I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.
II. Understanding the need for the global approach to knowledge gives us the understanding of the link between ground of being and the divine.
III. Understanding these two points gives us the basic realization of the reality of God that frees us from the need to prove
. Since Laplace uttered those fateful words, “I have no need of that [God] hypothesis” God has been disassociated from science. Just why he uttered them is another matter but the upshot seems to be that those who find their hobby if not their profession in doubting the reality of the divine do so on the grounds that its not “officially backed” by science. The constant refrain of atheists heard around the net every single day “there’s no proof for YOUR God” echoes the call for scientific evidence as the only form of knowledge. The success of the “Back to God movement” in philosophy, stunning though it has been, nevertheless is tainted with the dismissal on the part of atheists, skeptics, and some agnostics that God arguments are not “scientific.” The God argument as a species is broadly criticized for not being science and for being philosophy. The point of this work is to demonstrate the notion that belief in God is rationally warranted, but that it need not be demonstrated with scientific rational. The purpose here is to forge a new apologetics.
This new apologetics focuses upon knowing in a deep personal way that can’t be denied by the one who comes to know, rather than wasting one’s time trying to prove things to those who do not wish to know. What we need to do is to make the proper tools availed to the seeker, to do that we have to disabuse seekers of the benighted notion that the only way to know something is through scientific data. The aim here is to demonstrate the basis for a phenomenological and existential realization of the reality of God and how to put oneself in a position where that realization becomes real to the experincer and can be validated by logic, reason, and other sources in a global understanding of all our knowledge.
As the alternative to the atheistic view of scientism I will propose a theological approach centering upon phenomenology, and culminating in theological method. The point is to produce an apologetical approach that makes the process of God realization transparent to the seeker. The way to do this is to understand the connection between an understanding of human being and it’s relation to being itself. I will defend a notion similar to that of Paul Tillich’s idea that God is being itself, or the ground of being; that I equate with the super essential godhead of Dionysus the areopagite. Tillich said that if you know being has depth you can’t be an atheist. He equates the depth of being with the realization that God is the ground of being.[1] Thus, if he’s right, all one need to do is to understand what that means, then observe the depth of being. Understanding the relationship between the ground of being and the question of the divine, from the outset, is crucial because how we understand the concept of “God” will make all the difference in what we seek and what we find, and what we reject. If we are looking to prove the existence of a big man in the sky and we don’t understand the concept of God as the ground of being, or being itself, we are going to miss the whole point of belief and write God off because there’s no big man in the sky. Being is all around us and we are in it, so we tend to take it for granted and we are going to miss what being is and how that relates to God if we don’t understand Tillich’s concept.
A silly little analogy that I use to illustrate this notion is about a fish scientist who was hired by the high council of Tuna to find the strange substance humans believe in called “water.” The fish had never seen any water so they wanted to know what it is. The fish scientist examined every puddle and depression he could find but found no water. He eventually concluded that humans are deluded about water because he could find no examples of it. Of course that’s because it never dawned on him that this state of normality in which he is submerged and is surrounded by all the time could be illusive substances humans’ thrive on, water. As a fish empiricist our scale clad investigator was certain that what he was looking for had to be an object that he could see, he forgot to look at the substance he was always looking through. So it is with being, we write it off as “just what is” and go on looking for this “God” who can’t be found because we don’t understand he’s nearer than our inmost being. Such is the pitfall of scientific empiricism.
36 comments:
I have experienced the presence of the divine, of God, since I was a small child. I still experience it today at 61. I receive wisdom and a strong sense of self-worth and of the worth of my fellow creatures, through these experiences. Truly, it's not anti-science, but it isn't about science either.
Thanks Kristen. I agree
If God is like the water in your fish analogy, what is the point of me believing in him? I'll be wet whether I believe or not.
hey CB good to se you been a long time, Hope you are well. Now as yuour comment that is a good point. Two answers, (1) all analogies have their limits this is that. OOOO NONONOwe don't like that so (2) The little fish scietist didn't know he was i water because it didn't mean anything to him. He knew there was something there he didn't think of it as water. God is with you now, It just doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to believers.
