"What atheists will say is that science is a great way to get closer to the truth, and in that respect it is far superior to religion. It is far more objective, far more grounded in evidence and reason." The context in which this statement is made found in footnote [1].
Reason and objectivity can be applied across multiple frameworks. One might accept the truth of religion on emotional subjective grounds and yet still apply objetivity and reason in dealing with any number of areas and issues. Lest one conclude that the foundation for the truth of religion is entirely subjective there are any number or apologetic approaches employing demonstration of reason and objectivity in apprehending the truth of God. One such opportunity is fund in the area of reigious experience.
The term "experience" puts people off and may cause atheists to think the foundation of faith is experiential that means necessarily subjective, unreasoning,and illogical. Of course faith as a practice is experiential but faith as a subject matter is backed by a far more scientific basis than is atheism. The true issue here is not faith v science or religion vs science, but faith or religion vs atheism. Science is not atheism and religious believers are often found among the ranks of science. I find many atheists seem to think of science as a from of atheism or a subset. But science is neutral in relation to religious belief or unbelief.
One of the major aspects of applied reason to religious faith is in the area of relgious expeirence (RE). That ccoept is taken as subjective and unavaible for study, but this is not the case. One cannot trafic actual experience to paper for study but one can study everything around the experience. One major aspect of RE that can be studied scientifically is the effects of religious experience upon those who have such experiences. One thing that is necessary for such study is the ability to determine a religious experience from some other kind of experience. We don't need to have such experience to study the effects of having it provide we have a sense of what that experience is. WE can know that by use of the mysticism scale, aka "M scale" by Ralph Hood Jr.
Through the "M scale" one can distinguish a bonafide RE from other kinds of experience. Armed with that knowledge it is quite possible to study the effects of RE upon the recipient. What we find from such studies is that religious experience has a positive life transforming effect and no long term negative effects.[2] There are some short term anxiety related issues but not debilitating and short lived. Positive effects include self actualization, long term marital status, and is correlated with higher IQ and greater financial success.[3] RE produces positive effects Accross the board.[4]
There is no counter study data to these findings. I consulted over 100 students and find no counter evidence. Moreover, these findings are wwell research, they come from many studies. This is all reflected in my book The Trace of God (see fn 2).
There are no studies confirming atheism. While this is not proof of God's existence it is a perfeclty valid scientifically based reason to believe in God. The studies are the result of multiple methodologies.[5]
Notes
[1] Pixie, "Outrage and Incredulity part 2," comment section, Metacrock's blog, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2022 https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2022/04/outrage-and-incredulity-part-2.html
Anonymous Anonymous said... You are trying to hide the ideology beneath the sloganism associated with it. Not material it's natural. same difference. reductionism is a tool . all the better to hind the ideology behind the slogan.[2] Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God: Rational Warrant For Belief.Grand Viaduct 2014, 63 I singaled out p 63 b3ecause it ays this on that page bit the whole book is abooit that.
If you feel we are "trying to hide the ideology beneath the sloganism associated with it" then the obvious solution is for you to consistently refer to our philosophy as naturalism, and not as reductionism, materialism or determinism. If they are all the same to you, then it will make no difference to your arguments, right?
You bring the tool science to the fore and defend it even though that's not under attack. Under attack is the ideology that clings to science, but you hide it behind science.
So then you are railing against a small number of atheists who think science is absolute truth. Who are these atheists? You talk about John Loftus a lot in your post, but none of the quotes suggest he is guilty of what you say.
What atheists will say is that science is a great way to get closer to the truth, and that in that respect it is far superior to religion. It is far more objective, far more grounded in evidence and reason. But atheists who know what they are talking about will not say science is absolute truth.
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid 148-179.
27 comments:
Science is only useful in finding certain kinds of truth: truths about the nature of the physical universe. Suffice it to say that these limited truths are insufficient to answer, or even to ask, the questions that lead to deeper truths: why are we here? What is our purpose? Why do we seek meaning in our lives?
Kristen: Science is only useful in finding certain kinds of truth: truths about the nature of the physical universe.
Before addressing the article, I want to ackwowledge this point. Yes, science can only be used for certain kinds of questions. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said on the other thread:
"...science is a great way to get closer to the truth, and in that respect it is far superior to religion. It is far more objective, far more grounded in evidence and reason."
The following quotes are from Joe's post.
Lest one conclude that the foundation for the truth of religion is entirely subjective there are any number or apologetic approaches employing demonstration of reason and objectivity in apprehending the truth of God.
