence. What Joe calls the "co-determinate," or the "footprint in the snow"-- that has a basis in objective evidence and can be investigated scientifically. As you acknowledged, Joe has shared repeatedly the results of those investigations. But science can't find God, only God's footprint.

IM said: "The problem is there are better hypotheses for the observed data he has amassed. Remember what I said about focusing only on the material that he finds helpful for his favored hypothesis, while ignoring everything that would lead in a different direction? That's classic pseudo-science."

You see, this is what I'm saying that some atheists -- not all of them, but the scientistic believers who think science is the only form of knowledge -- do. Stenger is one of them.

IM said: "But perhaps you're referring to Victor Stenger, who wrote God: The Failed Hypothesis. What he did in his book was to show that the idea of God as a scientific hypothesis just doesn't work. If we ever should treat God as a serious scientific hypothesis, it fails miserably."

But don't you see that that's the problem? In Stenger's mind, for God to be real, God would HAVE to be a serious scientific hypothesis. The problem is not that he shows God is a failed hypothesis-- the problem is that he thinks God should be a hypothesis in the first place. He thinks the scientific method is the only way to know anything.

IM said: "there are other hypotheses and theories that actually work far better, and fit with the evidence we observe."

Yes, it's possible to find other explanations for the evidence (that's what "rational warrant" means), but not necessarily-- in fact, not usually-- better ones. What makes the explanations "better" to the scientistic mind is that they can be pushed into that paradigm and made to fit the unquestioned and unacknowledged assumptions that said mind has already started with.

im-skeptical said...

You can;t prove that with objective evidence.
- Science doesn't prove anything. It gives us explanations for what we observe, and they are always subject to disproof or revision.

You can only find objective evidence of something that is given in sense data. There are lots of things scientists are willing to accept that are not available to immediate sense data such as dark matter and string membrains. God is not given in sense data.
- There is very little that is available to immediate sense data. When you see a tree, you don't directly sense it. You sense things ate are affected by it (in this case you sense photons that have reflected from the tree). You can infer the presence of the tree by virtue of the observable effects it has on the rest of the world. But this is no different from your "trace of God". It's how we know what we know about our world and the things in it.

wrong, you can't learn, we've been trough this time and time a gain. o yea but you don't read,so you can't learn,
- Yes we have. I've explained all this to you a million times and you STILL DON'T GET IT.

The feeling is the evidence as the effect of God's presence.
- The feeling you have is subjective. It's not observable by anyone but yourself. And it is emotional - it isn't rational. So your "evidence" is an irrational subjective feeling. That doesn't qualify as valid scientific evidence, for good reason.

time after time I;ve knowledge your head off theoretically you keep coming back because you don't pay attention
- I keep saying this because you keep making pseudo-scientific claims.

atheizers and Dawkies have it wrong
- So you say.

It's dishonest to construct a phony little hypothesis out of God belief, God is not an hypothesis.
- That's right. And yet, you still claim to have scientific evidence for your "trace of God". Real science tells us otherwise. But it's not dishonest to examine the question of whether a valid scientific hypothesis can be made of God. Stenger shows the absurdity of it.

you've heard me say science is not the only form of knowledge.here;s an other one: phenomenology that's what this is that leads to understanding God belief; go read
- Your "phenomenology" is what other people call subjective emotional feelings. But your terminology sounds better.

It's not based upon the kind of evidence you are looking for because you have trained yourself to ignore all other forms of knowledge so you don;t understand them like phenomenology which you can;t even talk about
- Of course I can talk about it. I can try to explain why it isn't regarded as valid evidence, but ypu have trained yourself not to listen to reason.

Unless you deal with that statement you have not said a damn thing
- Subjective emotional feelings are not a valid basis for science or any legitimate epistemology. Plantinga and other religionist philosophers base their epistemology on these feelings (Plantinga calls it "reformed epistemology", for one reason only: it's the only epistemology that gives them a basis for belief in God.

it' not about what science does it;s about what atheiods do and you do it, That's exactly what you did the arguments above
- Projection. I was speaking about science. You are making excuses to ignore objective evidence, and believe what your emotions tell you.

im-skeptical said...