"Since Laplace uttered those fateful words, “I have no need of that [God] hypothesis” God has been disassociated from science."
- He didn't need God to explain what he observed because he had empirical evidence, and there was no need to insert an unobserved god into the picture. "God did it" had always been used to fill in our gaps in understanding. But science gives us the ability to explain things based on what we can observe.
"those who find their hobby if not their profession in doubting the reality of the divine do so on the grounds that its not “officially backed” by science."
- No. As anyone who understands science will tell you, they doubt the reality of the divine because it is not backed by objective evidence.
"The constant refrain of atheists heard around the net every single day “there’s no proof for YOUR God”"
- No. The constant refrain is "belief must be based on evidence."
"If we are looking to prove the existence of a big man in the sky and we don’t understand the concept of God as the ground of being, or being itself, we are going to miss the whole point of belief and write God off because there’s no big man in the sky."
- The "big man in the sky" depiction of God comes straight out of the bible, from the ancient times when people actually did believe in anthropomorphic gods. But don't try to tell us that this is what scientists are seeking to prove or disprove, because science isn't about proof. And it isn't "looking to prove" any preconceived ideological notions, whether they be religious or otherwise.
"As a fish empiricist our scale clad investigator was certain that what he was looking for had to be an object that he could see, he forgot to look at the substance he was always looking through."
- As analogies go, this is a terrible one. Unlike "being", water IS a substance that is observable and measurable, just like the air that surrounds us humans. This analogy conveys takes for granted the false notion that "being" is some kind of substance that we willfully ignore. It isn't. Being is an idea, not something that has a place in our ontological milieu.
im-skeptical said...
"Since Laplace uttered those fateful words, “I have no need of that [God] hypothesis” God has been disassociated from science."
Skep:- He didn't need God to explain what he observed because he had empirical evidence, and there was no need to insert an unobserved god into the picture.
Obviously but that assumes the physical universe is all there is. That is contradicted in many ways.
"God did it" had always been used to fill in our gaps in understanding. But science gives us the ability to explain things based on what we can observe.
No it hasn't that is atheist ideology. the Greeks said the abys did it they had God created by earth and sky and those by the abyss.
Me: "those who find their hobby if not their profession in doubting the reality of the divine do so on the grounds that its not “officially backed” by science."
SKEP:- No. As anyone who understands science will tell you, they doubt the reality of the divine because it is not backed by objective evidence.
The astronomical data that is used to prove fine tuning argument is objective evidence, The M scale is objective so are the religious experience studies. Astronomical evidence in my version of cosmological argument.
me:"The constant refrain of atheists heard around the net every single day “there’s no proof for YOUR God”"
Skp- No. The constant refrain is "belief must be based on evidence."
My belief is based upon evidence.
ME? "If we are looking to prove the existence of a big man in the sky and we don’t understand the concept of God as the ground of being, or being itself, we are going to miss the whole point of belief and write God off because there’s no big man in the sky."
- The "big man in the sky" depiction of God comes straight out of the bible, from the ancient times when people actually did believe in anthropomorphic gods.
so? science started with alchemy.
But don't try to tell us that this is what scientists are seeking to prove or disprove, because science isn't about proof. And it isn't "looking to prove" any preconceived ideological notions, whether they be religious or otherwise.
I have said that to you that. that is Popper I read him in my post graduate work. I did not say scientists seek to prove I said atheists use science as they seek to prove.
Me:"As a fish empiricist our scale clad investigator was certain that what he was looking for had to be an object that he could see, he forgot to look at the substance he was always looking through."
