The major objection to the universality argument stems from a vast movement that has arisen just since the turn of the century, the rapidly expanding field of Neuro-theology (or Cognative Science of Religion):
In recent years a number of books have been published in the United States which argue that religious experiences and activities can be measured as neural activity in the brain...these theories purport to explain why there are common patterns of religious behavior and experience across culture which are observable in the field of comparative religion..Most such theories assert that as our understanding the brains activities develop through exploration of its underlying structures and mechanisms so the origin of religious experiences and ritual behavior will be revealed...These theorioes purport to explain why there are common paterns of religious behaviors and experience across cultures.[1]
R. Joseph states, “that The brain underlies all experience of living human beings is an absolute statement It subsumes all religious phenomena and all mystical experiences including hyper lucid visionary experiences, trance states, contemplating God and the experience of unitary absorption.”[2] Since religious experience is linked to brain chemistry it must be the result of brain chemistry, thus there’s no reason to assume it’s indicative of any sort of supernatural causation. This view has become standard in the scientific community. Tiger and McGuire state:
Skeptics argue that the experiences have a commonality because they are all produced by human brain structure. In other words the names from the various religions are the constructs but the experiences that unite the subjects and that transcend the individual cultural filters are the same because they are products of a shared structure that of the human brain. Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser state the argument:
In other words, the discussion about origins of religion there are two genetic choices, a specific gene, or spandrels. The weight of the evidence, according to Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, leans toward the latter (spandrels: pre-existing cognitive functions based upon combined genetic functions from other areas). The deeper level of complexity comes with the finding that religion evolved from spandrels and yet it is still subject to adaptation manifesting in a system for cooperation (religion). What their findings really suggest is that moral motions are more basic than religious doctrine and that moral decision making transcends social structure or organization. Religion is perpetuated because its conducive to cooperation but there is an underlying sense or moral motion that's tied to the specific religious affiliation. Moral reasoning is not the same as mystical experience. Religious experience is a passive apprehension and moral decision making is an active use of deductive reasoning. Moreover, in finding religion is not original adaptation they are really negating the brain structure argument for uniformity of religious experiences. Their findings show that moral decisions transcended the religious background, thus the religious symbols, ideas, and presumably experiences are not reducible to moral motions since the latter transcends the former.[5] If religious experiences are of the same nature because of the state of human brain structure we should expect to find a conformation between moral motions religious experience. Frederick Schleiermacher argued that religion is more than just enhanced ethical thinking.[6] This has led to the widely accepted theory of the religious a priori. Religion is understood as it's own discipline separate from ethics. The a priori is seen as a “special for of awareness which exists alongside the cognitive, moral and aesthetic forms of awareness and is not explicable by reference to them.” [7]
As an argument about the origin of religion, the genetic aspects would only be the proximate cause. It doesn't rule out a distal cause in the divine. Andrew Newberg, one of the pioneers in researching neural activity of religious experience and God talk tells us that none of the research disproves God, nor could it:
Just being connected to brain chemistry is not enough to disprove the universal experience argument.
The problem with the brain structure argument is that even though we all have human brain structure we don’t all have the same kinds of experiences. We can’t assume that universal experiences come from brain structure alone. First, not everyone has mystical experience. Even though the incidence rates are high they are not 100%. We all have human brain structure but not all have these experiences. Secondly, even among those who do there are varying degrees of the experience. William James saw it as a continuum and Robert Wuthnow, one of the early researchers who did a modern scientific study on the phenomenon also theorized that there is a continuum upon which degree of experience varies.[9] If the brain structure argument was true then we should expect to always have the same experience; we should have the same culture. We have differing experiences and even our perceptions of the same phenomena vary. Yet the experience of mystical phenomena is not identical since it is filtered through cultural constructs and translated into the doctrinal understanding of traditions that the experiencers identify as their own.
The brain Structure argument is based upon the same premises reductionists take to the topic of consciousness and brain/mind. They assume that any subjective experience is ultimately the result of brain chemistry. There really is no reason to assume this other than the fact that brain chemistry plays a role in our perceptions. There’s no basis for the assumption that any mental phenomena must originate in brain chemistry alone. In those arguments a sense usually emerges that any involvement with the natural cancels the supernatural. I suggest that this is the ersatz version of supernature. The alien realm, juxtaposed to the natural realm and brought in as a counter to naturalism, this is the false concept of Supernatural that Eugene R, Fairweather spoke about.[10] The original concept of supernature is that of the ground and end of the natural. Thus it would be involved with nature. The ground/end of nature is the ontology of supernature and pragmatic working out of the phenomenon would be the power of God to lift human nature to a higher level, as discussed by Fairweather and aslo Mathias Joseph Scheeben.[11] How can human nature be elevated without supernature being involved with the realm of nature? Thus, if it is true that bonafide experiences of God are mediated by brain chemistry, then the fact that supernature works through evolutionary processes and physiological realities such as brain chemistry is hardly surprising.
Some studies have explored questions about brain function and the texture or mechanics of mystical experience. Van Elk et al explore the hypothesis that the sensation of supernatural presence is an adaptation from the need to over-detect presences of predictors in the jungle. There findings did not coroborate that hypothesis. He does makes the statement that it otherwise lacks empirical proof.[12] In other words if one sets out on a jungle trail, and there is darkness, sensing a predictor and turning back from the trek would be helpful. If the sensation was wrong and there was no predictor the mistake of being wrong would be less grave than that of being right but ignoring the sense. Thus, the sensation of presence is selected for. This might be used by a skeptic to answer the argument from mystical experience. Elk has five experiments that that seek to explore weather processing concepts about supernatural agents enhances detection in the environment.
Participants were presented with point light stimuli representing kinds of biological motion, or with pictures of faces embedded in a noise mask. Participants were asked to indicate if the stimuli represented a human agent or not. In each case they used three “primes,” one for supernatural, one ofr human, one for animal. They found that supernatural primes facilitated better agent detection.[13] So the argument is that the perceived presence of agents in threatening situations and tendencies to anthropomorphizing leads stronger belief in ghosts, demons, angels, gods and other “supernatural” agency.[14] They point to a body of work consisting of several studies showing that particular paranormal beliefs are a reliable predictor of illusory perceptions of faces and agency detection. These studies include Willard and Norenzayan (2013), Reikki et. al. (2013), and Petrican and Burris (2012).[15] “although these studies provide tentative support for the relation between agency detection and supernatural beliefs, the notion that reigious beliefs are a byproduct of perceptual biases to detect patterns and agency has been challenge by several authors...” (Bulbulia, 2004, Lisdorf 2007, and McKay and Efferson, 2010).[16]
While it may be true that some aspects of mystical experience are genetically related, and may be related to agent detection, that is no proof that mystical experience originates wholly within a naturalistic and genetic framework. First, because these studies only demonstrate a correlation between supernatural beliefs and agency detection. There is no attempt to establish the direction of a causal relationship. If there is a connection between supernatural and agent detection it could as easily be that awareness of supernatural concepts makes one more sensitive to agent detection. Secondly, of course just being genetically related doesn't reduce the phenomenon wholly to genetic endowments. Thirdly, there is a lot more to mystical experience than agent detection. Both involve sensing a presence beyond that point the differences are immense. I am not even sure that facial recognition and sensing a predator are similar enough to count for anything. In sensing being observed one is not usually aware of visual ques as one would be in facial recognition. There's no guarantee that the quality of the sensing is the same. Feeling the divine presence is much more august and involves levels and textures. Such an experience is, overall, positive, life changing, transformational (even noetic) but merely feeling one is being observed could be creepy, negative, or even trivial. The vast differences can be spelled out in the tiebreakers I discuss in The Trace of God.
Tibreakers
If supernature manifests itself in the natural realm through brain chemistry then the conclusion that this is somehow indicative of the divine could go either way. We can’t rule out the divine or supernatural just because it involves the natural realm. What then is the real distinguishing feature that tells us this is inductive of something other than nature? That’s where I introduce the “tie breakers.” There are aspects of the situation that indicate the effects of having the experience could not be produced by nature unaided:
(1) The transformative effects
The experience is good for us. It changes the experiencer across the board. These effects are well documented by that huge body of empirical research. They include self actualization, therapeutic effects that actually enhance healing form mental problems, less depression better mental outlook and so on. Summarizing the results of two of the major studies:
This is not merely a list of warm fuzzies. The results represent actual life transformation and change of world view. The results are dramatic and positive; well grounded psychological health, a deep sense of meaning and purpose in life, overcoming fear of death and overcoming physical addictions. Examples, Patricia Ryan's study finds that abuse victims often come to view God in more cosmic and impersonal terms. Or they become embittered and turn away from God, victims of childhood trauma and abuse often report that they felt the abuser was trying to destroy their soul and that this was the one inviolable core that could not be destroyed. This sense was related to mystical experience.[17] Loretta Do Rozario studied patients who were either dying or in chronic pain. She found that mystical experience elevated the sense of illness and pain to a level of the “universal search for meaning and self transcendence.” The subjects reported that the experience ot only enabled them to cope with pain and fear of death but also enabled them to experience joy within the hardship.[18]
Skeptics often advance the placebo argument, but it is neutralized because Placebos require expectation and a large portion of mystical experience is not expected. It’s not something people usually set out to have. Without being able to argue for placebo effect there is really no way to account for the transformational effects.[19] Moreover, while placebo get's used against any claim about the mind there's actually a much more narrow range to which it rightly applies.
...People frequently expand the concept of the placebo effect very broady to include just about every conceivable sort of beneficial, biological, social or human interaction that doesn't involve some drug well known to the pharmacopeia. The concept of placebo has been expanded much more broadly than this. Some attribute the effects of various alternative medical systems such as homeopathy or chiropractic to placebo effect. Others have described studies that show the positive effects of enhanced communication, such as Egbert's as the ploaebo response without the placebo.[20]
Thus the burden of proof is upon the skeptic to prove that placebo even applies to religious experience.
(2) Noetic aspects to the experiences
These are not informational but there is a sense in which the mystic feels that he has learned soemthing about the universe as a result of the experience. This usually is on the order of “God loves me” or “all is one.”
