Wednesday, June 08, 2022

Mystical Experience More than Gut Feeling

I've been doing apologetics on the net since 1998. In that time I have noticed that many if not most atheists think of religious experience as "gut feeling." Of course they think of gut feelings as totally unreliable. There is evidence that gut instincts are not entirely unreliable.

For the first time, researchers devised a technique to measure intuition. After using this method, they found evidence that people can use their intuition to make faster, more accurate and more confident decisions, according to the findings, published online in April in the journal Psychological Science. The study shows that intuition does, indeed, exist and that researchers can measure it, said Joel Pearson, an associate professor of psychology at the University of New South Wales in Australia and the lead author of the study.[1]


In another study:

"For the participants who had been asked to use their intuition, however, expertise made a huge difference – vastly increasing the accuracy of their gut reactions. Indeed, the experts using their intuitions were about 20% more accurate than those using analysis alone."[2] Still further research indicates:"Intuition alone can guide the right choice."[3] I am sure those studies will be attacked, but that's not what I want to talk about.

Religious experience (RE) is not merely a gut feeling.Religious experience is a broad term that refers to a range of experience; "mystical" is a subset of that category. "mystical" experience is not a synonym for all religious experience but is a particle kind of experience.Mystical expeience is to religious experience in general as empirical observation is to observation. It is the ultimate, the most accurate and the most advanced. Not everyone has it (although I am of the opinion that everyone can have it).

I do not pretend that what I am about to discuss exhausts the field of RE. I will speak of a few aspects only those I have experienced myself. The aspects I will discuss are:

(1) Presence

(2) still small voice

(3) Mystical experience.

The feeling of God's presence is one of the first experiences I had that changed my outlook from naturalism to supernaturalism. Its just a sense that someone is there, not unlike the feeling of being watched when one is alone. That describes the sensation; it does not link the two as produced by the same cause. I first experienced this the night I had my born again experience.I had just prayed and asked God to let me know him and dedicated y life to hi. Suddenly I began to feel a strong sense thatI wasn't alone in the room, The person with me loved me. This feeling has continued whenever I pray. That was Easter, 1979.

That is quite different from merely a gut feeling. The sense of presence is not gut. It's more like all over. The feeling of being watched is not a gut feeling. I'm drawing an analogy. I'm not saying the sense of God's presence is related to the feeling of being watched. That sense of presence is clean, loving and holy. It pervades with a sense of holiness that can fall over a room. In my experience one must grow into a sense of apprehending this phenonenon.

I also equote the presence with certain physical sensations that I've experienced since the beginning. One Of them is burning palms. The palms of my hands would get very hot asI prayed and praised God. I talked with others about this it's  quite a common experience among Charismatics and pentecostals. I had a friend whose palms burned so hot could not hold hands with her in prayers, Once she was cut while making dinner we prayed for her. I placed my handover hers the back of her hand to pray andI felt head coming up from the palm to the top of the andand through the bandage. Another aspect was magnetic lie force whenI prayed,it pulled my arms up. That is why I began raising hands when I pray.

Of these three experiences the still small voice is closest to being a gut feeling. It is not an audible voice but more like the effect of being spoken to. Not to say hearing words but just knowing a thing is right or true. It's still and small because it's subtle.

Mystical experience is too complex to go into deeply. I wrote a whole book about it.[4] Essentially there are two kinds of Mystical experience, imtorvertove and extrovertive. Mystical experience is the experience of God beyond word, thought or image. Extrovertive can be described images to soeextet because it involves a sense of God providing the natural world.

What makes an experience mystical?:

a. a sense of getting a look behind the scenes at the meaning of life.

b. a sense of the undifferentiated unity of all things

c. a sense of all pervasive love of God or the divine.

d. extrovertive is keyed through nature, a sense of the unity of all nature is key. Iterovertove cannot be described as the basic idea of mystical s that the experience is beyond words.