- As analogies go, this is a terrible one. Unlike "being", water IS a substance that is observable and measurable, just like the air that surrounds us humans. This analogy conveys takes for granted the false notion that "being" is some kind of substance that we willfully ignore. It isn't. Being is an idea, not something that has a place in our ontological milieu.
the water is analogy all analogies have both like and not like.The water is not analogous to being but to Gd's presence.
that last answer requires elucidation. I said water was being. In the original parable I said that. That short hand for the theological conceit "beimg itself" or the "ground of being", Tillich uses these phrases for God. That is mot to say being is a substance but that God is the basis upon which being exists. Beig itself mean the being of being. that taps out to the basic act of creation that gives rise to all being.
MC: The little fish scientist didn't know he was i water because it didn't mean anything to him. He knew there was something there he didn't think of it as water. God is with you now, It just doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to believers.
Obviously the fish didn't know something was there. He couldn't separate himself from it in order to perceive it as water. God as the ground of all being would be the same.
Sure it doesn't mean the same thing to me that it does to believers, but you can say the same about anything. How can we separate the actuality of God from merely a product of belief? Confirmation bias if you will?
"that assumes the physical universe is all there is. That is contradicted in many ways."
- There could be something besides the physical, and it wouldn't change the fact that science doesn't need God to explain what we observe in our world.
"No it hasn't that is atheist ideology. the Greeks said the abys did it"
- The Greeks had many different ideologies. They were the exception. But Aristotle believed that God was the prime mover.
"The astronomical data that is used to prove fine tuning argument is objective evidence"
- Astronomical data does not prove fine tuning. That's merely a religionist calculation of probabilities that NOBODY knows.
"My belief is based upon evidence. "
- Subjective evidence - as in what you feel about your inner experiences.
"The M scale is objective so are the religious experience studies."
- The M scale was designed by religionists to filter out any non-religious interpretation of peak experiences, for the purpose of establishing a religious basis for those experiences.
"so? science started with alchemy."
- You ridiculed the supposed atheist trope of God as a "big man in the sky". I merely pointed out that this trope is very much religious in its origins. And any atheist understanding of what God is comes from what is said by religious believers. It is not atheists who invented the notion of God.
"I did not say scientists seek to prove I said atheists use science as they seek to prove."
- I do not know of a single atheist who is seeking to prove or disprove the "big man in the sky". I do know of many theists who seek to prove the existence of God (often by using or misusing science), regardless of what form that God takes, while atheists argue against it.
"The water is not analogous to being but to Gd's presence."
- I still say it's a poor analogy. It assumes the reality of whatever it is that surrounds us. This demonstrates that the fish are wrong, and by analogy, non-believers are wrong.
"Beig itself mean the being of being. that taps out to the basic act of creation that gives rise to all being."
- This is a purely religious notion. Being is the concept of existence. As with any concept, it doesn't require "grounding". It is a product of the mind.
one way is by the effect upon the life of the believer. All studies indicate RE makes life better across the board. Long-Term Positive Effects of Mystical Experience
Research Summary
From Council on Spiritual Practices Website
"States of Univtive Consciousness"
Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:
Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.
Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.
Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.
Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.
Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.
Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)
Long-Term Effects
Wuthnow:
*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style
Noble:
*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion
Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)
*Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
*Likely changes in self and the world,
*space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate
https://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical.html
All of that is unscientific hogwash. Sure, there are studies. And they show many correlations. They do NOT show cause and effect. The so-called "effect" is YOUR claim, not a scientific claim.
your ignorant comment leads me to two conclusions: (1) you don/t know much about so coal sciences; (2) you call of sociology unscented hog wash in other words, this your prejudice not areal analuyti8cal thinking, These studies are done by reputable people sich as Abraham Maslow and the M scale guy Relph Hood. It's pretty simole. They compare lives and find those with expe have better outcomes than those who don't.
Skep I have been talking about thyis for years, I( have so much documentation (I wrote a book "the trace of God") 200 studies.