(3) The experience contains
the sense of the numinous or sense of the holy.
This is closely related to the Noetic sense and they clearly overlap but there is a distinction. The snse of the Holy could be more general and gives the sense that some unique and special aspect of reality exists. Some noetic qualities might be considered doctrinal in nature. “all is one” is a doctrinal statement. While I don't advocate using mystical experience to shape doctrine, because the shaping of doctrine in the Christian tradition revolves around pre given principles in revelatory texts, the nature of these qualities indicates more is going on than just misfire of some neuron.
(4) why positive?
These experiences are never negative. The only negativity associated with mystical experience is the sense of the mysterium tremendum, the highly serious nature of the Holy. That is not a lasting negative effect. If this is nothing more than brain chemistry and it’s just some sort of misfire where the brain just forgets to connect the sense of self to the part that says “I am not the world,” why is it so positive, transformative, vital? It’s not often that such a positive experience results form a biological accident.
(5) bad evolutionary theory
Mystical experience has not been tied to gene frequency. So the argument about adaptation has to rest upon the intermediaries that it provides, such as surviving long winters so one can have gene frequency. Yet all of those kinds of experiences flaunt the explanatory gap of consciousness. Why should we develop a mystically based sense of the world to get through hard long winter when we could more easily develop a brain circuiting that ignores boredom? Then this adaptation that is only there because it enabled us to get through being snowed in has such an amazing array of other effects such as life transformation and better mental health, and leads to the development of such complex fantasisms of errors as religious belief and organized religion. It’s so inefficient. Surely survival of the fittest should take the course of least resistance?
(6) Navigation in life
Mystical experiences enable navigation in life, these experiences and their effects enable us to get through and to set our sights on higher idealistic concepts and ways of life. They provide a sense of self actualization, authentication, and enable the subjects to bear up in the face of adversity. Rozario writes about those in her study who suffered chronic pain or were dying: “The inner awareness of wholeness despite the odds points to an explicit experience of life which can transcend form and matter. This experience of wholeness or consciousness extends and challenges the view of disability and illness as only a myth making and revaluing opportunity in the lives of people.”[21] Gackenback,
writes:
These states of being also result in behavioral and health changes. Ludwig (1985) found that 14% of people claiming spontaneous remission from alcoholism was due to mystical experiences while Richards (1978) found with cancer patients treated in a hallucinogenic drug-assisted therapy who reported mystical experiences improved significantly more on a measure of self-actualization than those who also had the drug but did not have a mystical experience. In terms of the Vedic Psychology group they report a wide range of positive behavioral results from the practice of meditation and as outlined above go to great pains to show that it is the transcendence aspect of that practice that is primarily responsible for the changes. Thus improved performance in many areas of society have been reported including education and business as well as personal health states (reviewed and summarized in Alexander et al., 1990). Specifically, the Vedic Psychology group have found that mystical experiences were associated with "refined sensory threshold and enhanced mind-body coordination (p. 115; Alexander et al., 1987).[22]
[4] Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, "The Origins of Religion: Evolved Adaption or by Product." Science Direct: Trends in Cognitive Science, Volume 14, Issue 3, (March 2010), 104-109.
[9]Robert Wuthnow, “Peak Experieces, Some Empirical Tests,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 183 (1978) 61-62.
[10]Eugene R. Fairweather, “Christianity and the Supernatural,” in New Theology no.1. New York: Macmillian, Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman ed. 1964. 235-256
[11]Mathias Joseph Scheeben in Fairweather, Ibid.
[14]Ibid., 5.
[15]Ibid., 5. A.K. Willard and A. Norenzayan, “Cognative Biases Explain Religious Belief and belief in life's purpose,” Cognition 129 (2013), 379-391. T. Reikki, M.Litterman, et. al. “Paranormal and religious believers are more prone to illusary face perception than skeptics and none believers.” applied cognitive psychology 27 (2013) 150-155, and R. Petrican and C.T. Burris, “Am I a Stone? Over attribution of agency and Religious Orientation,” Religion and Spirituality 4 (2012), 312-323.
In recent years a number of books have been published in the United States which argue that religious experiences and activities can be measured as neural activity in the brain...these theories purport to explain why there are common patterns of religious behavior and experience across culture which are observable in the field of comparative religion..Most such theories assert that as our understanding the brains activities develop through exploration of its underlying structures and mechanisms so the origin of religious experiences and ritual behavior will be revealed...These theorioes purport to explain why there are common paterns of religious behaviors and experience across cultures.[1]
R. Joseph states, “that The brain underlies all experience of living human beings is an absolute statement It subsumes all religious phenomena and all mystical experiences including hyper lucid visionary experiences, trance states, contemplating God and the experience of unitary absorption.”[2] Since religious experience is linked to brain chemistry it must be the result of brain chemistry, thus there’s no reason to assume it’s indicative of any sort of supernatural causation. This view has become standard in the scientific community. Tiger and McGuire state:
Religion as a process generates remarkable action, countless events, numberless provocative artifacts. Yet what factual phenomenon except perhaps slips of ancient holy paper underlies and animates one of the most influential and durable of human endeavors? We've an answer. Shivers in the moist tissue of the brain confect cathedrals our proposal is that all religions differ but all share two destinies: they are the product of the human brain. They endure because of the strong influence of the product of the human brain. The brain is a sturdy organ ith common characteristics everywhere. A neurosurgeon can work confidently on a vatican patient and another in mecca. Same tissue, same mechinisms. One such mechinnism is a readiness to generate religions.[3]
Skeptics argue that the experiences have a commonality because they are all produced by human brain structure. In other words the names from the various religions are the constructs but the experiences that unite the subjects and that transcend the individual cultural filters are the same because they are products of a shared structure that of the human brain. Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser state the argument:
Considerable debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively designed system for solving the problem of cooperation.[4]
In other words, the discussion about origins of religion there are two genetic choices, a specific gene, or spandrels. The weight of the evidence, according to Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, leans toward the latter (spandrels: pre-existing cognitive functions based upon combined genetic functions from other areas). The deeper level of complexity comes with the finding that religion evolved from spandrels and yet it is still subject to adaptation manifesting in a system for cooperation (religion). What their findings really suggest is that moral motions are more basic than religious doctrine and that moral decision making transcends social structure or organization. Religion is perpetuated because its conducive to cooperation but there is an underlying sense or moral motion that's tied to the specific religious affiliation. Moral reasoning is not the same as mystical experience. Religious experience is a passive apprehension and moral decision making is an active use of deductive reasoning. Moreover, in finding religion is not original adaptation they are really negating the brain structure argument for uniformity of religious experiences. Their findings show that moral decisions transcended the religious background, thus the religious symbols, ideas, and presumably experiences are not reducible to moral motions since the latter transcends the former.[5] If religious experiences are of the same nature because of the state of human brain structure we should expect to find a conformation between moral motions religious experience. Frederick Schleiermacher argued that religion is more than just enhanced ethical thinking.[6] This has led to the widely accepted theory of the religious a priori. Religion is understood as it's own discipline separate from ethics. The a priori is seen as a “special for of awareness which exists alongside the cognitive, moral and aesthetic forms of awareness and is not explicable by reference to them.” [7]
As an argument about the origin of religion, the genetic aspects would only be the proximate cause. It doesn't rule out a distal cause in the divine. Andrew Newberg, one of the pioneers in researching neural activity of religious experience and God talk tells us that none of the research disproves God, nor could it:
…Tracing spiritual experience to neurological behavior does not disprove its realness. If God does exist, for example, and if He appeared to you in some incarnation, you would have no way of experiencing His presence, except as part of a neurologically generated rendition of reality. You would need auditory processing to hear his voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of his message. Even if he spoke to you mystically, without words, you would need cognitive functions to comprehend his meaning, and input form the brain’s emotional centers to fill you with rapture and awe. Neurology makes it clear: there is no other way for God to get into your head except through the brain’s neural pathways. Correspondingly, God cannot exist as a concept or as reality anyplace else but in your mind. In this sense, both spiritual experiences and experiences of a more ordinary material nature are made real to the mind in the very same way—through the processing powers of the brain and the cognitive functions of the mind. Whatever the ultimate nature of spiritual experience might be—weather it is in fact an actual perception of spiritual reality—or merely an interpretation of sheer neurological function—all that is meaningful in human spirituality happens in the mind. In other words, the mind is mystical by default.[8]
Just being connected to brain chemistry is not enough to disprove the universal experience argument.
The problem with the brain structure argument is that even though we all have human brain structure we don’t all have the same kinds of experiences. We can’t assume that universal experiences come from brain structure alone. First, not everyone has mystical experience. Even though the incidence rates are high they are not 100%. We all have human brain structure but not all have these experiences. Secondly, even among those who do there are varying degrees of the experience. William James saw it as a continuum and Robert Wuthnow, one of the early researchers who did a modern scientific study on the phenomenon also theorized that there is a continuum upon which degree of experience varies.[9] If the brain structure argument was true then we should expect to always have the same experience; we should have the same culture. We have differing experiences and even our perceptions of the same phenomena vary. Yet the experience of mystical phenomena is not identical since it is filtered through cultural constructs and translated into the doctrinal understanding of traditions that the experiencers identify as their own.
The brain Structure argument is based upon the same premises reductionists take to the topic of consciousness and brain/mind. They assume that any subjective experience is ultimately the result of brain chemistry. There really is no reason to assume this other than the fact that brain chemistry plays a role in our perceptions. There’s no basis for the assumption that any mental phenomena must originate in brain chemistry alone. In those arguments a sense usually emerges that any involvement with the natural cancels the supernatural. I suggest that this is the ersatz version of supernature. The alien realm, juxtaposed to the natural realm and brought in as a counter to naturalism, this is the false concept of Supernatural that Eugene R, Fairweather spoke about.[10] The original concept of supernature is that of the ground and end of the natural. Thus it would be involved with nature. The ground/end of nature is the ontology of supernature and pragmatic working out of the phenomenon would be the power of God to lift human nature to a higher level, as discussed by Fairweather and aslo Mathias Joseph Scheeben.[11] How can human nature be elevated without supernature being involved with the realm of nature? Thus, if it is true that bonafide experiences of God are mediated by brain chemistry, then the fact that supernature works through evolutionary processes and physiological realities such as brain chemistry is hardly surprising.