So how come the existence of God remains unsupported? The vast majority of apologetic approaches assume Christianity is true; they are very much preaching to the choir. It is a fact that the vast majority of Christians were raised as Christians, while the vast majorityof Muslims were raised as Muslims. People adopt the religion they were conditioned to believe as children because the arguments for any religion are founded on that initial conditioning.
One such opportunity is fund in the area of reigious experience.
This is fundamentally subjective! It is a feeling of mystism. It cannot be objectively measured, and is very much open to interpretation.
We don't need to have such experience to study the effects of having it provide we have a sense of what that experience is. WE can know that by use of the mysticism scale, aka "M scale" by Ralph Hood Jr.
And how objective do you think these effects are?
There are no studies confirming atheism. While this is not proof of God's existence it is a perfeclty valid scientifically based reason to believe in God. The studies are the result of multiple methodologies.
But all you can really show is that people have mystcal experiences. You assume they come from God, but nothing in the study supports that.
Pix
good point Kristen well said.
Anonymous [Pix] said...
Kristen: Science is only useful in finding certain kinds of truth: truths about the nature of the physical universe.
Before addressing the article, I want to ackwowledge this point. Yes, science can only be used for certain kinds of questions. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said on the other thread:
"...science is a great way to get closer to the truth, and in that respect it is far superior to religion. It is far more objective, far more grounded in evidence and reason."
I disproved your statement with empirical research. You have no such data to support your cause,
The following quotes are from Joe's post.
"Lest one conclude that the foundation for the truth of religion is entirely subjective there are any number or apologetic approaches employing demonstration of reason and objectivity in apprehending the truth of God."
So how come the existence of God remains unsupported?
You are just begging the question. There's a ton of supporting evidence. All those RE studies basically prove God in a practice sense.
The vast majority of apologetic approaches assume Christianity is true; they are very much preaching to the choir.
false. Arguments for existence of God refuse to speculate as to God's nature.
It is a fact that the vast majority of Christians were raised as Christians, while the vast majorityof Muslims were raised as Muslims. People adopt the religion they were conditioned to believe as children because the arguments for any religion are founded on that initial conditioning.
That is not an argument against the existence of God. It's also unimportant.
One such opportunity is found in the area of religious experience.
Me: This is fundamentally subjective! It is a feeling of mystism. It cannot be objectively measured, and is very much open to interpretation.
Me: We don't need to have such experience to study the effects of having it provide we have a sense of what that experience is. WE can know that by use of the mysticism scale, aka "M scale" by Ralph Hood Jr.
And how objective do you think these effects are?
objectivity is for suckers. There is o real objectivity. Atheist rekection of God and lie about no evidence is not objective
me: There are no studies confirming atheism. While this is not proof of God's existence it is a perfeclty valid scientifically based reason to believe in God. The studies are the result of multiple methodologies.
But all you can really show is that people have mystcal experiences. You assume they come from God, but nothing in the study supports that.
It is true we can't prove it in a way that removes all doubt. But there are a number of good reasons to assume it's God.
(1)Hood's data indicates the experiences are the same in all cultures but owing to the culturally constructed nature of religion they should not be.
(2) the nature of the personal presence and overwhelming sense of being loved that accompanies the experience.
(3)Most who have them identify God as the basis of the experience
(4) That s he basis of organized religion, if not for these experience there would be no religion
(1)Hood's data indicates the experiences are the same in all cultures but owing to the culturally constructed nature of religion they should not be.
- Owing to human nature, these feelings are quite similar across cultures. The interpretation of the experience varies.
(2) the nature of the personal presence and overwhelming sense of being loved that accompanies the experience.
- When a religious subject interprets the experience as Godly, he is likely to report a sense of being loved.
(3)Most who have them identify God as the basis of the experience
- Religious people see God as the basis. Non-religious people do not see it that way.
(4) That s he basis of organized religion, if not for these experience there would be no religion
- I don't believe it. You need to cite data to back that up.
im-skeptical said...
(1)Hood's data indicates the experiences are the same in all cultures but owing to the culturally constructed nature of religion they should not be.
- Owing to human nature, these feelings are quite similar across cultures. The interpretation of the experience varies.
you don't get the argument. We should expect to find religious experiences are tailored to each religion they should be different. That they are different across culture's implies that they are experiencing something real something that is there. If that similarity is due to human nature then all culture should be the same and all religions should be the same.
(2) the nature of the personal presence and overwhelming sense of being loved that accompanies the experience.
- When a religious subject interprets the experience as Godly, he is likely to report a sense of being loved.
what about the experience would make them think God is involved?
that is inexplicable. People don't plan mystical experiences. Many happen while people are atheist's, Mine did. I had know idea one was supposed to feel God's presence. There it was.