And I have told you many times that I am not critical of the science. I am telling you that you misinterpret the scientific data. We have discussed all this, and you won't listen. There is no study that makes the conclusions you make. Why? It's because your conclusions are not warranted. There are other non-religious scientific analyses of the same phenomena, and they offer non-religious interpretations. But you don't pay any attention to them. Please don't tell me that I'm ignorant of the social sciences, when you have limited your own analysis to a narrow subset of what's out there in the field of psychology. I'm trying to help you. I'm saying that you need to take a broader view of the scientific data.
With any scientific endeavor, it is a mistake to begin with a conclusion in mind and then look for data to support it. That's not how science works. You need to first gather all the relevant information that is available (either through research or conducting your own tests), and then formulate the best conclusions that can be made from that data, after taking everything into account. You can't just ignore information that doesn't lead to your desired conclusion.
Could you respond to this claiming Jesus was racist we're calling a woman a dog https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/did-the-canaanite-woman-teach-jesus-not-to-be-racist-in-matt-15/
He's makig fun of the things the racist Jews (those wh9 are racist not that all were) said about gentiles, the woman showed faith so hes marveling that the gentile has more faith than the Jews, he's being sarcastic of those racist things.
Skep=With any scientific endeavor, it is a mistake to begin with a conclusion in mind and then look for data to support it. That's not how science works. You need to first gather all the relevant information that is available (either through research or conducting your own tests), and then formulate the best conclusions that can be made from that data, after taking everything into account. You can't just ignore information that doesn't lead to your desired conclusion.
The research has been done and I did not do it, their findings are pubidhed I draw conclusions fro, their findings that'd what one is supposed to do.. see the two stdies I listed findings there is no reason in the world why I can't draw the obvious conclusion from them, when youdata that suppoorts yourideology you do witit just youaccjsemeof doig
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)
He's making fun of the things the racist Jews (those who are racist not that all were) said about gentiles, the woman showed faith so hes marveling that the gentile has more faith than the Jews, he's being sarcastic of those racist things. What do you base this on?
"The research has been done"
- Plenty of research has been done, and you limit yourself to a narrow subset of it. You willfully ignore the body of information that is available.
"I draw conclusions fro, their findings that'd what one is supposed to do"
- Sure, draw conclusions, but you can't infer cause and effect when the data doesn't support that. I have seen what you have to say about this. I've seen your argument. Your conclusions are not warranted from the data. Correlation does not imply causation. You need to show some causal mechanism, and none of your data does that.
I'm a Christian struggling with my faith I read something on the resurrection that really bothered me a blog post claiming that all of Paul's visions were just that visions hallucinations and he claimed this refuted the resurrection and I'm not a scholar so I can't refute him or not I'm really struggling about this could I talk to you about it please here's the blog post in question https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/10/my-reply-to-five-reasons-to-doubt.html
ok skep give me the cites on those studies
Christian struggling Paul met apostles and others who were witnesses to risen christ and empty tomb,
Victor Reppert (from Dangerous Idea) doesn't post as much anymore, but he just shared this yesterday. Apparently, in 2015, Astrophysicist Sarah Salviander became a Christian:
James Bishop Blog: Former Atheist Astrophysicist Sarah Salvinder Explains Her Journey To Christianity
An atheist, Jim Hutchison, had a problem with it (naturally):
James Hutchison Blog: Sarah Salvander's Reasons For Converting to Christianity-A Response
Hutchison's reply is the same old Atheist crap (he says that it is nothing more than adult thumb-sucking).
Also, on the first link (on James Bishop's site), someone named Jason Bean regurgitates the same crap that Joe dealt with about how secularism and secular values are on the rise.
Oh, and BTW, here's some more fundy atheist fun from this James Hutchison:
James Hutchison Blog: Would You Worship This God?