Some studies have explored questions about brain function and the texture or mechanics of mystical experience. Van Elk et al explore the hypothesis that the sensation of supernatural presence is an adaptation from the need to over-detect presences of predictors in the jungle. There findings did not coroborate that hypothesis. He does makes the statement that it otherwise lacks empirical proof.[12] In other words if one sets out on a jungle trail, and there is darkness, sensing a predictor and turning back from the trek would be helpful. If the sensation was wrong and there was no predictor the mistake of being wrong would be less grave than that of being right but ignoring the sense. Thus, the sensation of presence is selected for. This might be used by a skeptic to answer the argument from mystical experience. Elk has five experiments that that seek to explore weather processing concepts about supernatural agents enhances detection in the environment.
Participants were presented with point light stimuli representing kinds of biological motion, or with pictures of faces embedded in a noise mask. Participants were asked to indicate if the stimuli represented a human agent or not. In each case they used three “primes,” one for supernatural, one ofr human, one for animal. They found that supernatural primes facilitated better agent detection.[13] So the argument is that the perceived presence of agents in threatening situations and tendencies to anthropomorphizing leads stronger belief in ghosts, demons, angels, gods and other “supernatural” agency.[14] They point to a body of work consisting of several studies showing that particular paranormal beliefs are a reliable predictor of illusory perceptions of faces and agency detection. These studies include Willard and Norenzayan (2013), Reikki et. al. (2013), and Petrican and Burris (2012).[15] “although these studies provide tentative support for the relation between agency detection and supernatural beliefs, the notion that reigious beliefs are a byproduct of perceptual biases to detect patterns and agency has been challenge by several authors...” (Bulbulia, 2004, Lisdorf 2007, and McKay and Efferson, 2010).[16]
While it may be true that some aspects of mystical experience are genetically related, and may be related to agent detection, that is no proof that mystical experience originates wholly within a naturalistic and genetic framework. First, because these studies only demonstrate a correlation between supernatural beliefs and agency detection. There is no attempt to establish the direction of a causal relationship. If there is a connection between supernatural and agent detection it could as easily be that awareness of supernatural concepts makes one more sensitive to agent detection. Secondly, of course just being genetically related doesn't reduce the phenomenon wholly to genetic endowments. Thirdly, there is a lot more to mystical experience than agent detection. Both involve sensing a presence beyond that point the differences are immense. I am not even sure that facial recognition and sensing a predator are similar enough to count for anything. In sensing being observed one is not usually aware of visual ques as one would be in facial recognition. There's no guarantee that the quality of the sensing is the same. Feeling the divine presence is much more august and involves levels and textures. Such an experience is, overall, positive, life changing, transformational (even noetic) but merely feeling one is being observed could be creepy, negative, or even trivial. The vast differences can be spelled out in the tiebreakers I discuss in The Trace of God.
Tibreakers
If supernature manifests itself in the natural realm through brain chemistry then the conclusion that this is somehow indicative of the divine could go either way. We can’t rule out the divine or supernatural just because it involves the natural realm. What then is the real distinguishing feature that tells us this is inductive of something other than nature? That’s where I introduce the “tie breakers.” There are aspects of the situation that indicate the effects of having the experience could not be produced by nature unaided:
(1) The transformative effects
The experience is good for us. It changes the experiencer across the board. These effects are well documented by that huge body of empirical research. They include self actualization, therapeutic effects that actually enhance healing form mental problems, less depression better mental outlook and so on. Summarizing the results of two of the major studies:
This is not merely a list of warm fuzzies. The results represent actual life transformation and change of world view. The results are dramatic and positive; well grounded psychological health, a deep sense of meaning and purpose in life, overcoming fear of death and overcoming physical addictions. Examples, Patricia Ryan's study finds that abuse victims often come to view God in more cosmic and impersonal terms. Or they become embittered and turn away from God, victims of childhood trauma and abuse often report that they felt the abuser was trying to destroy their soul and that this was the one inviolable core that could not be destroyed. This sense was related to mystical experience.[17] Loretta Do Rozario studied patients who were either dying or in chronic pain. She found that mystical experience elevated the sense of illness and pain to a level of the “universal search for meaning and self transcendence.” The subjects reported that the experience ot only enabled them to cope with pain and fear of death but also enabled them to experience joy within the hardship.[18]
Skeptics often advance the placebo argument, but it is neutralized because Placebos require expectation and a large portion of mystical experience is not expected. It’s not something people usually set out to have. Without being able to argue for placebo effect there is really no way to account for the transformational effects.[19] Moreover, while placebo get's used against any claim about the mind there's actually a much more narrow range to which it rightly applies.
...People frequently expand the concept of the placebo effect very broady to include just about every conceivable sort of beneficial, biological, social or human interaction that doesn't involve some drug well known to the pharmacopeia. The concept of placebo has been expanded much more broadly than this. Some attribute the effects of various alternative medical systems such as homeopathy or chiropractic to placebo effect. Others have described studies that show the positive effects of enhanced communication, such as Egbert's as the ploaebo response without the placebo.[20]
Thus the burden of proof is upon the skeptic to prove that placebo even applies to religious experience.
(2) Noetic aspects to the experiences
These are not informational but there is a sense in which the mystic feels that he has learned soemthing about the universe as a result of the experience. This usually is on the order of “God loves me” or “all is one.”
(3) The experience contains
the sense of the numinous or sense of the holy.
This is closely related to the Noetic sense and they clearly overlap but there is a distinction. The snse of the Holy could be more general and gives the sense that some unique and special aspect of reality exists. Some noetic qualities might be considered doctrinal in nature. “all is one” is a doctrinal statement. While I don't advocate using mystical experience to shape doctrine, because the shaping of doctrine in the Christian tradition revolves around pre given principles in revelatory texts, the nature of these qualities indicates more is going on than just misfire of some neuron.
(4) why positive?
These experiences are never negative. The only negativity associated with mystical experience is the sense of the mysterium tremendum, the highly serious nature of the Holy. That is not a lasting negative effect. If this is nothing more than brain chemistry and it’s just some sort of misfire where the brain just forgets to connect the sense of self to the part that says “I am not the world,” why is it so positive, transformative, vital? It’s not often that such a positive experience results form a biological accident.
(5) bad evolutionary theory
Mystical experience has not been tied to gene frequency. So the argument about adaptation has to rest upon the intermediaries that it provides, such as surviving long winters so one can have gene frequency. Yet all of those kinds of experiences flaunt the explanatory gap of consciousness. Why should we develop a mystically based sense of the world to get through hard long winter when we could more easily develop a brain circuiting that ignores boredom? Then this adaptation that is only there because it enabled us to get through being snowed in has such an amazing array of other effects such as life transformation and better mental health, and leads to the development of such complex fantasisms of errors as religious belief and organized religion. It’s so inefficient. Surely survival of the fittest should take the course of least resistance?
(6) Navigation in life
Mystical experiences enable navigation in life, these experiences and their effects enable us to get through and to set our sights on higher idealistic concepts and ways of life. They provide a sense of self actualization, authentication, and enable the subjects to bear up in the face of adversity. Rozario writes about those in her study who suffered chronic pain or were dying: “The inner awareness of wholeness despite the odds points to an explicit experience of life which can transcend form and matter. This experience of wholeness or consciousness extends and challenges the view of disability and illness as only a myth making and revaluing opportunity in the lives of people.”[21] Gackenback,
writes:
These states of being also result in behavioral and health changes. Ludwig (1985) found that 14% of people claiming spontaneous remission from alcoholism was due to mystical experiences while Richards (1978) found with cancer patients treated in a hallucinogenic drug-assisted therapy who reported mystical experiences improved significantly more on a measure of self-actualization than those who also had the drug but did not have a mystical experience. In terms of the Vedic Psychology group they report a wide range of positive behavioral results from the practice of meditation and as outlined above go to great pains to show that it is the transcendence aspect of that practice that is primarily responsible for the changes. Thus improved performance in many areas of society have been reported including education and business as well as personal health states (reviewed and summarized in Alexander et al., 1990). Specifically, the Vedic Psychology group have found that mystical experiences were associated with "refined sensory threshold and enhanced mind-body coordination (p. 115; Alexander et al., 1987).[22]
[1] George D. Chryssides and Ron Geives, The Study of Religion an Introduction to key ideas and methods. London, New Deli, New york: Bloomsbury, 2nd ed. 2007, 59-60.
Chryssides is a research fellow with the University of Birmingham. He has an MA in Philosophy and D Phil in systematic theology from University of Glasgow. Among the books he mentions as examples of the trend are Why God Wont Go Away, by E. Aquili andAndrew Newberg(1999) , and Nuero-Theology by R. Joseph (2003)
[2] R. Joseph, Nuero-Theology:Brain, Science, Spirituality, Religious Experience. University Pr; 2nd edition (May 15, 2003) 22.
[3]Lionel Tiger and Michael McGuire, God's Brain, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010. 11.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309002897
[5]Ibid,. 105=106.
[6]Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason, Hugh S. Pyper. The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought:Intellectual, Spiritual and Moral Horizons of Christianity, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000, 483
In the Trace of God I do two chapters defending Schleiermacher's notion and the religious a priori against reductionist based attacks by philosopher yne Proudfoot. (Hinman, Trace...op. Cit., 179-241).
[7]David Pailin, “The Religious a priori,” Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, Louisville Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, Alan Richardson and John Bowden, ed.,1983, 498.
[8]Andrew Newberg, Why God Won’t God Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. (New York, Ballentine Books), 2001, 37.
[10]Eugene R. Fairweather, “Christianity and the Supernatural,” in New Theology no.1. New York: Macmillian, Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman ed. 1964. 235-256
[11]Mathias Joseph Scheeben in Fairweather, Ibid.
