Comments on Metacrock's Blog: God argument: argument from religious experience

the Derridians basically lost the argument to Pink...

2007-12-04T05:02:00.000-08:00

the Derridians basically lost the argument to Pinkham, the student of Chomsky, who unfortunately is an atheist. But Chomsky could make Mincemeat of the decons. meaning in language does not derive from difference or from signifies but from context.

that was the basis of the whole argument between Derrida and Searl. So Searl deserves credit to for taking it back to J.L. Austin.

Yeah, I tend to think in terms that difference is the field from which meanings can be drawn, but difference is not sufficient to move us towards a determination of meaning - context is required. That's why when you say "I love you" to someone they don't think you might be ordering a cheeseburger. Context is contingent, but that doesn't mean it's insufficient to regulate meaning in a real sense.

I think maybe embryonic stem cells could be a good illustration of the point - what they will become is contingent on a number factors that interact with the coded material they contain, but that they will become bone cells, neurons, muscle cells, etc. developing into tissues and organs and such is defined by the context of the development process within the womb and the interaction between the embryonic cells, the mother, and the process itself. You generally don't have to worry that a human mother is going to give birth to a yak, even though human genetic material has no small number of factors in common with that of a yak (though the two are not the same, just as two signifiers are not the same).

In a similar fashion, the mystical or religious experience could be seen as a real encounter with a reality that is beyond the temporal order and yet interacts with it, but the way such experiences are expressed within the culture of the one having the experience are contingent - is that the track to take with this? I already agree with the conclusion, that it is reasonable to assume there is something legitimately causing these experiences that is "Other" to us and to the material order. I'm just trying to shore up in my mind how to get there.

It's early and I'm having trouble holding a thought, so I hope this is coherent.

I like the Thomas Reid argument too, I just didn't have any comments. I don't have as good a background with this philosophy stuff as I do in Biblical studies. ;-)

Yes it is about personal experience.I am intereste...

2007-12-02T18:03:00.000-08:00

Yes it is about personal experience.

I am interested to see where Sam Harris ends up as he wrestles with the problem of explaining mystical experiences and encouraging meditation - while I think it will test his faith in the flying spaghetti monster I can't see a turn around happening.

Peace

painterofblue said... Interesting article! I'm ...

2007-11-30T09:31:00.000-08:00

painterofblue said...

Interesting article! I'm curious why you always link mystical experience with religion? I've always considered that religion blocks our access to the "traces" of the Divine within by trying to define them. I would think linking the two would obscure you results.

4:35 PM

you seem to be defining religion in a negative way. So any positives that come from it you just define as not religion. Mystical experience is the essence of religion. It's at the base of all organized religious impulse, its' the foundation of the existence o the religious phenomenon.

akakiwibear said... A great argument - stretche...

2007-11-30T09:29:00.000-08:00

akakiwibear said...

A great argument - stretched the mind!.

hey thanks man.

The argument from religious experience is strong even at an empirical level. The number of people who have them cannot be ignored. Yes some who claim them are charlatans, but many are reliable individuals.

and there are different kinds. (9 x out of 10 when atheists argue against this they assume the arong kind of experience.

The often heard, and rather patronising, atheist response that ‘those who claim to have had a religious experience are sincere in what they think happened, but wrong’. The atheist defence of mental illness does not hold water when applied to such a large number of instances across such a range of individuals – it is a shield from the weight of evidence.

and studies. I think I pointed this out, there are specific studies that rule that out.

Paul’s Damascus road experience is an example that is hard to refute. He had a conversion that even common sense can only attribute to his own explanation of a religious experience.

but that is no the type use din the studies I talk about.

If Paul’s conversion was a conscious exercise of choice then it was certainly a very stupid move – there was no logical upside to becoming a Christian, the persecutions (as Paul well knew) were not fun and the job did not pay well or come with status and power that compared to his old job.

how could he choose to see a bright light and hear a voice?

Simple reasoning says Paul was converted through a religious experience plus there is a pattern of similar experiences across a range of diverse people in different countries over an extended period of time with. It is very hard to deny that there is some substance here – and if there is, then there is a spiritual realm.

Really, if atheists accepted the evidence supporting the likelihood of religious experiences then the atheist/theist debate would be about the nature of the supreme figure in that realm – is it really “God”.

12:35 PM

I have only one or two times been confronted with athesits who even had a clue about how to beat this argument. Most of them poo poo it without even reading the material. most recently on an EZB universe board I put this augment down and they said "O these are just stupid Christian studies." so they have never heard of Maslow. that's par for the course in dealing with atheists, the most ignorant of them, anyway, their version of fundies.

Jason Barr said... I think this is basically pr...

2007-11-30T09:23:00.000-08:00

Jason Barr said...

I think this is basically pretty good. I also have no idea what brain/mind problem Loftus is talking about, unless he's trying to make a point about the relation of the physical brain processes to the existential experience of the conscious mind.

I can think of two or three things he could have meant.