What? You want me to give citations to show that the claims you make are not supported by your data? How about if you give me citations to show that they are? Show us quotations where they say that God has any role in producing the feelings associated with mystical experience. Or that God has any role in transforming the individual. Or that God has any role in correlated outcomes. You cite study after study, but I don't see much in the way of quotations to support that kind of claim. Your entire case is built on noting what many psychologists have noted: that there is cluster of psychological states that are associated with these experiences. If you broaden your research to look outside POR, you will find discussion of cause and effect, and it's worth having a look at that. But you will be hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed scientific literature that says "God did it."
What? You want me to give citations to show that the claims you make are not supported by your data? How about if you give me citations to show that they are?
i do that all the time, U;ve foot noted the Studes every time i discuss them, had one post just a bib.
If the study doesn't say that why can we not assert i9t when i9t'w obvious; The researchers don't feel proving God is their job why would that mean I can't use their data?
Show us quotations where they say that God has any role in producing the feelings associated with mystical experience. Or that God has any role in transforming the individual.
they show that experience of what is thought to be God's presence had tangible results that's enough to imply the existence of Gd you can't stand that though it is obvious you have to portend they disprove God
Or that God has any role in correlated outcomes. You cite study after study, but I don't see much in the way of quotations to support that kind of claim. Your entire case is built on noting what many psychologists have noted: that there is cluster of psychological states that are associated with these experiences. If you broaden your research to look outside POR, you will find discussion of cause and effect, and it's worth having a look at that. But you will be hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed scientific literature that says "God did it."
science does not tel us Gid does not exist. Have the futs t face theobvius implication of the data.
:54 AM
skep: "But you will be hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed scientific literature that says "God did it." we don't need that. the data tells us people better when they believe in Gd that's a reason to believe in God.
3) Life Transforming Experience.
(Maslow)
"...My feeling is that if it were never to happen again, the power of the experience could permanently affect the attitude toward life. A single glimpse of heaven is enough to confirm its existence even if it is never experienced again. It is my strong suspicion that even one such experience might be able to prevent suicide, for instance, and perhaps many varieties of slow self-destruction, e.g., alcoholism, drug-addiction, addiction to violence, etc. I would guess also, on theoretical grounds, that peak-experiences might very well abort "existential meaninglessness," states of valuelessness, etc., at least occasionally. (These deductions from the nature of intense peak-experiences are given some support by general experience with LSD and psilocybin. Of course these preliminary reports also await confirmation. )... ...This then is one kind of peak-knowledge of whose validity and usefulness there can be no doubt, any more than there could be with discovering for the first time that the color "red" exists and is wonderful. Joy exists, can be experienced and feels very good indeed, and one can always hope that it will be experienced again...."
"...Perhaps I should add here the paradoxical result—for some—that death may lose its dread aspect. Ecstasy is somehow close to death-experience, at least in the simple, empirical sense that death is often mentioned during reports of peaks, sweet death that is. After the acme, only less is possible. In any case, I have occasionally been told, "I felt that I could willingly die," or, "No one can ever again tell me death is bad," etc. Experiencing a kind of "sweet death" may remove its frightening aspect. This observation should, of course, be studied far more carefully than I have been able to. But the point is that the experience itself is a kind of knowledge gained (or attitude changed) which is self-validating. Other such experiences, coming for the first time, are true simply because experienced, e.g., greater integration of the organism, experiencing physiognomic perception, fusing primary-and secondary-process, fusing knowing and valuing, transcending dichotomies, experiencing knowing as being, etc., etc. The widening and enriching of consciousness through new perceptual experiences, many of which leave a lasting effect, is a little like improving the perceiver himself...."
Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences
Abraham H. Maslow
Appendix D. What is the Validity of Knowledge Gained in Peak-Experiences?