[12]Michiel Elk, Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Joop van der Pligt,& Frenk van Harrveled (2016) Priming of Supernatural agent concepts and agency detection, Religion, Brain and Behavior, 6:1, 4-33, DOL: 10.1080/2153599X.2014.93344
[13]Ibid., 4
[14]Ibid., 5.
[15]Ibid., 5. A.K. Willard and A. Norenzayan, “Cognative Biases Explain Religious Belief and belief in life's purpose,” Cognition 129 (2013), 379-391. T. Reikki, M.Litterman, et. al. “Paranormal and religious believers are more prone to illusary face perception than skeptics and none believers.” applied cognitive psychology 27 (2013) 150-155, and R. Petrican and C.T. Burris, “Am I a Stone? Over attribution of agency and Religious Orientation,” Religion and Spirituality 4 (2012), 312-323.
[16]Ibid., 6. J. Bulbulia, “The Cognitive and Evolutionary Psychology of Religion,” Biology and Philosophy 19, (2004) 655-686, A. Lisdorf, “What's HIDD'n in the HADD,” Journal of Cognition and Culture 7, (2007), 341-353, and R. McKay and C. Efferson, “Subtitles of Error Management,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 31 (5)(2010) 309-319.
[17]Patricia L. Ryan, “Spirituality Among Adult Survivors of Childhood Violence: a Literary Review.” The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Vol. 30, no. 1, (1998) 43.
[18]Loretta Do Rozario, “Spirituality in the Lives of People With Disability and Chronic Illness: A Creative Paradigm of Wholness and Reconstitution.” Disability and Rehabilitation: An International and Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 19, no. 10, (1997) 427.
[19]Hinman, Trace...Op cit., 291.
[20]Daiel E. Morman, ayne B. Jonas, “Deconstructing the Placebo Effect and Finding the Meaning Response.” Annuals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 136, issue 6, (19 March 2002), 471-476. Dr. Moreman is an anthropologist at University of Michigan.
[21]Rozario, op.cit. 102.
[22]Jayne Gackenback,Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration. Unpublished paper (1992) Online resouirce
http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm accessed 1/19/16.
this issue relates directly to my book
43 comments:
"The problem with the brain structure argument is that even though we all have human brain structure we don’t all have the same kinds of experiences."
But:
(a) We don't have exactly the same brain structure. There are millions of differences between any two given brains (even those of monozygotic twins). There is every reason to think that in dealing with a complex physical system like a brain, small differences can easily add up to big differences.
(b) We have every reason to think that exactly similar information processing systems will yield different outputs when given different inputs. No two humans are ever given exactly the same experiential inputs. Once again, many small differences in inputs would be expected to deliver different behavior. When you take into account that current responses are not only the result of current experiential inputs, but also are the result of how neural pathways have been trained in the past, you once again have reason to expect differences between individuals however similar the situations into which they are placed.
Eric Sotnak said...
"The problem with the brain structure argument is that even though we all have human brain structure we don’t all have the same kinds of experiences."
But:
(a) We don't have exactly the same brain structure. There are millions of differences between any two given brains (even those of monozygotic twins). There is every reason to think that in dealing with a complex physical system like a brain, small differences can easily add up to big differences.
That helps my argument,
(b) We have every reason to think that exactly similar information processing systems will yield different outputs when given different inputs. No two humans are ever given exactly the same experiential inputs. Once again, many small differences in inputs would be expected to deliver different behavior. When you take into account that current responses are not only the result of current experiential inputs, but also are the result of how neural pathways have been trained in the past, you once again have reason to expect differences between individuals however similar the situations into which they are placed.
Yet Me is the same the world over,that makes it seem more remarkable
Eric makes a good point. No two brains are exactly the same. No two people have exactly the same experiences. Even you, Joe, say this in your article: "If the brain structure argument was true then we should expect to always have the same experience; we should have the same culture. We have differing experiences and even our perceptions of the same phenomena vary." So how can you then make the claim Yet Me is the same the world over,that makes it seem more remarkable?
Let's try a thought experiment. Consider that people do have a range of experiences. They vary in intensity, and in the interpretation of content, and so on. Let's say that you can divide this range into a dozen different categories, but you are only interested in one of those categories - call it the "X experience". Now, in order to figure out who's having the X experience, you devise a scale to assess the experience of different people. Let's call it the "X-scale". So you use the X-scale to designate all the people who are having the official X experience. Then you examine what those designated people are feeling, and you determine that within that group, their experience is remarkably similar.
But actually, it's not so remarkable, because you are not considering the whole range of experience that covers a dozen different categories. You are only considering the ones who are designated as having the one particular type of experience that is of interest to you. Outside that group, other people have other experiences.
Eric makes a good point. No two brains are exactly the same. No two people have exactly the same experiences. Even you, Joe, say this in your article: "If the brain structure argument was true then we should expect to always have the same experience; we should have the same culture. We have differing experiences and even our perceptions of the same phenomena vary." So how can you then make the claim Yet Me is the same the world over,that makes it seem more remarkable?
Because it is proven so empirically. What the M scales proves. you would know that if you ever read my article. That means they are experiencing the same thing, don't you see that?If everyone says the Grand canyon is a big ditch then maybe it is a big ditch,
Let's try a thought experiment. Consider that people do have a range of experiences. They vary in intensity, and in the interpretation of content, and so on. Let's say that you can divide this range into a dozen different categories, but you are only interested in one of those categories - call it the "X experience". Now, in order to figure out who's having the X experience, you devise a scale to assess the experience of different people. Let's call it the "X-scale". So you use the X-scale to designate all the people who are having the official X experience. Then you examine what those designated people are feeling, and you determine that within that group, their experience is remarkably similar.
all you are saying is hat it can't be as I say because that would mean I am right i can;t be right because God can't be real. you are just refusing to accept the facts.
But actually, it's not so remarkable, because you are not considering the whole range of experience that covers a dozen different categories. You are only considering the ones who are designated as having the one particular type of experience that is of interest to you. Outside that group, other people have other experiences.
what you are doing here is a little game reductionist paly called loosing the phenomena, you are trying to hide the reality in more and more data until it appears unimportant. There is a reason to group the data of ME apart from other kinds of data.
Losing the phenomena is real thing I learned of in graduate school,.you don't know about it because you did not go to graduate school you don;t know as much as I do.
8:48 AM
what you are doing here is a little game reductionist paly called loosing the phenomena, you are trying to hide the reality in more and more data until it appears unimportant. There is a reason to group the data of ME apart from other kinds of data.
- I'm not losing anything, but you are. I certainly don't deny that this type of experience exists. What I'm saying is that there is a broader range of peak experience than you acknowledge. YOU are the one who loses the phenomena. You eliminate all but a single narrow view of what constitutes the peak experience. I'm not losing the phenomena, but you are.
I'm not losing anything, but you are. I certainly don't deny that this type of experience exists. What I'm saying is that there is a broader range of peak experience than you acknowledge. YOU are the one who loses the phenomena. You eliminate all but a single narrow view of what constitutes the peak experience. I'm not losing the phenomena, but you are.
that is obviously bull shit since i never denied that atheists have it too. But the vast majority of people who do have it have religious versions of it, or I think the atheists interpret it differently.
Of course have't read a page of my book you have no idea what I say
I confess that I don't find this argument:
"If the brain structure argument was true then we should expect to always have the same experience; we should have the same culture"
very compelling, because even if the brain structure argument were true, differences in environment would give rise to different experiences and different cultures. A people group living in the southern seas is going to have a different culture than one living in the northern mountains. That said, I think the rest of your argument is sound, Joe. :)
But the vast majority of people who do have it have religious versions of it, or I think the atheists interpret it differently.
- Yes different people interpret it differently. That's the point. You claim that the experience is universal. But it's not. You say the M-scale tells us which experiences are "genuine", and which are not. Bullshit. There are different forms or types of peak experiences and they're NOT all the same. Who are you (or Hood with his M-scale) to say which ones are "genuine"?
In his book, Joe's whole point revolves around the notion that the m-scale is valid because its been shown to measure something. It (reportedly) correlates with long term, positive life changes and it's that correlation itself that tends to validate the scale itself by showing there is some phenomenon that is captured by the scale.
...otherwise, your case would be much stronger. If you wanna argue for other measurements, it'd be better if you could show they correlate with some kind of palpable and measurable phenomena, as well as differing from the m scale in some significant ways.
thanks Mike, good point
SkepYes different people interpret it differently. That's the point. You claim that the experience is universal. But it's not.
I said it is universal to all faiths and all cultures not to all people.
You say the M-scale tells us which experiences are "genuine", and which are not. Bullshit. There are different forms or types of peak experiences and they're NOT all the same. Who are you (or Hood with his M-scale) to say which ones are "genuine"?
that is your opinion. the M scale is validated by many many applications in several cultures around the world and you have no valid data at all but just what you think should be true which you confuse with what is true
you tell us how wonderful is your understanding of science yet your attitude is the most unscientific
In his book, Joe's whole point revolves around the notion that the m-scale is valid because its been shown to measure something. It (reportedly) correlates with long term, positive life changes and it's that correlation itself that tends to validate the scale itself by showing there is some phenomenon that is captured by the scale.
- That's a false connection. First, the M-scale doesn't actually measure anything. It is more properly a tool for categorizing a person's feelings about an experience they had. It works entirely by means of obtaining their answers to questions on a survey - which is are subjective to begin with. It seeks to sort out which responses fit the general criteria that Hood has set out as being consistent with others who are said to have had mystical experiences. If the4 respondent's answers are sufficiently consistent with that, then that person is judged to have had a "genuine" mystical experience. But remember that there's nothing objective about any of this. It all depends on how the respondent feels and what he says about it.
Second, even if this device could produce an accurate, objective assessment of the experience, it still doesn't measure anything like wellness or any supposed side-effects of the experience. All those studies Joe keeps harping about are merely showing a correlation between well-being and general spirituality or subjective experience. There is no implication of causality. I keep telling Joe that most psychologists think that there is a kind of mindset or attitude among people who are regarded as "spiritual", and this mindset is responsible for improved well-being, as well as the psychological experience they have. And by the way, this mindset is not strictly religious in nature. So the kind of causality that Joe claims is non-existent. It's like saying being poor makes you a criminal- simply because there is a correlation. It ignores the real causal factors.