I must admit to still being somewhat unsure of how exactly the positive effects of mystical experience demonstrate the work of the divine in the world. I really like the reference to the Derridean trace above and I tend to use the same sort of expression to refer to God in the world, and I think it's a good analogy. I'm just not sure how to make the jump between analogy and reality.

that's always the problem in anything. not unique to this argument. non uniqueness is a defense for any argument.

I have visions of Deleuze's views on language dancing in my head but can't quite put it together - basically it has to do with the idea that language delimits and points to a particular shaping of difference, but does not exhaust the possibility of difference - in the same way the trace points to God, but does not define or delimit God in a way that would allow us to more definitively "put our finger" on him.

the Derridians basically lost the argument to Pinkham, the student of Chomsky, who unfortunately is an atheist. But Chomsky could make Mincemeat of the decons. meaning in language does not derive from difference or from signifies but from context.

that was the basis of the whole argument between Derrida and Searl. So Searl deserves credit to for taking it back to J.L. Austin.

Would you say the brain chemistry explanation can be put in terms of being a trace, or perhaps a co- or subordinate cause?

the God "parts" of the brain? yes. I use that as a God argument on the big list of 42.

The way I read Genesis 1 the creation participates in its own making, and so I would see such a formulation as coherent with that.

And I could use a bit more explanation of this:

at that level questions of causation do come into it but as ex post facto argument on counter causality.

But overall, I'm pretty impressed.

thanks I apprecaite that. I'm writing back about this one and the Thomas Reid argument.

Interesting article! I'm curious why you always li...

2007-11-21T16:35:00.000-08:00

Interesting article! I'm curious why you always link mystical experience with religion? I've always considered that religion blocks our access to the "traces" of the Divine within by trying to define them. I would think linking the two would obscure you results.

A great argument - stretched the mind!.The argumen...

2007-11-21T12:35:00.000-08:00

A great argument - stretched the mind!.

The argument from religious experience is strong even at an empirical level. The number of people who have them cannot be ignored. Yes some who claim them are charlatans, but many are reliable individuals.

The often heard, and rather patronising, atheist response that ‘those who claim to have had a religious experience are sincere in what they think happened, but wrong’. The atheist defence of mental illness does not hold water when applied to such a large number of instances across such a range of individuals – it is a shield from the weight of evidence.

Paul’s Damascus road experience is an example that is hard to refute. He had a conversion that even common sense can only attribute to his own explanation of a religious experience.

If Paul’s conversion was a conscious exercise of choice then it was certainly a very stupid move – there was no logical upside to becoming a Christian, the persecutions (as Paul well knew) were not fun and the job did not pay well or come with status and power that compared to his old job.

Simple reasoning says Paul was converted through a religious experience plus there is a pattern of similar experiences across a range of diverse people in different countries over an extended period of time with. It is very hard to deny that there is some substance here – and if there is, then there is a spiritual realm.

Really, if atheists accepted the evidence supporting the likelihood of religious experiences then the atheist/theist debate would be about the nature of the supreme figure in that realm – is it really “God”.

I think this is basically pretty good. I also have...

2007-11-20T22:44:00.000-08:00

I think this is basically pretty good. I also have no idea what brain/mind problem Loftus is talking about, unless he's trying to make a point about the relation of the physical brain processes to the existential experience of the conscious mind.

I must admit to still being somewhat unsure of how exactly the positive effects of mystical experience demonstrate the work of the divine in the world. I really like the reference to the Derridean trace above and I tend to use the same sort of expression to refer to God in the world, and I think it's a good analogy. I'm just not sure how to make the jump between analogy and reality. I have visions of Deleuze's views on language dancing in my head but can't quite put it together - basically it has to do with the idea that language delimits and points to a particular shaping of difference, but does not exhaust the possibility of difference - in the same way the trace points to God, but does not define or delimit God in a way that would allow us to more definitively "put our finger" on him.

Would you say the brain chemistry explanation can be put in terms of being a trace, or perhaps a co- or subordinate cause? The way I read Genesis 1 the creation participates in its own making, and so I would see such a formulation as coherent with that.

And I could use a bit more explanation of this:

at that level questions of causation do come into it but as ex post facto argument on counter causality.

But overall, I'm pretty impressed.

thanks Zok

2007-11-18T15:55:00.000-08:00

thanks Zok

Interesting posts, Joe; keep it up.

2007-11-18T15:21:00.000-08:00

Interesting posts, Joe; keep it up.

I am not sure to which brian/mind problem you refe...

2007-11-18T09:36:00.000-08:00

I am not sure to which brian/mind problem you refer. I assume you mean the one with the functionalists vs the property dualist's?

that doesn't even come close to taking out this argument. It has nothing to do with it. But in itself that argument has no bearing on the existence of God. I have a God argument based upon the answer to it.

but I'm not sure this is the right argument you mean?

All you must do here is to answer the mind/brain p...

2007-11-18T09:08:00.000-08:00

All you must do here is to answer the mind/brain problem and you'll have a case. If you cannot do that you have no case. Q.E.D.