(3)Most who have them identify God as the basis of the experience
- Religious people see God as the basis. Non-religious people do not see it that way.
You are still assuming it's a planned activity and it is not. Noe one does it that way.
(4) That s he basis of organized religion, if not for these experience there would be no religion
- I don't believe it. You need to cite data to back that up.
See my book the "Trace of God" I sight data there. The thing is it's in all religions that would not be the case if it wasn't basic to the religious instinct.
2:37 PM
ps more on one point:
Skepie: Owing to human nature, these feelings are quite similar across cultures. The interpretation of the experience varies.
My answer: you don't get the argument. We should expect to find religious experiences are tailored to each religion they should be different. That they [mystical experiences] are [Not] different across culture's implies that they are experiencing something real something that is there. If that similarity is due to human nature then all culture should be the same and all religions should be the same.
"these feelings are quite similar across cultures." What is the same is mystical experience, what is nit the same is the religions that predicate the experiences, That means there must be more than human nature involved, Human nature didn't make religions the same.
You are just begging the question. There's a ton of supporting evidence. All those RE studies basically prove God in a practice sense.
No there is not. There is data that suggests people have mystical experiences, but nothing to connect that to God.
false. Arguments for existence of God refuse to speculate as to God's nature.
There are broadly types of two arguments for God. The first type assumes your pet religion is true, and can be characterises as: It says God exists in the Bible, so he must exist. It is all circular, and relies on the person being conditioned to believe the religion is true from an early age.
The second type is cosmological, and is rather less common, though I appreciate you prefer it. It arguments that something exists, which it then chooses to label God. For example, there must be some cause of the universe, we can label that thing God, even though we have no reason to suppose it is conscious, and then convince ourselves the Christian God exists.
That is not an argument against the existence of God. It's also unimportant.
I never said it was an argument against God.
objectivity is for suckers. There is o real objectivity. Atheist rekection of God and lie about no evidence is not objective
I accept there is no absolute objectivity, but it is clearly the case that some approaches are more objective than others. Science is about as objective as we can get.
(1)Hood's data indicates the experiences are the same in all cultures but owing to the culturally constructed nature of religion they should not be.
Exactly what is the same? And how does that lead us to conclude God? He is selecting experiences that have some commonality before labelling them ystical experiences, so they will necessarily be similar to some degree. Further, in every case they are experienced by the human brain, so again some similarity is to be expected.
(2) the nature of the personal presence and overwhelming sense of being loved that accompanies the experience.
(3)Most who have them identify God as the basis of the experience
Do atheists who have these expereience also feel that way? Or is this due to their cultural background?
(4) That s he basis of organized religion, if not for these experience there would be no religion
And the fact thart there are so many disparate religions all apparently resulting from these same experiences argues against them coming from the God of one specifioc religion.
Pix
you don't get the argument. We should expect to find religious experiences are tailored to each religion they should be different.
- You don't get MY argument. Religious experiences are about God. It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or Muslim or whatever. That's what Hood has confirmed. Religious experiences are about God. But those are religious experiences as determined by Hood's M Scale. What about people who have similar experiences that are not about God? They are weeded out by the M Scale, which includes a factor for religious content, and rejects those that don't have sufficient religious content. Guess what - non-religious people have the same kind of experiences (as confirmed by Maslow and others) but don't consider them to be religious in nature. So Hood doesn't call them genuine "mystical" experiences. And your analysis completely ignores them.
what about the experience would make them think God is involved?
that is inexplicable.
- It's not inexplicable. People who believe in God think God is responsible for everything, including any peak experience they may have. That's definitely what YOU think.
You are still assuming it's a planned activity and it is not. Noe one does it that way.
- I never said anything about that. I agree these are not planned. Nobody ever said they were, as far as I know.
See my book the "Trace of God" I sight data there. The thing is it's in all religions that would not be the case if it wasn't basic to the religious instinct.
- Evolutionary Psychology attributes the origins of religion to something they call the hyperactive agency detection device (HADD). This is part of human nature. Agency detection is inherited from pre-human ancestors. It causes animals to perceive life (or spirit) in other animals that may be a danger to them, but also in various inanimate objects. Humans, in particular, perceive spirits in all kinds of things. And this is the basis of the most primitive religious beliefs. Cultural factors build on top of those primitive feelings and beliefs to form more complex religions, including all modern religions.
part 1
Anonymous (Pixie) said...
Me: You are just begging the question. There's a ton of supporting evidence. All those RE studies basically prove God in a practice sense.