Mike GerowIn his book, Joe's whole point revolves around the notion that the m-scale is valid because its been shown to measure something. It (reportedly) correlates with long term, positive life changes and it's that correlation itself that tends to validate the scale itself by showing there is some phenomenon that is captured by the scale.
Skepie- That's a false connection. First, the M-scale doesn't actually measure anything.
It measures degrees of feeling
It is more properly a tool for categorizing a person's feelings about an experience they had. It works entirely by means of obtaining their answers to questions on a survey - which is are subjective to begin with.
Probably the stupidest atheist assumption Feelings are no good and can't be trusted,you are reading in your own self fear. We could read your mind and tell you how you really feel but you can't know your self. That's just elitist bull shit scientism types love to feel power and control what others think and feel,
80% of social science is based upon self administered servery. Most atheists arguments involving social psychology are arrived at through such study,
It seeks to sort out which responses fit the general criteria that Hood has set out as being consistent with others who are said to have had mystical experiences.
still oblivious to the role of Stace in the process. Hood just made it all up. you ae that guy into some bugbeer you need to vilify those who thwart your world view.
If the4 respondent's answers are sufficiently consistent with that, then that person is judged to have had a "genuine" mystical experience. But remember that there's nothing objective about any of this. It all depends on how the respondent feels and what he says about it.
right its so unfair to use Stace's theory when trying validate Stace's theory! rather than use the theory one seeks to test he should only use your assumptions God God can't exist,no need to ask about feeling,feelings are never valid. case closed.Those are the only valid ideas one may consider
btw I know you leave Stace out of the process because you didn't read far enough to see anything about him.
Second, even if this device could produce an accurate, objective assessment of the experience, it still doesn't measure anything like wellness or any supposed side-effects of the experience.
why should it have to? We have other tests to do that. Studies that's how mystical experience is good for you use the M scale to just know that one has had mystical experience then the other stuff is supplied by using standard self actualization scales, or other standards.
All those studies Joe keeps harping about are merely showing a correlation between well-being and general spirituality or subjective experience. There is no implication of causality.
You don't even have a clear idea of which studies you are talking about. You have no idea what study uses what method, you are just asserting in the most general terms
I keep telling Joe that most psychologists think that there is a kind of mindset or attitude among people who are regarded as "spiritual", and this mindset is responsible for improved well-being, as well as the psychological experience they have.
You can't link spiritual "types" which mystical experience. Nor can you linmk anything you said here with any kind of research. I wrote a book you have not produced a single quote that backs you up.
And by the way, this mindset is not strictly religious in nature. So the kind of causality that Joe claims is non-existent. It's like saying being poor makes you a criminal- simply because there is a correlation. It ignores the real causal factors.
this guy is so confused about the claims I've made, he doesn't know what they are,he wont read any thing I write, he wont read nay thing He wont read my answers he wont read my book, he really shouldn't have the right to criticize it.
tell me where I claimed causality deoufus? and what did i say?
tell me where I claimed causality deoufus? and what did i say?
- Your "Argument From God Corrolate [sic]" You specifically claim that mystical experience produces these beneficial effects. Of course, your studies don't show any such causality. This is just a false assumption that you make, unsupported by the scientific data.
- That's a false connection. First, the M-scale doesn't actually measure anything. It is more properly a tool for categorizing a person's feelings about an experience they had. It works entirely by means of obtaining their answers to questions on a survey - which is are subjective to begin with. It seeks to sort out which responses fit the general criteria that Hood has set out as being consistent with others who are said to have had mystical experiences. If the4 respondent's answers are sufficiently consistent with that, then that person is judged to have had a "genuine" mystical experience. But remember that there's nothing objective about any of this. It all depends on how the respondent feels and what he says about it.
I think that, here, you're arguing against standard methods in a whole lot of psychological or social research and to not anything specific in joe or Hoods research.. As Joe said, self-reporting is often the only way to do it. Researchers, eg, haven't the time to follow a sufficient number of individuals around to see how "self-actualized" their lives are and have to rely for a measure on self-provided answers to standardized questionnaires. That's just how it's done in the social sciences...
Your "Argument From God Corrolate [sic]" You specifically claim that mystical experience produces these beneficial effects. Of course, your studies don't show any such causality. This is just a false assumption that you make, unsupported by the scientific data.
11:29 AM
You are still making this confusion, there are all kinds of studies that show beastly that. they do show experience x leads to effects a, b,c, what we don't have what no one could have is a proof that God is causing experience X.
If we had that we would not need any arguments for God,we would have empirical proof of God. So That is obviousness unreasonable to expect.
In place of that we have a lot of good reasons to think God is behind experience X That's the point of saying I don't argue proof I argue rational warrant, belief is rationally warranted,
Skep: I keep telling Joe that most psychologists think that there is a kind of mindset or attitude among people who are regarded as "spiritual", and this mindset is responsible for improved well-being, as well as the psychological experience they have.
Possibly....but how do you account for the New Atheist contention -- which you seem to support -- that religion is harmful then, if you agree that a "spiritual" mindset improves well being?
What, if any, is the connection between religion and "mystical" experience?
there are all kinds of studies that show beastly that. they do show experience x leads to effects a, b,c, what we don't have what no one could have is a proof that God is causing experience X
- No they don't. You can't cite a single scientific source that makes this claim, because it's just a correlation, not a cause.
but how do you account for the New Atheist contention -- which you seem to support -- that religion is harmful then, if you agree that a "spiritual" mindset improves well being?
- First, I am not what you think I am. And I don't go around making claims according to some stereotype that you have in mind. I believe that a propensity for religion evolved in mankind because of some overall beneficial effect that it has (particularly as it relates to group cohesion and psychological adjustment). At the same time, it is undeniable that religion also has harmful, and even destructive effects (especially as it relates to conflict between groups).
What, if any, is the connection between religion and "mystical" experience?
- Clearly, mystical experience is a subset of the broader category of peak experiences. Peak experiences tend to produce a feeling of awe and inspiration. This is part if the psychological feeling of a connection with something greater than the individual. It is typically superstition and cultural influences that lead people to ascribe these feelings to God.
Joe:
there are all kinds of studies that show basically that. they do show experience x leads to effects a, b,c, what we don't have what no one could have is a proof that God is causing experience X
- No they don't. You can't cite a single scientific source that makes this claim, because it's just a correlation, not a cause.
you are truly daft.Smoking causes cancer is just a correlation not a cause , you have no idea what to do with that concept. That is not an excuse to throw away data you don't want to believe. It's a tight correlation the assumption of causality is justified
Mike:but how do you account for the New Atheist contention -- which you seem to support -- that religion is harmful then, if you agree that a "spiritual" mindset improves well being?
Skep:- First, I am not what you think I am. And I don't go around making claims according to some stereotype that you have in mind. I believe that a propensity for religion evolved in mankind because of some overall beneficial effect that it has (particularly as it relates to group cohesion and psychological adjustment).
that idea is easy enough to trash
At the same time, it is undeniable that religion also has harmful, and even destructive effects (especially as it relates to conflict between groups).
double talk
Mike:What, if any, is the connection between religion and "mystical" experience?
- Clearly, mystical experience is a subset of the broader category of peak experiences. Peak experiences tend to produce a feeling of awe and inspiration. This is part if the psychological feeling of a connection with something greater than the individual. It is typically superstition and cultural influences that lead people to ascribe these feelings to God.
Peak experiences are pure,true,good and good for you because they are atheist,when you attach religion it it's because you are superstitious that's bad then it's bad for you.It's good for you except when it;s bad for you.
where;s your evidence? You do not have a single study to back that up. You are asserting that and the 200 or so studies I have that say religious expedience is good for one are wrong because your opinion is more import than any science in the world if it supports something you don't like.
Mr. science man does not know how to think objectivity he has no respect for data, hehas no data to back up his propaganda
6:51 AM Delete
Skep where is the superstition in my thinking? show me where the superstition is and it can't just be belief in God is superstition you don't get to call it that just as partitive, you have to show a likeness to the things to which we always attach that word.
Smoking causes cancer is just a correlation not a cause
- You're wrong, Joe. There are causal mechanisms between smoking and cancer. That is not true of the correlation between mystical experience and well-being. You need to identify the mechanism if you want to make that claim.
that idea is easy enough to trash
- So you are contradicting yourself again? Are you claiming that there is no beneficial effect from religion? Or are you claiming that it doesn't relate to group cohesion? At any rate, I think you're wrong. But if you want to back up what you are saying, have at it.
double talk
- All talk, no substance. Tell us what you mean.
because they are atheist,when you attach religion it it's because you are superstitious that's bad then it's bad for you.
- That's not what I claim. But you never did understand the arguments I make. You just disagree with everything the atheist says, even if you agree with it. God good. Atheist bad.
Mr. science man does not know how to think objectivity he has no respect for data, hehas no data to back up his propaganda
- Projection. This is a much better description of you than me.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Smoking causes cancer is just a correlation not a cause
- You're wrong, Joe. There are causal mechanisms between smoking and cancer. That is not true of the correlation between mystical experience and well-being. You need to identify the mechanism if you want to make that claim.
I've already answered that skepers ,you miss so much by not reading. It took science 45 years to find the mechanism and they were willing to proclaim it a cause anyway. I have a mechanism it;s called God. More than the surgeon general had
that idea is easy enough to trash
- So you are contradicting yourself again? Are you claiming that there is no beneficial effect from religion? Or are you claiming that it doesn't relate to group cohesion? At any rate, I think you're wrong. But if you want to back up what you are saying, have at it.
the idea that religion has become genetic because it facilitates group cohesion is Lamarkian evolution,
double talk
- All talk, no substance. Tell us what you mean.
you want religion to be bad for you but upi need it to be good in some way you can write it off as Lmarkain adaptation that's why you contradict your position by saying "At the same time, it is undeniable that religion also has harmful, and even destructive effects (especially as it relates to conflict between groups)." so it's bad for you because I hate it except when I need it to be good for you to dismisss it,
because they are atheist,when you attach religion it it's because you are superstitious that's bad then it's bad for you.