But God doesn't have a basis in objective evidence. What Joe calls the "co-determinate," or the "footprint in the snow"-- that has a basis in objective evidence and can be investigated scientifically. As you acknowledged, Joe has shared repeatedly the results of those investigations. But science can't find God, only God's footprint.
- I keep trying to explain this. This so-called "co-determinate" is objective evidence of something, just like any evidence. We infer most things by their "footprint". There is little, if anything at all, that we observe directly.

You see, this is what I'm saying that some atheists -- not all of them, but the scientistic believers who think science is the only form of knowledge -- do. Stenger is one of them.
- There is oobjective evidence, and there is subjective feeling. One is a legitimate basis for believing something. The other has been shown again and again to be unreliable.

But don't you see that that's the problem? In Stenger's mind, for God to be real, God would HAVE to be a serious scientific hypothesis. The problem is not that he shows God is a failed hypothesis-- the problem is that he thinks God should be a hypothesis in the first place. He thinks the scientific method is the only way to know anything.
- We know things by virtue of the information we gain through our senses. We have confidence in that knowledge when we use scientific method (testing and verification). We may THINK we know things that have no basis in objective data, but that knowledge is not reliable. The problem you see in this is that it doesn't justify belief in God. You prefer to sacrifice reliability of knowledge for something that gives you an excuse to believe what you want to believe, regardless of what the objective evidence tells us.

Yes, it's possible to find other explanations for the evidence (that's what "rational warrant" means), but not necessarily-- in fact, not usually-- better ones. What makes the explanations "better" to the scientistic mind is that they can be pushed into that paradigm and made to fit the unquestioned and unacknowledged assumptions that said mind has already started with.
- Scientific explanations are not better in your estimation for one reason only: they don't give you the justification for yoyr belief in God. You and Joe will leap on any excuse you can to claim justification for what you believed before you ever began to consider evidence of any kind, and what you will continue to believe - no matter what evidence you can manage to find or what you fail to find. Be honest - your belief is NOT based on evidence, it never was, and it never will be. So why don't you stop pretending it is?

Kristen said...

IM, no. You don't get to tell me what I would say if I were to "be honest." You don't get to decide you know my thoughts and motives, and you don't get to explain to me what I really think.

I see little point in rebutting your ideas in this atmosphere of condescension, since you're obviously not hearing me but only deciding for me where I'm coming from.

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

IM, no. You don't get to tell me what I would say if I were to "be honest." You don't get to decide you know my thoughts and motives, and you don't get to explain to me what I really think.

- I don't presume to tell you what your thoughts are (although the motives of the religionist to justify his belief are transparent enough). And yet you presume to tell scientists what is and what isn't subject to scientific investigation? And just listen to Joe telling me that I have "trained" myself to ignore "knowledge" in support of his evidence-free beliefs. And this after I patiently explained to him that science can't afford to ignore ANY evidence, as long as it is legitimate objective evidence (which is not true of private subjective feelings).

Joe Hinman said...

And just listen to Joe telling me that I have "trained" myself to ignore "knowledge" in support of his evidence-free beliefs. And this after I patiently explained to him that science can't afford to ignore ANY evidence, as long as it is legitimate objective evidence (which is not true of private subjective feelings).

you dare to call a work with 200 studies advised by the major researcher in the field "evidence free," That is stupid.

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
You can;t prove that with objective evidence.

- Science doesn't prove anything. It gives us explanations for what we observe, and they are always subject to disproof or revision.

you don't have that, you have disproved nothing.

Joe:You can only find objective evidence of something that is given in sense data. There are lots of things scientists are willing to accept that are not available to immediate sense data such as dark matter and string membranes. God is not given in sense data.


- There is very little that is available to immediate sense data. When you see a tree, you don't directly sense it. You sense things ate are affected by it (in this case you sense photons that have reflected from the tree). You can infer the presence of the tree by virtue of the observable effects it has on the rest of the world. But this is no different from your "trace of God". It's how we know what we know about our world and the things in it.