Pix: No there is not. There is data that suggests people have mystical experiences, but nothing to connect that to God.
There is a great deal that connects it to God. you have not answered Hood's argumemt which is absolute. Most who have the experience connect it God.
false. Arguments for existence of God refuse to speculate as to God's nature.
There are broadly types of two arguments for God. The first type assumes your pet religion is true, and can be characterises as: It says God exists in the Bible, so he must exist. It is all circular, and relies on the person being conditioned to believe the religion is true from an early age.
That is just a way of avoiding the arguments you can't answer. we all know there are drumb shits in Christianity that does not negate the valid argent which you are avoiding,
The second type is cosmological, and is rather less common, though I appreciate you prefer it. It arguments that something exists, which it then chooses to label God. For example, there must be some cause of the universe, we can label that thing God, even though we have no reason to suppose it is conscious, and then convince ourselves the Christian God exists.
I have fantastic reasons for thinking it's conscious in a sense, highly advanced sort of consciousness. Most atheists wont let the argument go that far. They are strangely not carious.
That is not an argument against the existence of God. It's also unimportant.
I never said it was an argument against God.
wait how could something not be centered on my God arguments?
ME: objectivity is for suckers. There is o real objectivity. Atheist rekection of God and lie about no evidence is not objective
I accept there is no absolute objectivity, but it is clearly the case that some approaches are more objective than others. Science is about as objective as we can get.
To the extent that objectivity is possible one can be objective about anything. Why is objectivity always the desiderata?
Hood's data indicates the experiences are the same in all cultures but owing to the culturally constructed nature of religion they should not be.
part 2
Exactly what is the same? And how does that lead us to conclude God? He is selecting experiences that have some commonality before labelling them mystical experiences,
No that's wrong. He took his criteria for experiences from W.T. Stace. The M scale was originally created to confirm Stace's work. Stace chose his experiences based upon what he mystics of the said about their experiences. He used mystics from all religions around the world.
so they will necessarily be similar to some degree. Further, in every case they are experienced by the human brain, so again some similarity is to be expected.
we all have human brain so we all think alike. why do we have more than one culture? more than one language? what difference does it make if having a human brain is part of it? The people studied are still having the experiences. if Hood chooses those that are alike its because there are expiries that are alike. You have no evidence that they have huge differences
(2) the nature of the personal presence and overwhelming sense of being loved that accompanies the experience.
(3)Most who have them identify God as the basis of the experience
Do atheists who have these experience also feel that way? Or is this due to their cultural background?
they describe the same experiences. Some times they wise up like I did. They have an aversion to calling it God but they do have the same experiences.
(4) That s he basis of organized religion, if not for these experience there would be no religion
And the fact that there are so many disparate religions all apparently resulting from these same experiences argues against them coming from the God of one specific religion.
No it doesn't. It's obvious religious traditions are tailored to culture. they are cultural differences the fact that we have some experiences in common shows there is something there
Blogger im-skeptical
ME:you don't get the argument. We should expect to find religious experiences are tailored to each religion they should be different.
- You don't get MY argument. Religious experiences are about God. It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or Muslim or whatever. That's what Hood has confirmed. Religious experiences are about God.
Hood does not confirm that religious experiences are about God. There can be religions that have no concept of God but they are religious.
But those are religious experiences as determined by Hood's M Scale.
wrong No part of the scale determines the religiosity of the subject. Nothing in the scale is designed to weigh that. why would Hood do that: He doesn't believe in a personal God.
What about people who have similar experiences that are not about God? They are weeded out by the M Scale, which includes a factor for religious content, and rejects those that don't have sufficient religious content.
when are you going to learn about it? It does not factor religion into the score. Hood accepts that atheist's can have RE.
Guess what - non-religious people have the same kind of experiences (as confirmed by Maslow and others) but don't consider them to be religious in nature. So Hood doesn't call them genuine "mystical" experiences. And your analysis completely ignores them.
Yes he does. I've told you this before. He's a Unitarian don't you know what those are? He's not a Christian. Non religious people have mystical experiences far less than religious ones do. But the m scale scores them too.
what about the experience would make them think God is involved?
that is inexplicable.
- It's not inexplicable. People who believe in God think God is responsible for everything, including any peak experience they may have. That's definitely what YOU think.
that answer is not based upon data but upon your hatred of religious people
ME: See my book the "Trace of God" I sight data there. The thing is it's in all religions that would not be the case if it wasn't basic to the religious instinct.
- Evolutionary Psychology attributes the origins of religion to something they call the hyperactive agency detection device (HADD). This is part of human nature. Agency detection is inherited from pre-human ancestors. It causes animals to perceive life (or spirit) in other animals that may be a danger to them, but also in various inanimate objects.