- That's not what I claim. But you never did understand the arguments I make. You just disagree with everything the atheist says, even if you agree with it. God good. Atheist bad.
your position is blather, you sound like complamentarian trying to explain how women are equal but still must keep their mouths shut
Mr. science man does not know how to think objectivity he has no respect for data, hehas no data to back up his propaganda
- Projection. This is a much better description of you than me.
you are totally stupid, your little ideological blather says Christians must be stood you are brilliant for believing Dawkins brain washing so you believe rather than looking at the facts and reasoning,,
1:18 PM Delete
I have a mechanism it;s called God. More than the surgeon general had
- Science is science. Superstition is superstition. They aren't the same. You have NOT shown a causal mechanism. I don't think you even understand what it means.
the idea that religion has become genetic because it facilitates group cohesion is Lamarkian evolution
- It is NOT Lamarkian. It is about adaptive genetic changes that enhance survival. No serious evolutionary scientist buys Lamarkinaism.
so it's bad for you because I hate it except when I need it to be good for you to dismisss it,
- Things are not black and white, all good or all bad. in the REAL world, things are much more complex than that. And science don't dictate what data one should believe based on one's ideology or religion, the way you do. Science demands that we look at ALL the data.
your position is blather, you sound like complamentarian trying to explain how women are equal but still must keep their mouths shut
- My position is based on evidence, no matter what the evidence tells us. Yours is to latch onto whatever confirms your beliefs, and ignore the rest.
you are totally stupid, your little ideological blather says Christians must be stood you are brilliant for believing Dawkins brain washing so you believe rather than looking at the facts and reasoning
- I'm not talking about stupidity or intelligence. Some very intelligent people are blinded by bias. I believe that ideological bias can and does control what many people are willing to believe.
I have a mechanism it;s called God. More than the surgeon general had
- Science is science. Superstition is superstition. They aren't the same. You have NOT shown a causal mechanism. I don't think you even understand what it means.
You don't know what superstition is, it's not belief in God. You are just making tautology,
the idea that religion has become genetic because it facilitates group cohesion is Lamarkian evolution
- It is NOT Lamarkian. It is about adaptive genetic changes that enhance survival. No serious evolutionary scientist buys Lamarkinaism.
of course no one buys it that's why it's bad. But tell me why it's not Lamariaan, it does what LaMark said, it argues that behavior produces genetic endowment,There is no basis for the idea that religion is genetic. There are a lot of scientific thinkers who oppose that idea, there's no evidential basis for it, in fact if you think about it yiour you yourself are proof against it. Moreover eve if religion itself is genetic that doesn't prove that mystical experience is so.
so it's bad for you because I hate it except when I need it to be good for you to dismisss it,
- Things are not black and white, all good or all bad. in the REAL world, things are much more complex than that. And science don't dictate what data one should believe based on one's ideology or religion, the way you do. Science demands that we look at ALL the data.
Right science doesn't do that ideology does,that; why I say your thinking is ideological and not scientific,
your position is blather, you sound like complamentarian trying to explain how women are equal but still must keep their mouths shut
- My position is based on evidence, no matter what the evidence tells us. Yours is to latch onto whatever confirms your beliefs, and ignore the rest.
you are totally stupid, your little ideological blather says Christians must be stupid you are brilliant for believing Dawkins brain washing so you believe rather than looking at the facts and reasoning
- I'm not talking about stupidity or intelligence. Some very intelligent people are blinded by bias. I believe that ideological bias can and does control what many people are willing to believe.
I regret saying you are stuid,I get carried away.
You don't know what superstition is, it's not belief in God. You are just making tautology
- Superstition is anti-scientific. It causes people to believe things without regard to scientific knowledge and evidence. It is a kind of faith.
But tell me why it's not Lamariaan, it does what LaMark said, it argues that behavior produces genetic endowment,There is no basis for the idea that religion is genetic
- Lamarkianism held that traits acquired through experience are passed on to future generations by some unspecified mechanism. It denied the genetic basis of adaptation to the environment. All modern scientists agree that adaptive traits are acqured by means of genetic modifications and differential reproduction - which clearly implies that they are not based on experience, because that does not change the DNA structure. This applies to the genetic tendency toward religiosity as well.
Right science doesn't do that ideology does,that; why I say your thinking is ideological and not scientific
- The only ideology in science is to follow the evidence. Scientific theories ate based on evidence, not faith. Science can't afford to ignore relevant data or fail to take it into account. Religion MUST ignore relevant data whenever it runs counter to the faith-based belief. YOU are the perfect example of this. You rail against anything that disagrees with what you believe - even when the evidence is perfectly clear.
You don't know what superstition is, it's not belief in God. You are just making tautology
- Superstition is anti-scientific. It causes people to believe things without regard to scientific knowledge and evidence. It is a kind of faith.
That is not interposition its Taylor made to fit your view of religious belief, that means calling it superstition is just a polemic that has nothing to do with reality it's a meaningless insult.
But tell me why it's not Lamariaan, it does what LaMark said, it argues that behavior produces genetic endowment,There is no basis for the idea that religion is genetic
- Lamarkianism held that traits acquired through experience are passed on to future generations by some unspecified mechanism. It denied the genetic basis of adaptation to the environment. All modern scientists agree that adaptive traits are acqured by means of genetic modifications and differential reproduction - which clearly implies that they are not based on experience, because that does not change the DNA structure. This applies to the genetic tendency toward religiosity as well.
scientists may believe that, you may think you do but the idea that a religious gene cones from religious ideas enabling survival is LaMarkian,
Right science doesn't do that ideology does,that; why I say your thinking is ideological and not scientific
- The only ideology in science is to follow the evidence. Scientific theories ate based on evidence, not faith.
That does not provolone you from screwing up the process and developing your own faith you take to be scientific, because you worship science,
Science can't afford to ignore relevant data or fail to take it into account. Religion MUST ignore relevant data whenever it runs counter to the faith-based belief. YOU are the perfect example of this. You rail against anything that disagrees with what you believe - even when the evidence is perfectly clear.
you don;t live up to that,When you run into data you can't accept you jut assert silly ideas about it and refuse to accept it
7:28 AM Delete
That is not interposition its Taylor made to fit your view of religious belief, that means calling it superstition is just a polemic that has nothing to do with reality it's a meaningless insult.
- Nevertheless, science follows evidence, and faith ignores it.
scientists may believe that, you may think you do but the idea that a religious gene cones from religious ideas enabling survival is LaMarkian
- Nobody believes a religious gene comes from religious ideas (unless you do). We're talking about real science here - not your contrived stereotype. There isn't even a religious gene. Religious behavior results from numerous genetic traits that can't be ascribed to a single gene.
That does not provolone you from screwing up the process and developing your own faith you take to be scientific, because you worship science
- I'm not like you. I don't have an object of worship. As hard as you try to make me sound religious, you are only making religion sound ridiculous. And that doesn't reflect well on you, because YOU certainly are religious.
you don;t live up to that,When you run into data you can't accept you jut assert silly ideas about it and refuse to accept it
- I was once religious. And then I looked at the evidence, and accepted reality. That's something you will never do.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
That is not interposition its Taylor made to fit your view of religious belief, that means calling it superstition is just a polemic that has nothing to do with reality it's a meaningless insult.
- Nevertheless, science follows evidence, and faith ignores it.
Obviously not since most of apologetic is about finding evidence. Evidence played a big role in my conversion,but the thing is once you know the truth no point in having to re-prove it again all the time.
scientists may believe that, you may think you do but the idea that a religious gene cones from religious ideas enabling survival is LaMarkian
- Nobody believes a religious gene comes from religious ideas (unless you do). We're talking about real science here - not your contrived stereotype. There isn't even a religious gene. Religious behavior results from numerous genetic traits that can't be ascribed to a single gene.
then you still have no argument rearing mystical experience it's an experience of something not an automatic response to stimuli like reflex.
That does not provolone you from screwing up the process and developing your own faith you take to be scientific, because you worship science
- I'm not like you. I don't have an object of worship.
yes you do, You evoke it here all the time. Notice I say "you do X" you say "science doesn't do that" as you are science itself,
As hard as you try to make me sound religious, you are only making religion sound ridiculous. And that doesn't reflect well on you, because YOU certainly are religious.
Religious feeling and attitude are clearly present in your attitude toward science the problem is you don't know what religion is about. you know only a few minor points that tick you off rather than actually understanding anything about religion ,you cant give me a valid definition of the concept,
[Me (Joe) talking about you (skep)] you don;t live up to that,When you run into data you can't accept you jut assert silly ideas about it and refuse to accept it
- I was once religious. And then I looked at the evidence, and accepted reality. That's something you will never do.
Big deal that doesn't mean you really knew anything about it,I didn't know that much about it until I actually went to seminary,
7:37 AM
Until you study religion in a global perspective and in a systematic way all you know is your own ideas.
Obviously not since most of apologetic is about finding evidence. Evidence played a big role in my conversion,but the thing is once you know the truth no point in having to re-prove it again all the time.
- Apologetics seek to find evidence and arguments that support their belief. They still ignore (or simply dismiss) everything else. This is the nature of faith. Your own attitude ("no point in having to re-prove it again") shows that you are closed to evidence that goes against your faith.
then you still have no argument rearing mystical experience it's an experience of something not an automatic response to stimuli like reflex.
- That's not true. It has been shown that these experiences can be induced by various means. That fits the definition of an automatic response.
yes you do, You evoke it here all the time. Notice I say "you do X" you say "science doesn't do that" as you are science itself
- That's not worship. It is nothing more than an explanation of how science works, in the face of your own denials of truth.
Religious feeling and attitude are clearly present in your attitude toward science the problem is you don't know what religion is about. you know only a few minor points that tick you off rather than actually understanding anything about religion ,you cant give me a valid definition of the concept
- What is present in my attitude is a desire to understand reality (to the extent that it is possible), and to dispel misinformation that you try to propagate - particularly about my goals and methods.