Of course Sherlock! that doesn't disprove my argument it lends credence to it!

wrong, you can't learn, we've been trough this time and time a gain. o yea but you don't read,so you can't learn,

- Yes we have. I've explained all this to you a million times and you STILL DON'T GET IT.

you are full of shit, you have not read a single study your arguments are not based upon the information in the studies they are based upon your assertions aboiut how it should be given your prejudices against religion.The feeling is the evidence as the effect of God's presence.





- The feeling you have is subjective. It's not observable by anyone but yourself. And it is emotional - it isn't rational. So your "evidence" is an irrational subjective feeling. That doesn't qualify as valid scientific evidence, for good reason.

Doesn't matter because the argument is not based upon how it feels, it's based upon the effect of having the experience and that is totally objective.




- I keep saying this because you keep making pseudo-scientific claims.


your are not a scientist you are a mountebank.

atheizers and Dawkies have it wrong


- So you say.

It's dishonest to construct a phony little hypothesis out of God belief, God is not an hypothesis.

- That's right. And yet, you still claim to have scientific evidence for your "trace of God". Real science tells us otherwise. But it's not dishonest to examine the question of whether a valid scientific hypothesis can be made of God. Stenger shows the absurdity of it.

where does real science tell us there's no God dope? where does real science disprove the M scale that's just your ignoramus little pseudo science brain wash propaganda,,

Kristen said...

Good grief, IM. You say you don't presume, and then continue to presume in the same sentence! LOL what's up with that?

As for my "presuming to tell scientists what is and isn't subject to scientific investigation," this isn't the same category of knowledge at all. Sure, I can express my opinion about such a thing. I don't think scientists are some high-priest class that is too far above me for me to dare speak to them about the subject of their studies. And anyway, I'm not talking about scientists here, but about those "new atheists" who may or may not have science credentials but think the only valid form of knowledge is science.

On the other hand, I wouldn't presume to explain to a scientist or any other human being what they "really" think or what their motives are. Surely you can see that that's another, and very uncivil, level of discourse entirely.

im-skeptical said...

Good grief, IM. You say you don't presume, and then continue to presume in the same sentence! LOL what's up with that?
- It seems to be a matter of confusion on your part. There is a difference between knowing what a person is thinking and understanding (at least in some part) their motivations. The latter is subject to scientific investigation. Sometimes, an individual may not be aware of what motivates himself, even though it can be apparent to others. Nevertheless, I still never claimed to know what you are thinking.

And anyway, I'm not talking about scientists here, but about those "new atheists" who may or may not have science credentials but think the only valid form of knowledge is science.
- So you get quite upset when you think I am trying to get into your head, but you don't hesitate to castigate others for what you see as faults in their way of thinking. For the record, if it's me you're speaking of, I do have science credentials, as well as a full professional career, and I know far more about it than Joe ever will. But when they say something like "science is the only valid form of knowledge", what they generally mean is that knowledge is empirically based, and knowledge that is objectively substantiated is far more reliable than that which isn't.

On the other hand, I wouldn't presume to explain to a scientist or any other human being what they "really" think or what their motives are. Surely you can see that that's another, and very uncivil, level of discourse entirely.
- For a real example of lack of civility in discourse, all you have to do is see the way Joe speaks to me.

im-skeptical said...

you dare to call a work with 200 studies advised by the major researcher in the field "evidence free," That is stupid.
- No, Joe. Scientific data is evidence, but those studies don't show what you think they do. They are not evidence for what you believe.

you don't have that, you have disproved nothing.
- Didn't claim to.

Of course Sherlock! that doesn't disprove my argument it lends credence to it!
- Any real scientist would dispute that. There ARE other (and better) explanations for the data shown in those studies. I've addressed that before, but you won't hear it.

The feeling is the evidence as the effect of God's presence.
- Not objective evidence. Not scientifically valid.

Doesn't matter because the argument is not based upon how it feels, it's based upon the effect of having the experience and that is totally objective.
- This is where you draw false inferences. The data in those studies does not support your inferences about causation.

your are not a scientist you are a mountebank.
- Projection from a purveyor of pseudo-science

where does real science tell us there's no God dope?
- I never said it did. You should learn to listen.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
you dare to call a work with 200 studies advised by the major researcher in the field "evidence free," That is stupid.


- No, Joe. Scientific data is evidence, but those studies don't show what you think they do. They are not evidence for what you believe.