I've researched it and I believe I wrote an article on it. That is a classic case of argument from sign merely a fallacy. Those shrinks have found nothing that demonstrates that God did not put that into us. they literally just assume if we have it then God is made up.
Humans, in particular, perceive spirits in all kinds of things. And this is the basis of the most primitive religious beliefs. Cultural factors build on top of those primitive feelings and beliefs to form more complex religions, including all modern religions.
cataloguing poisons in the natural world, such as mushrooms, is a very privative activity ang it is one basic step toward scientific understanding. Therefore science is a privative adoration based upon poison detection.
Hood does not confirm that religious experiences are about God
- You're not listening. If religion is about God, then religious experiences are about God by definition. Yes, there are other peak experiences that are not religious. Peak experiences include religious, spiritual, and other emotional feelings. Your refusal to use the term "peak experience" shows that you don't recognize the full scope of what people experience. You want this to be about God, so you focus on a limited aspect of the peak experience that you call "mystical". Yes, the M Scale helps you to limit what you look at. But in doing so, you are closing your eyes to the bigger picture.
When someone conducts a "scientific study" with the goal of confirming a specific theory, they have a tendency to limit the information they bring into consideration, and reject anything that might disconfirm that theory. And that's exactly what the M Scale does. By focusing on the subset of peak experiences that are deemed to be "mystical", you ignore everything else. You are guaranteeing that your "study" is steered toward your goal. This is what we call pseudo-science.
Hood does not confirm that religious experiences are about God
- You're not listening. If religion is about God, then religious experiences are about God by definition. Yes, there are other peak experiences that are not religious. Peak experiences include religious, spiritual, and other emotional feelings. Your refusal to use the term "peak experience" shows that you don't recognize the full scope of what people experience.
you are so illogical. you contradicted the hell out of yourself. yo are denying the experience of Buddhists who have a religion but no God. I at least admit they exist they are religious without God. That contradicts the notion that I deny human experience or that you recognize it.
You want this to be about God, so you focus on a limited aspect of the peak experience that you call "mystical". Yes, the M Scale helps you to limit what you look at. But in doing so, you are closing your eyes to the bigger picture.
I just got through telling you the M scale does not weed out atheist mystics a less mystical. BTW Hood does not believe in God in any conventional sense, I spoke with him this morning.
When someone conducts a "scientific study" with the goal of confirming a specific theory, they have a tendency to limit the information they bring into consideration, and reject anything that might disconfirm that theory. And that's exactly what the M Scale does.
wrong! go read Popper. the ignorance with which you pretend to be so expert in science! Science is about invalidating hypothesis. That's what the M scale tested. The last hypothesis standing is the one you take. Stace's work held up, the M scale ha been tested around the world more than any other such scale.
By focusing on the subset of peak experiences that are deemed to be "mystical", you ignore everything else.
peak experience is euphemism for mystical experience there are different kinds that doesn't mean one is better than another. Noting in the scale scores peak differently than mystical
You are guaranteeing that your "study" is steered toward your goal. This is what we call pseudo-science.
You are using ideology as if it were science. you are not speaking scientifically but ideologically,
Maslow uses mystical and peak as interchangeable. he does not think one is religion the other secular. He says "mystical or peak." He does say it's found in non religious as well as religious contexts. I have never denied that. That does not disprove my argument.
see Maslow himself talking about it. a film of him talking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y4ubyz3fbY
you contradicted the hell out of yourself. yo are denying the experience of Buddhists who have a religion but no God.
- No, Joe. I am going by what YOU said. You said that mystical experiences are about the divine, and are therefore caused by the divine. That was your big argument. And we all know that when you say "the divine", you mean God. So now if you want to claim that the Buddhist mystical experience isn't about God, YOU are contradicting yourself.
I just got through telling you the M scale does not weed out atheist mystics a less mystical.
- Right. The M Scale weeds out anything that is not "mystical", including all peak experiences that are nor regarded as religious or spiritual. But I remember what you said. Mystical experiences are about "the divine". So you are obviously including Buddhists in that category. But there are still plenty of peak experiences that you are ignoring.
Maslow uses mystical and peak as interchangeable.
- His view is more inclusive than yours. He does not weed out the non-religious/spiritual, like you do, and he definitely doesn't think they are caused by "the divine".
wrong! go read Popper.
- Popper would laugh at your methodology, as would any real scientist.