Big deal that doesn't mean you really knew anything about it,I didn't know that much about it until I actually went to seminary
- And I learned much about reality when I studied science.
MetaBlogger im-skeptical said...
Obviously not since most of apologetic is about finding evidence. Evidence played a big role in my conversion,but the thing is once you know the truth no point in having to re-prove it again all the time.
- Apologetics seek to find evidence and arguments that support their belief. They still ignore (or simply dismiss) everything else. This is the nature of faith. Your own attitude ("no point in having to re-prove it again") shows that you are closed to evidence that goes against your faith.
You don't try to prove science works again every time,you always assume science is true you never try to prove it,
then you still have no argument rearing mystical experience it's an experience of something not an automatic response to stimuli like reflex.
- That's not true. It has been shown that these experiences can be induced by various means. That fits the definition of an automatic response.
Nope. show me the standard use by the researchers to say it's mystical? they don't use the M scale show how do you know? they go by their own relative standards,
yes you do, You evoke it here all the time. Notice I say "you do X" you say "science doesn't do that" as you are science itself
- That's not worship. It is nothing more than an explanation of how science works, in the face of your own denials of truth.
yes it is, worship isn't just bowing down it's imulating, trusting,unassuming the validity without question
Religious feeling and attitude are clearly present in your attitude toward science the problem is you don't know what religion is about. you know only a few minor points that tick you off rather than actually understanding anything about religion ,you cant give me a valid definition of the concept
- What is present in my attitude is a desire to understand reality (to the extent that it is possible), and to dispel misinformation that you try to propagate - particularly about my goals and methods.
BS you have no desire to know, if you did you would read you read nothing,I;always see stuff you would not say if you read the thing,You don't read because you don't really want to know, you want to believe the studies are no good, you don't want to know if they are or not,
Big deal that doesn't mean you really knew anything about it,I didn't know that much about it until I actually went to seminary
- And I learned much about reality when I studied science.
I', stalking about religion not science you don't know shit about religion.
You don't try to prove science works again every time,you always assume science is true you never try to prove it
- I don't try to prove science works every time. I don't claim science is "true". I claim that science is the best way we have of understanding how things work in our world. It works, and much more effectively than faith.
Nope. show me the standard use by the researchers to say it's mystical? they don't use the M scale show how do you know? they go by their own relative standards
- If you just used the M-scale with no knowledge of how the experience was caused, you wouldn't know the difference. Because at least in some cases, there is no difference.
yes it is, worship isn't just bowing down it's imulating, trusting,unassuming the validity without question
- I don't worship anything or anyone. My preference for science is based on its solid track record. It works. Religion only feeds your inner feelings. It makes you feel good, but give you objective knowledge.
BS you have no desire to know, if you did you would read you read nothing,I;always see stuff you would not say if you read the thing,You don't read because you don't really want to know
- Why do you think I read religious material like what you write? Because I don't want to know what your theories and philosophies are? And when I disagree with it, you always claim I haven't read the material. You accept whatever agrees with your beliefs. The more I read, the more I find to disagree with.
you want to believe the studies are no good, you don't want to know if they are or not,
- I've told you many times - I have no problem with those scientific studies. I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from those studies. That's what the science doesn't support.
I', stalking about religion not science you don't know shit about religion
- My disagreement with your views on religion should not be mistaken for lack of knowledge. I don't claim to be an expert, but I probably know more about it than the average Christian. I've made it a goal to learn how belief is acquired and whether it is justified by any objective measure.
You don't try to prove science works again every time,you always assume science is true you never try to prove it
- I don't try to prove science works every time. I don't claim science is "true". I claim that science is the best way we have of understanding how things work in our world. It works, and much more effectively than faith.
Depends upon the question Some questions can't be answered scientifically
Nope. show me the standard use by the researchers to say it's mystical? they don't use the M scale show how do you know? they go by their own relative standards
- If you just used the M-scale with no knowledge of how the experience was caused, you wouldn't know the difference. Because at least in some cases, there is no difference.
That is bull shit, it has noting to do with it, if you understood how the M scale works,if you read the many explanations I given you would know why that is a bullshit answer,
yes it is, worship isn't just bowing down it's imulating, trusting,unassuming the validity without question
- I don't worship anything or anyone. My preference for science is based on its solid track record. It works. Religion only feeds your inner feelings. It makes you feel good, but give you objective knowledge.
you don't think you worship because you have an old fashioned and limited view of worship
BS you have no desire to know, if you did you would read you read nothing,I;always see stuff you would not say if you read the thing,You don't read because you don't really want to know
- Why do you think I read religious material like what you write?
you don;t you read like two lines and stop
Because I don't want to know what your theories and philosophies are?
that's right, you are so convinced all religious people are stupid and must be wrong you refuse to listen,
And when I disagree with it, you always claim I haven't read the material. You accept whatever agrees with your beliefs. The more I read, the more I find to disagree with.
no when you talk about stuff I;ve already answered and the only way you would blunder into the situation is if you didn't know what was in the essay,so you didn't read it I see this all the time
you want to believe the studies are no good, you don't want to know if they are or not,
- I've told you many times - I have no problem with those scientific studies. I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from those studies. That's what the science doesn't support.
that's obviousness bull shit becsue when we get into specifics you dogmatically distrust all of them
I', stalking about religion not science you don't know shit about religion
- My disagreement with your views on religion should not be mistaken for lack of knowledge.
It's not, Your lack of knowledge is what tipped me off. Like you don't have a decent definition of religion
I don't claim to be an expert, but I probably know more about it than the average Christian.
I doubt that
I've made it a goal to learn how belief is acquired and whether it is justified by any objective measure.
Yes but you neglected to learn the actual concept of the likable your rejection. I've seen atheists do this a lot, you probably think the actual content is not worth learning because it;s not true. you don;t need it because it;s not true so why waste the learning?
Depends upon the question Some questions can't be answered scientifically
- That's true. Some questions are about the reality of the world. Those questions are generally suitable subject matter for science. Others are about fantasy or things that have no objective basis.
That is bull shit, it has noting to do with it, if you understood how the M scale works,if you read the many explanations I given you would know why that is a bullshit answer
- I've read your explanations. I also note that you have refused to provide specifics, like what questions are asked. But my reading goes far beyond what you say. I am aware of scientific examination of religious experiences - outside your closed little world of psychology of religion, where they do real analysis.
you don't think you worship because you have an old fashioned and limited view of worship
- Projection. You worship. I don't. You can't imagine living without a god. I can.
that's right, you are so convinced all religious people are stupid and must be wrong you refuse to listen.
- I am convinced a lot of otherwise intelligent people are deluded.
no when you talk about stuff I;ve already answered and the only way you would blunder into the situation is if you didn't know what was in the essay,so you didn't read it I see this all the time
- Your answers are usually bullshit.
that's obviousness bull shit becsue when we get into specifics you dogmatically distrust all of them
- You just don't get it. Those studies do NOT tell us what you think they do. When it comes to science, you don't have a clue.
It's not, Your lack of knowledge is what tipped me off. Like you don't have a decent definition of religion
- What tips you off is when someone disagrees with your "analysis", which you are convinced is beyond question.
Yes but you neglected to learn the actual concept of the likable your rejection. I've seen atheists do this a lot, you probably think the actual content is not worth learning because it;s not true. you don;t need it because it;s not true so why waste the learning?
- I'd like to see you bother to understand and respond appropriately to my objections, but you never do.
Depends upon the question Some questions can't be answered scientifically
- That's true. Some questions are about the reality of the world. Those questions are generally suitable subject matter for science. Others are about fantasy or things that have no objective basis.
Like morality, ethics, value, those are fantasy right? There is no morality that's just something christians made up to control people right?
That is bull shit, it has noting to do with it, if you understood how the M scale works,if you read the many explanations I given you would know why that is a bullshit answer
- I've read your explanations. I also note that you have refused to provide specifics, like what questions are asked.
If you think you can dissect the validity of the test you can find a copy easily enough, I have talked about the questions before too.
But my reading goes far beyond what you say. I am aware of scientific examination of religious experiences - outside your closed little world of psychology of religion, where they do real analysis.
no you don';t you know shit. My understanding at least passes muster with two of the biggest researchers in the field I know you don't know the basics. You think your science worship guarantees that you know all Your hatred of religion is enough to claim to understand all religion, you don't know the basics.
give me a definition of religion?
you don't think you worship because you have an old fashioned and limited view of worship
- Projection. You worship. I don't. You can't imagine living without a god. I can.
that's right, you are so convinced all religious people are stupid and must be wrong you refuse to listen.
- I am convinced a lot of otherwise intelligent people are deluded.
no when you talk about stuff I;ve already answered and the only way you would blunder into the situation is if you didn't know what was in the essay,so you didn't read it I see this all the time
- Your answers are usually bullshit.
prove it glasshouse. you are stupid you are ignorant your views are fed by reducible and ignorance, come on Cassiopeia prove me wrong
that's obviousness bull shit becsue when we get into specifics you dogmatically distrust all of them
- You just don't get it. Those studies do NOT tell us what you think they do. When it comes to science, you don't have a clue.
That says it all. you have not read a single study, you are asserting I have to be wrong because your whole worldview is predicated upon the assumption that religious people are stupid and atheists are smart,you can't examine the facts it;s too easy to prove your world wrong, you continue to use your hateful prejudice as a working principle. I've proven time and time again I know the studies and you don't,you cant even name one. I have dared you to name one over and over and you can't,
It's not, Your lack of knowledge is what tipped me off. Like you don't have a decent definition of religion
- What tips you off is when someone disagrees with your "analysis", which you are convinced is beyond question.
you changing the subject so you wont have to name the studies, your knowledge is on the line not mine,
Yes but you neglected to learn the actual concept of the likable your rejection. I've seen atheists do this a lot, you probably think the actual content is not worth learning because it;s not true. you don;t need it because it;s not true so why waste the learning?