You need to answer these points (1_) you have not read a single sutdy so you have no idea what they say (2) U have consulted several of the researchers so I do know wah they say and you don't. Your arguments ares spurious,,

you don't have that, you have disproved nothing.

- Didn't claim to.

you just did, a claim that I din;'t know my own data is a claim to disprove my hypothesis.

Of course Sherlock! that doesn't disprove my argument it lends credence to it!

- Any real scientist would dispute that. There ARE other (and better) explanations for the data shown in those studies. I've addressed that before, but you won't hear it.

That just proves that your arguments are not based upon the data or the logic. I have no respect for you as a thinker a all, you are not a thinker you are an ideologue, you are going by what your ideology says should be true,

The feeling is the evidence as the effect of God's presence.

- Not objective evidence. Not scientifically valid.

the data from the studies is objective evidence you have no concept of how they were done or why,You have no idea what they say,

Doesn't matter because the argument is not based upon how it feels, it's based upon the effect of having the experience and that is totally objective.

- This is where you draw false inferences. The data in those studies does not support your inferences about causation.

your are not a scientist you are a mountebank.
- Projection from a purveyor of pseudo-science

You are not a scientist nor even a good student,

where does real science tell us there's no God dope?
- I never said it did. You should learn to listen.

then what do you think you are saying when you say stupid things as you just said?

8:31 AM Delete

im-skeptical said...

you have not read a single sutdy so you have no idea what they say
- Yes, I have.

U have consulted several of the researchers so I do know wah they say and you don't.
- You have consulted fellow religionists. But several of the studies you cite make statements that belie your conclusions. How do I know? Because I read it right in those studies. And you ignored it.

you just did, a claim that I din;'t know my own data is a claim to disprove my hypothesis
- I didn't say you don't know your own data. I said your inferences are not supported by the data.

I have no respect for you as a thinker a all, you are not a thinker you are an ideologue, you are going by what your ideology says should be true
- It's obvious that you have no respect for a science-based opinion that casts doubt on your ideological views.

the data from the studies is objective evidence you have no concept of how they were done or why,You have no idea what they say
- You don't get it. It's not the studies I take issue with. It's your conclusions that are faulty.

You are not a scientist nor even a good student
- I know pseudo-science when I see it.

then what do you think you are saying when you say stupid things as you just said?
- Show me where I said that science disproves God. I NEVER said any such thing. And that's exactly what I have said to you a thousand times. But you don't listen.

Kristen said...

IM, if you can't see where you explained to me what I really think, as well as calling me a liar while you were at it, I'll show you.

"You prefer to sacrifice reliability of knowledge for something that gives you an excuse to believe what you want to believe, regardless of what the objective evidence tells us."

"Be honest - your belief is NOT based on evidence, it never was, and it never will be. So why don't you stop pretending it is?"

Apparently, what I REALLY think but am not willing to admit it, is that you are right, there is no evidence, and God is a bunch of crock. I'm just making excuses, because the only honest thing to believe is what you believe.

When you say, "So you get quite upset when you think I am trying to get into your head, but you don't hesitate to castigate others for what you see as faults in their way of thinking," apparently you're still not getting it. I don't mind if you point out what you see as faults in my thinking-- as I have expressed that thinking here. If I think someone else's thinking is wrong, I also can point it out. That is not "castigation." But what I do object to, and what I don't do, is tell someone that the thoughts they have expressed to me aren't their real thoughts, that they're just being dishonest with themselves and me, and that what they really think (if they're being honest) is what I think.

As for Joe's level of discourse versus mine, I'm not responsible for him. If Joe were to treat me rudely and condescendingly, I'd stand up for myself to him too. But I'm also not responsible for policing the way he talks to you. That's between you and him.

As for my getting "upset": I am irritated, but not upset. You see, I have to contend with this sort of thing all the time. You, of course, have not experienced this for yourself, but there's a strong Internet tradition of men telling women that they know better than the women do, what the women think. There's also a strong tradition of men explaining things to a woman without taking into account that the woman probably already actually knows it (such as what a hypothesis is). Finally, men often attribute emotions to women beyond what the women are actually feeling, as a way of delegitimitizing what the woman says (because she's "emotional.") Intentionally or not, you are well within that tradition in this conversation.

im-skeptical said...