You are using ideology as if it were science. you are not speaking scientifically but ideologically,
- I'll change my opinion when your work is subjected to genuine scientific peer review.
im-skeptical said...
you contradicted the hell out of yourself. yo are denying the experience of Buddhists who have a religion but no God.
- No, Joe. I am going by what YOU said. You said that mystical experiences are about the divine, and are therefore caused by the divine. That was your big argument. And we all know that when you say "the divine", you mean God. So now if you want to claim that the Buddhist mystical experience isn't about God, YOU are contradicting yourself.
Just because U bkueveub God does not mean I'm impervious to the fact that not every one does. I chose the term "the Devine" rather than "God" for just that reason.
I just got through telling you the M scale does not weed out atheist mystics a less mystical.
- Right. The M Scale weeds out anything that is not "mystical", including all peak experiences that are nor regarded as religious or spiritual.
that would be the same thing that I just said it doesn't do. why don't don;;t stop being a horses ass?
But I remember what you said. Mystical experiences are about "the divine". So you are obviously including Buddhists in that category. But there are still plenty of peak experiences that you are ignoring.
You are really ridiculous to think that people having non religious related mystical experiences disproves my RE argumemt, it does not. That is fully accounted for. I already explained it. We are given this ability but it can be used for anything, deterring the presence of any being but it works best with God. It works 60% of the time used generally,
Joe: Maslow uses mystical and peak as interchangeable.
- His view is more inclusive than yours. He does not weed out the non-religious/spiritual, like you do, and he definitely doesn't think they are caused by "the divine".
You must be blind. I just got through saying there are non religious related Mystical Experiences. But Most ME is taken by those who have them as involving God or the divine. That fact does not disprove my argumet.
wrong! go read Popper.
- Popper would laugh at your methodology, as would any real scientist.
Popper doesn't do much laughing these days. but my view lines up with his you don't know what Popper said. I know more about science than you do. You flunked your atheist self worth test because you don't know shit about science.
Joe:You are using ideology as if it were science. you are not speaking scientifically but ideologically,
- I'll change my opinion when your work is subjected to genuine scientific peer review.
where did you do your Phd work? I did mine at University of Texas at Dallas. where did you do yours? I studied History and philosophy of science. You probably don't know what that means.
I would bet your reaction to philosophy of science is "science is not philosphy!"
Just because U bkueveub God does not mean I'm impervious to the fact that not every one does. I chose the term "the Devine" rather than "God" for just that reason.
- You chose that term because you think it allows you to claim that your belief in God is justified (based on the idea that mystical experiences are caused by "the divine"). You certainly use those two terms interchangeably in your argument. But you can't have it both ways, Joe. Either the divine is God, and you are lumping non-religious experiences into that group, or the divine is not God, and your argument leading to justified belief in God is not valid due to the equivocation fallacy.
that would be the same thing that I just said it doesn't do. why don't don;;t stop being a horses ass?
- Come on, Joe. What does the M Scale do? It tells you which experiences supposedly are real mystical and which ones aren't. Yes, it absolutely DOES weed out non-mystical experiences. It has no other purpose.
Popper doesn't do much laughing these days. but my view lines up with his you don't know what Popper said. I know more about science than you do. You flunked your atheist self worth test because you don't know shit about science.
- I told you this before, Joe. I have a higher level of education than you do. That includes more extensive post-graduate work. And it is focused primarily in science. I have a full career of professional experience in science. I have published parers in real peer-reviewed journals (not just an on-line magazine like yours, where YOU decide what goes into it - that ain't peer-review).
I studied History and philosophy of science. You probably don't know what that means. I would bet your reaction to philosophy of science is "science is not philosphy!"
- Your knowledge of science is limited to a single course you took called "History of Ideas". That is just a brief introduction, but it does not amount to an education in science. And it certainly does not qualify you as an expert in ANY scientific field. The fact is that when your post-graduate education focuses mainly on religion, you don't have much cause to claim expertise in any topic at all that involves the real world. And as for philosophy, I'm betting that I studied more of it than you ever did. You sure don't know how to construct a valid logical argument.
Joe: Just because U bkueveub God does not mean I'm impervious to the fact that not every one does. I chose the term "the Devine" rather than "God" for just that reason.
- You chose that term because you think it allows you to claim that your belief in God is justified (based on the idea that mystical experiences are caused by "the divine").
Don't tell me why I do things. you are not smart enough to know my reasons.