- I'd like to see you bother to understand and respond appropriately to my objections, but you never do.
I've torn your ignorant objections to pieces go read something i wrote ignorant sot, you never read anything so you don't know how cleverly I've destroyed your lies,
Here is skep at the top of this page:
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Eric makes a good point. No two brains are exactly the same. No two people have exactly the same experiences. Even you, Joe, say this in your article: "If the brain structure argument was true then we should expect to always have the same experience; we should have the same culture. We have differing experiences and even our perceptions of the same phenomena vary." So how can you then make the claim Yet Me is the same the world over,that makes it seem more remarkable?
that is empirical knowledge, that's Hood's major finding made possible by the M sclae. he has studied it in cultures around the world to prove it, other researchers back him up, it's an empirical matter your ignorance asserts it has to be wrong you concluded I don't know the stuff so it must be wrong
let's see you prove it's wrong stupid, It seems wrong because it challenges the prejudices you work by,
I state at the top that
Eric's statement backs my argument not yours, you are too stupid to see why that's true, just for grins tell me what i;'m seeing that makes me think that and why it's not true.
here's a hint, this is the post to which I refer:
Joe Hinman said...
Eric Sotnak said...
"The problem with the brain structure argument is that even though we all have human brain structure we don’t all have the same kinds of experiences."
But:
Eric:
(a) We don't have exactly the same brain structure. There are millions of differences between any two given brains (even those of monozygotic twins). There is every reason to think that in dealing with a complex physical system like a brain, small differences can easily add up to big differences.
That helps my argument,
(b) We have every reason to think that exactly similar information processing systems will yield different outputs when given different inputs. No two humans are ever given exactly the same experiential inputs. Once again, many small differences in inputs would be expected to deliver different behavior. When you take into account that current responses are not only the result of current experiential inputs, but also are the result of how neural pathways have been trained in the past, you once again have reason to expect differences between individuals however similar the situations into which they are placed.
Yet Me is the same the world over,that makes it seem more remarkable
Like morality, ethics, value, those are fantasy right? There is no morality that's just something christians made up to control people right?
- No, they are not fantasy. Like most humans, I have ethics and values. God has nothing to do with it. God is a fantasy.
If you think you can dissect the validity of the test you can find a copy easily enough, I have talked about the questions before too.
- I specifically asked, and you refused to provide answers. I think you don't know what is in the survey.
no you don';t you know shit. My understanding at least passes muster with two of the biggest researchers in the field I know you don't know the basics. You think your science worship guarantees that you know all Your hatred of religion is enough to claim to understand all religion, you don't know the basics.
- To you, "the field" consists of one small segment of psychology (POR). I'm talking about the broader scientific community. And you are not informed about what research has been done.
prove it glasshouse. you are stupid you are ignorant your views are fed by reducible and ignorance, come on Cassiopeia prove me wrong
- I've done it again and again. You don't understand what I tell you, and you ignore it, as if I never said anything to dispute your conclusions.
That says it all. you have not read a single study, you are asserting I have to be wrong because your whole worldview is predicated upon the assumption that religious people are stupid and atheists are smart,you can't examine the facts it;s too easy to prove your world wrong, you continue to use your hateful prejudice as a working principle. I've proven time and time again I know the studies and you don't,you cant even name one. I have dared you to name one over and over and you can't
- You provided a bibliography. I read as much of the material as I could get my hands on. I pointed out to you specific instances where you ignore important facts that would argue against your conclusions, or the authors don't agree with your findings. You only see what you want to see. And then you pretend I am ignorant of all this material because you don't want to hear what I found when I read it.
you changing the subject so you wont have to name the studies, your knowledge is on the line not mine
- You even put some of it on your own blog and we talked about what it says.
I've torn your ignorant objections to pieces go read something i wrote ignorant sot, you never read anything so you don't know how cleverly I've destroyed your lies
- You're lying, Joe. You know perfectly well we have discussed these things. Right here in your own blog. But it just goes to show what I say. When you hear something that disagrees with your own biased views, you block it out and pretend it was never said. That's what you did with some of the content in those studies, and that's what you are doing with me.
That helps my argument
- Back to this again? You don't understand what Eric said any more than you understand what I tell you. I realize that you have more respect for him than you have for me, but you shouldn't assume that he's supporting your argument on that basis. He is saying that experiences ARE DIFFERENT. And I'm telling you that your M-scale is used to artificially narrow the scope down to a subset of experiences that suits your purposes. You them make claims based on that subset, and pretend that your conclusions apply universally. That is bad methodology, and if you ever tried to have your work peer-reviewed, it wouldn't pass any legitimate review board.
Like morality, ethics, value, those are fantasy right? There is no morality that's just something christians made up to control people right?
- No, they are not fantasy. Like most humans, I have ethics and values. God has nothing to do with it. God is a fantasy.
there you go with atheist obfuscation. you are donging the argument you made because you can't answer me, you said:
"- That's true. Some questions are about the reality of the world. Those questions are generally suitable subject matter for science. Others are about fantasy or things that have no objective basis."
that narrows down all of knowledge to either science or fantasy, I say morality is neither science nor fantasy you agree but you can't accept that disproves what you said so you add "but it's not deponent upon God," that's just what you say to keep from admitting you made a wrong testament.The fact that you have morality is not proof that you don't need God for morality because (a) you are produced by a society running on Christian memories (b) you can't justify morality apart from God. Although that was not the issue we arguing,
If you think you can dissect the validity of the test you can find a copy easily enough, I have talked about the questions before too.
- I specifically asked, and you refused to provide answers. I think you don't know what is in the survey.
I don't have a copy of the test I';m not centered with working the test, I just report on the meaning of the data,
no you don';t you know shit. My understanding at least passes muster with two of the biggest researchers in the field I know you don't know the basics. You think your science worship guarantees that you know all Your hatred of religion is enough to claim to understand all religion, you don't know the basics.
- To you, "the field" consists of one small segment of psychology (POR). I'm talking about the broader scientific community. And you are not informed about what research has been done.
when I refer to "the field" I'm talking about the study of religious experience. For some bizarre reason you have this idea that all of psychology is opposed to the study of religious experience. All shrinks are experts on the subject they know the M scale is stupid they all think Hood is a fool and they are all atheists. I know why you think that. You have no center, you have nothing to deal with spiritual aspects of life but psychology, which functions for you as the priesthood doe for believers.
that is just ideology that is merely the result of scientism. The truth is most shrinks do not know anything about psychology of religion.
Over and over again I've told you to prove your assertions, you have not produced a single quote from anyone to prove even a small part of that thesis. not one single quote backing any of it, you don't even have a quote saying most shirinks are not believers in God.
prove it glasshouse. you are stupid you are ignorant your views are fed by reducible and ignorance, come on Cassiopeia prove me wrong
- I've done it again and again. You don't understand what I tell you, and you ignore it, as if I never said anything to dispute your conclusions.
That's the problem man, you tell me! I don't believe you. I don't think you know,I think you are full of it. you saying X is true is not proof, you don't know, the things you think are based upon propaganda,
That says it all. you have not read a single study, you are asserting I have to be wrong because your whole worldview is predicated upon the assumption that religious people are stupid and atheists are smart,you can't examine the facts it;s too easy to prove your world wrong, you continue to use your hateful prejudice as a working principle. I've proven time and time again I know the studies and you don't,you cant even name one. I have dared you to name one over and over and you can't
- You provided a bibliography. I read as much of the material as I could get my hands on.
You didn't quote it,
I pointed out to you specific instances where you ignore important facts that would argue against your conclusions, or the authors don't agree with your findings.
I have torn to pieces every argument you made,if you think that it;s only because you have not read my answers every answers. You don;t get when you lost an argument because you don't know logic, when a Christian says something you just ignore because Christians are fools and must be wrong so you not even thinking about the logic,
you do not think about the logic of arguments, Most of your arguments are circular,
You only see what you want to see. And then you pretend I am ignorant of all this material because you don't want to hear what I found when I read it.
you changing the subject so you wont have to name the studies, your knowledge is on the line not mine
- You even put some of it on your own blog and we talked about what it says.
name the studies
I've torn your ignorant objections to pieces go read something i wrote ignorant sot, you never read anything so you don't know how cleverly I've destroyed your lies
- You're lying, Joe. You know perfectly well we have discussed these things. Right here in your own blog. But it just goes to show what I say. When you hear something that disagrees with your own biased views, you block it out and pretend it was never said. That's what you did with some of the content in those studies, and that's what you are doing with me.That helps my argument
- Back to this again? You don't understand what Eric said any more than you understand what I tell you.
Just insisting that you are rights not workingman, you have to show me by the logic, you can't do that,
SkepI realize that you have more respect for him than you have for me, but you shouldn't assume that he's supporting your argument on that basis. He is saying that experiences ARE DIFFERENT.
I didn't say he says he supports my argent.I said the argument he made works in my favor more than it hinders my case, even though he doens't want that its true by the logic of the case,
And I'm telling you that your M-scale is used to artificially narrow the scope down to a subset of experiences that suits your purposes.
how did Hood know about my purposes in 1971 when I was in junior high? why can;t my presupposes coincide with that which is true?
You them make claims based on that subset,
why don;t you prove it, you are just asserting something you think you don't have to backpack so you can anything no one is going to read my book they will just assume you know but you don' don't know, anything,
you need to quote me making the claim,then show that either the claim is wrong or that it doesn't coincide with the findings of any studies,
and pretend that your conclusions apply universally.
where did I say they apply universality, quot excitably what i said,
That is bad methodology, and if you ever tried to have your work peer-reviewed, it wouldn't pass any legitimate review board.
Hood read my entire book cover to cover before it was went to press. I submitted it to a committee of academics who I respected some of them were experts in that field they all passed it,Hood's blrub on the cover comes from that. How I met hood was finding experts to referee my work.
I ran an academic journal I've been a peer reviewer,I was asked to referee a journal.
8:44 AM Delete
this is getting pretty acrimonious,I'm going to close this, But I will post on it on Monday so we can discuss more in that one,
Post a Comment