IM, if you can't see where you explained to me what I really think, as well as calling me a liar while you were at it, I'll show you.
- I'll say it again. I NEVER claimed to know what you think. Your interpretation of my statements is putting words in my mouth.

You, of course, have not experienced this for yourself, but there's a strong Internet tradition of men telling women that they know better than the women do, what the women think.
- Your accusations of sexism are misplaced. I don't play that game.

Kristen said...

IM, I never accused you of sexism. I never said it was intentional, and I certainly never said you were "playing a game." But men do say these sorts of things to women without even realizing it, all the time. Maybe you would also have said them to a man, but the fact remains that you said them to a woman. Perhaps a little more sensitivity to this dynamic may be required when interacting with someone who lives with Internet sexism on a regular basis. Part of counteracting sexism is awareness. When someone says, "Hey, you're stepping on my foot," the best response is, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to; I'll stop," not "No, I'm not stepping on your foot because I'm not the kind of person who steps on feet."

As for my interpretation of your statements, it's really hard to figure out what other interpretation I could put on words like "be honest" and "stop pretending." If you meant something other than what you said, I can hardly be expected to know that, can I?

Anyway, the conversation is getting derailed by this. Feel free to get back on topic.

Joe Hinman said...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Joe Hinman said...

you have not read a single study


- Yes, I have.

YES? NAME IT? NAME THE STUDY, WHICH ONE DID YOU READ



I have consulted several of the researchers so I do know wah they say and you don't.


- You have consulted fellow religionists. But several of the studies you cite make statements that belie your conclusions. How do I know? Because I read it right in those studies. And you ignored it.

>>>>>Skepie, You ares o unread and unlearned you don't even know how to tell a scholarly work from a fake one. Is it really the case that the top studies on mysticism just happen to be done by Christians?Wuthnow is an atheist, Noble is an atheist,Hood is not a christian, you are an idiot.



you just did, a claim that I din;'t know my own data is a claim to disprove my hypothesis

- I didn't say you don't know your own data. I said your inferences are not supported by the data.

>>>>>>>coward. lying little coward,such a wuss you can't even face u to what you are trying to imply,

I have no respect for you as a thinker a all, you are not a thinker you are an ideologue, you are going by what your ideology says should be true

- It's obvious that you have no respect for a science-based opinion that casts doubt on your ideological views.


>>>>>>>> Find someone who is science based for me to discuss this stuff with I will probably reset that person.But that is not you. You do mot even consider the methodology you haven't even read a single study(name it, name the study) because you just go back to your impression of what scenic would say, not the actual data that is not science, you are a phony.
the data from the studies is objective evidence you have no concept of how they were done or why,You have no idea what they say


- You don't get it. It's not the studies I take issue with. It's your conclusions that are faulty.

>>>>>>>>(1) That is a stupid statemented because if you don't know what the studies say then you don't know that my interpretation is wrong,(2) I've spelled out how I use them over and over again you have never not one single time ever made any attempt to show that my reasoning is false or that I use them wrong,


You are not a scientist nor even a good student


- I know pseudo-science when I see it.

>>>>>>>>you just said the studies are good but since I've ran my use of them buy the preachers like Hood and he oked it then you must be wrong about my use. how do you square that stupidity with yo

Joe Hinman said...

testing

im-skeptical said...

YES? NAME IT? NAME THE STUDY, WHICH ONE DID YOU READ
- I've read every study you mad available on this site. It was some time ago. I'm not going back to look at all that again. I don't remember the titles. But we had fairly extensive discussions about it right here, where I pointed out to you some of the issues I came across, including things they said that you had simply ignored. I even quoted from those studies, as I recall. But you don't recall any of that? Just goes to show that you never listen to what I say. Never did. Never will. So why should I bother?