You certainly use those two terms interchangeably in your argument. But you can't have it both ways, Joe. Either the divine is God, and you are lumping non-religious experiences into that group, or the divine is not God, and your argument leading to justified belief in God is not valid due to the equivocation fallacy.
yes obviously God is the divine but you no idea what that ,means, I do ue it as an inclusive term. God is beyond our understanding, when we pin god down to language we miss the point just talking about God is a necessary convention, (I relate to God as though he's personal but I know h'e more than that.
that would be the same thing that I just said it doesn't do. why don't don;;t stop being a horses ass?
- Come on, Joe. What does the M Scale do? It tells you which experiences supposedly are real mystical and which ones aren't. Yes, it absolutely DOES weed out non-mystical experiences. It has no other purpose.
weed out non mystical but not non religious
Joe: Popper doesn't do much laughing these days. but my view lines up with his you don't know what Popper said. I know more about science than you do. You flunked your atheist self worth test because you don't know shit about science.
- I told you this before, Joe. I have a higher level of education than you do. That includes more extensive post-graduate work.
You so full of shit you hqve never been to graduate school ,call the arts and humanities office at UTD. they can look me up. for years I've said you have never been to graduate school you never denied it. I was in Ph.D program 12 years. I passed my qualifying exam. I ran an academic journal with others, and wa referee for anther journal and I was a teaching assistant
And it is focused primarily in science. I have a full career of professional experience in science. I have published parers in real peer-reviewed journals (not just an on-line magazine like yours, where YOU decide what goes into it - that ain't peer-review).
You don't know the basics abut Popper and Kuhn You might know a ot science related factual knowledge such as what what ants eat? That does nit mean you shit about philosphy of science.
Joe: I studied History and philosophy of science. You probably don't know what that means. I would bet your reaction to philosophy of science is "science is not philosphy!"
- Your knowledge of science is limited to a single course you took called "History of Ideas".
ahhahaahahaahahahahah what a little dunderhead. narcissistic failure. I was in Phd work 12 years. I wasted four studying Derrida so then 8 years styling history of science. My focuss was on Newton and Boyle and the Ltitudinarians. But I stided Popperand Kuh for a coule of years.
That is just a brief introduction, but it does not amount to an education in science. And it certainly does not qualify you as an expert in ANY scientific field.
Yes it does. I'm an expert in Latitudeianrians, I don't claim to be an expert on Kuhn but certainly know him better than you do. Every time I see you talking abouit anything you dmt get it right you kmow nothing,
The fact is that when your post-graduate education focuses mainly on religion, you don't have much cause to claim expertise in any topic at all that involves the real world.
first of all there is no rule in academe that says this that is your uneducated opinion, Secondly I was in a secular problem you dunderhead. are you really so fucking stupid that you cant se that UT Dallas is a state university? no religion, it's state. secular. dumb ass.
And as for philosophy, I'm betting that I studied more of it than you ever did. You sure don't know how to construct a valid logical argument.
8:38 AM
Post a Comment
Everything I see you sy about Philosphy yu get wrong. You known nothing,
you are so convinced no one could disagree with you and know anything, you are slanderigme andlyng about my career you better stop. I'm going to wrote to your ISP. same thing you were banned for before you just can't learn.
look lying shit hole ask John Loftus. Loftus know I was in the program
Joe, I must ask your forgiveness for wandering off the topic to question your academic credentials. My only excuse is that you opened the door. First by boasting of your own academic prowess (including PhD work and peer review), which only leads me to relate that to what I already know of your accomplishments. And secondly, by attacking my own academic achievement, of which you have no knowledge. I would be most happy to leave these juvenile attacks behind and focus instead on the subject matter at hand. But that's hard to do when every time I question some claim you make, your response tends to be something along the lines of "This is advanced stuff. I'm right because I studied this in my doctoral program, and you're stupid and uneducated and you don't know anything about it." The implication comes across loud and clear: You are qualified to discuss these topics, and I'm not. You are far above the uneducated masses, and you can make any claim you want, and nobody can question it. Let me just say that you shouldn't always assume that you are the smartest one in the room. Open yourself up to honest debate. Be willing to listen and accept criticism from others, and you might just learn a thing or two. It might lead you to shore up weaknesses and improve your arguments.
Regarding Boyle, Newton, and Latitudinarianism (a religious ideology), this is the first time I recall you mentioning this (in any discussion with me). Just so I can understand better, do you find yourself more aligned Newton the younger, or Newton the elder? And why?
Joe, I must ask your forgiveness for wandering off the topic to question your academic credentials. My only excuse is that you opened the door. First by boasting of your own academic prowess (including PhD work and peer review), which only leads me to relate that to what I already know of your accomplishments.
You don't know anything about it. You made what you want to think it is. You started the insults.
And secondly, by attacking my own academic achievement, of which you have no knowledge.