Quotes:
The history of science and invention is full of instances of validated peak-insights and also of "insights" that failed. At any rate, there are enough of the former to support the proposition that the knowledge obtained in peak-insight experiences can be validated and valuable....This all seems very obvious and very simple. Why has there then been such flat rejection of this path to knowledge? Partly I suppose the answer is that this kind of revelation-knowledge does not make four apples visible where there were only three before, nor do the apples change into bananas. No! it is more a shift in attention, in the organization of perception, in noticing or realizing, that occurs. In peak-experiences, several kinds of attention-change can lead to new knowledge. For one, love, fascination, absorption can frequently mean "looking intensely, with care," as already mentioned. For another, fascination can mean great intensity, narrowing and focusing of attention, and resistance to distraction of any kind, or of boredom or even fatigue. Finally, what Bucke (10) called Cosmic Consciousness involves an attention-widening so that the whole cosmos is perceived as a unity, and one's place in this whole is simultaneously perceived.
"In Appendix I and elsewhere in this essay, I have spoken of unitive perception, i.e., fusion of the B-realm with the D-realm, fusion of the eternal with the temporal, the sacred with the profane, etc. Someone has called this "the measureless gap between the poetic perception of reality and prosaic, unreal commonsense." Anyone who cannot perceive the sacred, the eternal, the symbolic, is simply blind to an aspect of reality, as I think I have amply demonstrated elsewhere (54), and in Appendix I."
"For "ought perception," "ontification" and other examples of B-knowledge, see my article "Fusions of Facts and Values" (54). The bibliography of this paper refers to the literature of gestalt psychology for which I have no room here. For "reduction to the concrete" and its implications for cognition of abstractness in various senses, Goldstein (23, 24) should be consulted. Peak-experiencers often report something that might be called a particular kind of abstract perception, i.e., perception of essence, of "the hidden order of things, the X-ray texture of the world, normally obscured by layers of irrelevancy" (39, p. 352). My paper on isomorphism (48) also contains relevant data, of which I will mention here only the factor of being "worthy of the experience," of deserving it, or of being up to it. Health brings one "up to" higher levels of reality; peak-experiences can be considered a transient self-actualization of the person. It can therefore be understood as lifting him "higher," making him "taller," etc., so that he becomes "deserving" of more difficult truths, e.g., only integration can perceive integration, only the one who is capable of love can cognize love, etc."
Argument
(1)There are real affects from Mytical experince.
(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.
(3)Since the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explaintions we should assume that they are genuine.
(4)Since mystical experince is usually experince of something, the Holy, the sacred some sort of greater trasncendent reality we should assume that the object is real since the affects or real, or that the affects are the result of some real higher reailty.
(5)The true measure of the reality of the co-dterminate is the transfomrative power of the affects.
"The researchers don't feel proving God is their job why would that mean I can't use their data?"
- Science doesn't prove anything. It develops theories from the evidence. And it is their job to produce evidence.
"they show that experience of what is thought to be God's presence had tangible results that's enough to imply the existence of Gd you can't stand that though it is obvious you have to portend they disprove God"
- "Thought to be God's presence"? Who thinks that? Religious people. But there is no actual evidence of that.
- "had tangible results"? Who says that? You are showing a correlation. You are not showing cause and effect.
"Have the futs t face theobvius implication of the data."
- It's not obvious to scientists. It's only obvious to people who are convinced that they already know the answer and won't listen to anything else.
"the data tells us people better when they believe in Gd that's a reason to believe in God."
- That's correlation. It's not cause and effect. Current scientific theory says that belief in God is an evolutionary development that enhanced survival by producing tribal cohesiveness and cooperation.
""
- Maslow: "the power of the experience could permanently affect the attitude toward life." So where's the part about God? Maslow didn't believe in God.
- "the knowledge obtained in peak-insight experiences can be validated and valuable". Great. So how do you jump to the conclusion that God did it? Where's the causal mechanism? You're not quoting anything that supports that.
"(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena."
- That's what you say. It's just your religious belief. Any scientist would strongly disagree with that. And you have shown us no scientific study or data that supports it.
Post a Comment