I've spelled out how I use them over and over again you have never not one single time ever made any attempt to show that my reasoning is false or that I use them wrong

http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/07/warrant-for-skepticism.html
http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/10/children-of-lack-of-objectivity.html
http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/10/hinmans-argument-from-god-corrolate.html
http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/12/responding-to-hinman-again.html
http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2017/06/sitting-on-both-sides-of-fence.html
http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-proof-is-in-pudding.html
http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2017/10/theistic-causation-abbreviated.html

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
YES? NAME IT? NAME THE STUDY, WHICH ONE DID YOU READ

- I've read every study you mad available on this site. It was some time ago. I'm not going back to look at all that again. I don't remember the titles.

yes that's real convincing. you read so many you can't remember. you have not read a single study yo do not know what they say,


But we had fairly extensive discussions about it right here, where I pointed out to you some of the issues I came across, including things they said that you had simply ignored.

all of your arguments have been stupid and uninformed. you think you are saying cleaver things because you say a lot of words. NOne o then are very informed I've answered them all. Linking to more pages where you show of your misconceptions not cleaver,


I even quoted from those studies, as I recall. But you don't recall any of that? Just goes to show that you never listen to what I say. Never did. Never will. So why should I bother?

no yoy are full o' shit.

I've spelled out how I use them over and over again you have never not one single time ever made any attempt to show that my reasoning is false or that I use them wrong


the nonsnse you link to is not it,

Joe Hinman said...

Never trust a guy who can;t make links

http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/07/warrant-for-skepticism.html


im-skeptical said...

select link text
right-click
open link

Joe Hinman said...

Here is part of his little propaganda pice from above:

first realize he lists no study he's not quoting anything from the book, any study. he think is a brilliant move to not give a religious person money and yet still criticize stuff he really know, that's a brilliant move.

This article is not a review of Hinman's book, but a commentary on his approach to scientific examination of an issue. Hinman calls mystical experience "empirical evidence of the supernatural".


Of course he;s not actually quoting anything I;ve written,that's why he get;s everything wrong,


The thesis of his book is to show that the scientific evaluation of empirical data relating to mystical experiences provides a rational scientific basis for belief in God.

No not exactly, he;s just assuming he knows what I said he;s totally off base. he is too ignorant my Potomac is to complex to be guessed at by a creton,


However, if that were really the case, the scientific community would be buzzing with the news of this empirical evidence for God. It is not. The fact of the matter is that the scientific community has yet to recognize the existence of any such evidence.

these studies are spread over a 50 year period there has been plenty written about them thorough the years, Shrinks have have commented om the new positive out look for religion in psychology.Doufus is so far behind the times and knows nothing of social science,


Joe Hinman said...

What Hinman has done is a survey of studies done mainly in the field of psychology of religion that correlate mystical experiences with positive outcomes in the lives of people who have them. He also relies on Hood's M-scale to distinguish "genuine" mystical experiences from other similar phenomena, such as drug-induced experiences.

that's what Hood uses it for, Hoods words. The drug thing he made up,that;s not part of it,


He makes an argument based on these studies that mystical experiences are the result of a supernatural power, and that they have a transformative (or life-changing) affect on the subject.

I don;t talk much about SN in my book that was not part of it he still does not get the concept, The term SN originally meant mystical experience not that Mystical experience is a miracle,,


Joe Hinman said...

It is this transformation that provides the supposed warrant for God-belief. By citing all these studies, Hinman claims he has taken a scientific approach to arrive at his conclusion of warranted belief in God.

I've said all along I;m' going beyond science,Doufus cannot be trusted to rely a position accurately


But there are problems with this approach. First and foremost, any scientific approach must take into account all available evidence, not just the evidence that suits your purpose. Why limit his examination of studies to those in the field of psychology of religion, which seems to be dominated by religious believers, rather than the broader field of psychology in general?

(1) remember he has not shown a singe Christian among any of the researchers. I show several atheists who did major studies that I use but not one Christian have I found,I have no idea of the depth of religious belief among any of them. Doufus is convened they are all Christians,this is a huge lie and it's one standard ploy used by atheists on CARM.



Could it be that the broader scientific community doesn't support his goals as much as the mostly religiously oriented studies that he cites? Cherry-picking evidence to support previously held beliefs is the hallmark of pseudo-science.