I think we established a long time ago that you had not been to graduate school.
I would be most happy to leave these juvenile attacks behind and focus instead on the subject matter at hand. But that's hard to do when every time I question some claim you make, your response tends to be something along the lines of "This is advanced stuff. I'm right because I studied this in my doctoral program, and you're stupid and uneducated and you don't know anything about it."
You don't just question you assert the lies you told about me.
The implication comes across loud and clear: You are qualified to discuss these topics, and I'm not. You are far above the uneducated masses, and you can make any claim you want, and nobody can question it. Let me just say that you shouldn't always assume that you are the smartest one in the room. Open yourself up to honest debate.
bull shit
Be willing to listen and accept criticism from others, and you might just learn a thing or two. It might lead you to shore up weaknesses and improve your arguments.
You are not willing to listen, but we should be friends. disagreement about the existence of God does not call for this kind of BS
Regarding Boyle, Newton, and Latitudinarianism (a religious ideology), this is the first time I recall you mentioning this (in any discussion with me).
no reason for it to come up in modern apologetics
Just so I can understand better, do you find yourself more aligned Newton the younger, or Newton the elder? And why?
9:58 AM
Issac bloody Newton not the Auburn quarterback or Howard qb
I was more concerned with Boyle's attempt to do science as Christian apologetics.
You started the insults.
- I think anyone reading this comment section from the start would have to disagree.
I think we established a long time ago that you had not been to graduate school.
- That's what you decided a long time ago. But if you were more familiar with a broad range of scientific topics, you might have decided otherwise. As I have tried to explain to you many times, the subject matter that you studied may be of historical interest, but it's not real scientific education. You are not in a position to pass judgment about who really understands science better.
You don't just question you assert the lies you told about me.
- Typically, I start out with gentle probing. I don't recall a single time that you admitted that your understanding might be less than perfect. There ARE things that I know more about than you do. And that includes virtually any area of science.
You are not willing to listen, but we should be friends. disagreement about the existence of God does not call for this kind of BS
- One thing you always seem to assume is that I am arguing against the existence of God. While I believe that there is no God, I rarely if ever try to make that my argument. What I usually do is select a particular point that you are making, and try to take issue with that as a limited topic of debate.
Issac bloody Newton not the Auburn quarterback or Howard qb
- Sorry. I did assume that since you spent so much time studying this (as part od a PhD program, no less), you would have some thoughts on how Newton's science relates to theological issues, and how they changed over time.
im-skeptical said...
You started the insults.
- I think anyone reading this comment section from the start would have to disagree.
I could book mark where they start but that would be pathetic. I think we each must be responsible about our part in it.
I think we established a long time ago that you had not been to graduate school.
- That's what you decided a long time ago.
Every time I asked where you went and what your degree is in you answered with silence.
But if you were more familiar with a broad range of scientific topics, you might have decided otherwise.
Because your knowledge is so apparent? I could say the same.
As I have tried to explain to you many times, the subject matter that you studied may be of historical interest, but it's not real scientific education. You are not in a position to pass judgment about who really understands science better.
Hey I am not a science guy. That's not my interest. my education was tailored to understanding what makes science work not actually practicing science itself. I had to understand scientific methods in social sciences so that's another range of my interest. Also my background in college debate we had to debate study methodology every simple time. Those things make for a deeper understanding of science than knowing the details of sciences.
You don't just question you assert the lies you told about me.
- Typically, I start out with gentle probing. I don't recall a single time that you admitted that your understanding might be less than perfect. There ARE things that I know more about than you do. And that includes virtually any area of science.
College debate trained me to show confidence. But I know I dom't know everything, I am well aware of that.
Joe: You are not willing to listen, but we should be friends. disagreement about the existence of God does not call for this kind of BS
- One thing you always seem to assume is that I am arguing against the existence of God. While I believe that there is no God, I rarely if ever try to make that my argument. What I usually do is select a particular point that you are making, and try to take issue with that as a limited topic of debate.
whatever I take em as they come
Issac bloody Newton not the Auburn quarterback or Howard qb
- Sorry. I did assume that since you spent so much time studying this (as part od a PhD program, no less), you would have some thoughts on how Newton's science relates to theological issues, and how they changed over time.
That's not what you asked. You are trying to trick me because you are too chicken to call the department. No one there will remember me now but they will have a record,
1:33 PM
Post a Comment
Find SMO Institute in Delhi is the best SMO courses in Delhi and we provide best smo training in delhi. We provide Social Media Optimization (SMO) training courses in Delhi by industry trainers who will share their knowledge on using social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc.
Post a Comment