I have not used a single rleiogoius orientation study. Remember he does not have a single saucer I quoted,



Even the name Hinman uses for these experiences indicates his bias toward religious explanation: "mystical", as opposed to "peak".

ahaahhahahahaahahahaha he thinks I made up calling it mystical, that screams Hey I';m ignorantki never read nothing vote for me I don't know nothing,


The broader scientific community generally uses the term "peak experience", which was coined by Abraham Maslow to describe the phenomenon, without giving it a presumption of religious or spiritual content.

(1)they use the term peak because Maslow used it
(2) Maslow did not share his utter contempt for all religious believers. He used peak because not all such experiences are religious it is more inclusive, but the vast majority are religious.

Joe Hinman said...

While it is true that many people attach a religious significance to these experiences, it is certainly not the case that they must have religious significance. In fact, peak experiences occur to all kinds of people in many contexts that have little or no relationship to religion or spirituality at all, as described by psychiatrist Bruce G Charlton. But Hinman ignores that inconvenient fact.

the M scale research shows that the experience are all the same some people who can;t brig themselves to reflect a religious connotation have these experiences and try not to call it God but they are extremely rarer.


''''
A major assumption made by Hinman is that mystical experiences are transformative. Although many studies show a positive correlation between the experience and psychological well-being, it would be a mistake to assume that the experience causes an improvement in well-being.

this is where he shows his true illiteracy he has no concept of what he;s talking about.


In fact, many psychologists believe that people with a higher level of well-being are more prone to have peak experiences. A common theory is that the peak experience follows an instance of mental clarity or insight, and serves as a kind of reward for having accomplished a cognitive feat. If that's true, then Hinman has the cause and effect backwards, which weakens rather than strengthens his argument.

That people with higher level of well being might have a ME does not prove that it is not God they are exercising,as we will see the assertion is false,I still have 200 studies documenting my view, he has 0. he Connotea produce a single source certainly not a study to back what BS he just wrote, I have 200 sundries,
w200 tp 0.


so very stupid to reverse causality when so may examples come from troubled people, the idea that mystical experience results from strong sense of well being is just back wards to the experience of most of the peephole who heavy then,

explain the the Rosareio study showing people who are

in chronic pain or dying have mystical expediences,if the well being comes first,

im-skeptical said...

Of course he;s not actually quoting anything I;ve written,that's why he get;s everything wrong

GET THIS STRAIGHT. IT'S NOT THE STUDIES THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. IT'S YOUR FAULTY LOGIC AND YOUR ABYSMAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE YOU CITE.

Joe Hinman said...

(1) You don't know what the studies say so you don't know if I misinterpret them.

(2) YOU HAVE NEVER DEALT WITH THE LOGIC OF MY ARGUMENTS, YOUR REASONING IS TOTALLY IDEOLOGICAL NOT LOGICAL.

Joe Hinman said...

As I said I've discussed my ideas with several of the researchers they agree that I am using their studies rightly.

im-skeptical said...

As I said I've discussed my ideas with several of the researchers they agree that I am using their studies rightly

- I think "several" is a bit of an exaggeration. I believe you may have spoken with Hood, a fellow religionist, and if you spoke with any of the others (which I doubt), they were also religionists. But you evidently think (with Hood's encouragement) it's a scientifically valid methodology to start out with a goal of finding evidence of God in religious experience, and then use Hood's M-scale to weed out those who don't attach a deep religious significance to their own experience, so you can then claim that these experiences all share common religiously significant factors, and therefore God did it - of course - what other explanation could there possibly be? So I would strongly encourage you to present your work for peer review by a legitimate scientific review committee. After all, your break-through findings have eluded the entire scientific community, and they deserve to be recognized for what they are.

Joe Hinman said...

Hey stupid, You just omitted two very serious breaches of dictate bordering upon a violation of the code of scholarship, If you don't know that you are a idiot, and you are a liar.

(1) you lie about me, about what I've said, about my work (which you have never read,and you speak with such utter authority about it totally wrong and knowing nothing but coming on like you are expert that it it leads to: (2) fabrication information.




Joe Hinman said...

- I think "several" is a bit of an exaggeration. I believe you may have spoken with Hood, a fellow religionist, and if you spoke with any of the others (which I doubt), they were also religionists.

There he fabricates info and he;s so certain about it, they are all (N word for religion deliverable). In fact only one of them claims to be, Hood is not, I named some atheists who did some of the studies named them in this comment section. Wuthnow, Noble, I;e talked to Wuthnow, Maslow, (this is import he will not reject Maslow as an atheist but Maslow agreed that the experiences are transfoative, Maslow really disproves his crap. Boyer is an atehist. He is full of shit.



He says: "But you evidently think (with Hood's encouragement) it's a scientifically valid methodology to start out with a goal of finding evidence of God in religious experience, and then use Hood's M-scale to weed out those who don't attach a deep religious significance to their own experience, so you can then claim that these experiences all share common religiously significant factors, and therefore God did it - of course - what other explanation could there possibly be?"


With this lie he reverses the process that Hood clearly develops, one can follow Hood;s progress over the years by dofouss does;t bother to read or study or research he just makes it up based upon seeing certain things I talk about

(1) Hood never says his goal was to prove God with the Mscale as doufus says

(2) he never use Hood's M-scale to weed out those who don't attach a deep religious significance to their own experience,

(3) the notion that universal experience suggest a real object of experience is just logical sorry you have no chose but to accept the fact that some things that contradict your world view are true and largely be demonstrated as such, too bade,

im-skeptical said...

Hood is definitely a religionist. As for the others, are you claiming that they accept your methodology as being scientifically valid? I can't believe Maslow would have done that. Because it isn't.

im-skeptical said...

And by the way, Maslow died in 1970;

Joe Hinman said...

I know when he died so what?

Your hate term "religionist" (N word) little atheiod, is meaningless Calling Hood by your version of the N word proves nothing,atheiod.. You have no basis for your assertions, you think because he studies religion hemust be religious taht shows you are totally unperceptive.

Joe Hinman said...

The M scale is the best validated apparatus for it's purpose. It's accepted as such ib the field. That is beside the point of what Hood believes.

Doufus says: "As for the others, are you claiming that they accept your methodology as being scientifically valid? I can't believe Maslow would have done that. Because it isn't."

This just shows massive inability to understand ideas. He cannot distinguish between the social science data and what I do with it as a philosophical argument.
those are twp totally different categories of thought.

Wuthnow and Hood and the researchers to who I have spoken approve of my referencing their data and what I say about their methodology and my understanding of what they have don. They don't comment on the philosophical use of the God arguments. Hood says in his book "It is not my place as a scientist to decide the existnece of God."

Doufus is used to scientists who violate their place as scientists and run off into ideology such as Stenger and Dawkins so he can't understand a scientist who knos what is beyond science.


I have explained this over and over again but he does't read answers so he hs no idea,

Joe Hinman said...



THIS TOPIC IS CLOSED

im-skeptical said...

I know when he died so what?
- You were saying you talked to him: "I;e talked to Wuthnow, Maslow, ...". Obviously, what you said isn't true.

Your hate term "religionist" (N word) little atheiod, is meaningless
- It's not a hate term. It's a useful term that refers to people whose thinking is driven primarily by religious belief. It is used, by many people besides myself.

He cannot distinguish between the social science data and what I do with it as a philosophical argument.
- I'm talking about your method of analyzing scientific data, not your argument, in this case. Your methodology is poor, and would never pass peer review.

Joe Hinman said...

I know when he died so what?
- You were saying you talked to him: "I;e talked to Wuthnow, Maslow, ...". Obviously, what you said isn't true.

No, I said they were both atheists,

Your hate term "religionist" (N word) little atheiod, is meaningless

- It's not a hate term. It's a useful term that refers to people whose thinking is driven primarily by religious belief. It is used, by many people besides myself.

No it;s not a useful term it;s a misleading term. I don;t just advocate religion apart from a specific message a religious y nature. It;s a means of dismissing people without having to hear what they say

He cannot distinguish between the social science data and what I do with it as a philosophical argument.

- I'm talking about your method of analyzing scientific data, not your argument, in this case. Your methodology is poor, and would never pass peer review.

undergraduate you do not understand anything about the topic,I studied methodology at Phd level and you did not. You are a liar claiming to accept the studies because you you know you ca;t out bargemen on methodology, then trying to undermined then through the back door.

I allowed this to explain about the maslow quote, but it is closed don;t postagain