I had a powerful experience while praying in the foothills of the Sandia mountains outside Albuquerque New Mexico. I sensed the presence of God everywhere and in all things. God was radiating from the rocks and dirt, the mountain, the scrub brush,sticks on the ground. Then I felt as if a door opened in the sky and Jesus came,I knew it was Jesus there though I saw nothing. Then I was being taken up into space and I felt I understood all things. Life seemed beautiful and miraculous and like a gift of God.Then I had to sleep. it was all strung together by a great unity of God's presence. That was an extrovertive mystical experience.

Transformative effects

The experience is good for us. It changes the experiencer across the board. These effects are well documented by that huge body of empirical research. They include self actualization, therapeutic effects that actually enhance healing form mental problems, less depression better mental outlook and so on. The placebo argument is neutralized because Placebos require expectation and a large portion of mystical experience is not expected. It’s not something people usually set out to have.
Gut feelings don't transform your life but mystical experience is transformational.

also see [5]

Sources and Notes

[1]Cari Nierenberg,"The Science of Intuition: How to Measure 'Hunches' and 'Gut Feelings,'" Live Science(May 20, 2016) https://www.livescience.com/54825-scientists-measure-intuition.html,accessed 6/7/22.

[2]David Robson, "Intuition: When is it right to trust your gut instincts?" BBC Worklife (4th April 2022) https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220401-intuition-when-is-it-right-to-trust-your-gut-instincts, accessed 6/7/22.

[3]Staff "Going with your gut feeling: Intuition alone can guide right choice, study suggests"Science Daily(November 8, 2012) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121108131724.htm, accessed 6/7/22.

[4] Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God:Rational Warrant for Belief. Grand Viaduct Publishing, Colorado Springs, 2014.

[5]Joseph Hinman."The Empirical Study of Mystical Experience (2) : Brain Structure Objection" The Religious A priori 2010. https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/2644398595054000586/992607479338841697, accessed 6/7/22.



41 comments:

Anonymous said...

"For the participants who had been asked to use their intuition, however, expertise made a huge difference – vastly increasing the accuracy of their gut reactions. Indeed, the experts using their intuitions were about 20% more accurate than those using analysis alone."[2] Still further research indicates:"Intuition alone can guide the right choice."[3] I am sure those studies will be attacked, but that's not what I want to talk about.

Intuition is certainly a thing, but the big message from this paragraph is that they used intuition as well as their expertise. We all find ourselves in situations where there is no clear answer, and all we can do is guess. For the expert, that guess is based on years of experience. Intuition is not a wild stab in the dark, it is a best guess based on what we know, without the bother of formally stating what that background knowledge is. From an evolutionary point of view, I would suggest it is the ability to very quickly make a good guess so you can rapidly react without thinking.

So how does this relate to religious experience? It does not. There are no experts in this area. Sure there are priests and imams and shamans and whatever, but know of them actually have background knowledge of what is true. All they have is the guesses of previous priests and imams and shamans, not a solid framework of reliable and verified knowledge.

Consider a car mechanic who has spent the last thirty years of his life fixing cars. He knows them well, he has been trained, he has taken them apart. You take your car to him, and just by the sound, he can have a good guess about what is wrong. His intuition is generally right because it is based on expert knowledge.

Now consider a guy who has not had the training, never actually got his hand dirty. He has been listening to cars for thirty years, but never gone the next step of fixing them, or even confirming his guesses were right. This guy's guesses are no better than yours or mine.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
me:"For the participants who had been asked to use their intuition, however, expertise made a huge difference – vastly increasing the accuracy of their gut reactions. Indeed, the experts using their intuitions were about 20% more accurate than those using analysis alone."[2] Still further research indicates:"Intuition alone can guide the right choice."[3] I am sure those studies will be attacked, but that's not what I want to talk about.

Pix:

Intuition is certainly a thing, but the big message from this paragraph is that they used intuition as well as their expertise. We all find ourselves in situations where there is no clear answer, and all we can do is guess. For the expert, that guess is based on years of experience. Intuition is not a wild stab in the dark, it is a best guess based on what we know, without the bother of formally stating what that background knowledge is. From an evolutionary point of view, I would suggest it is the ability to very quickly make a good guess so you can rapidly react without thinking.


O agree, the combo of experience and intuition is the best. I never advocated eliminating experience. Imitation may be part experience itself.

So how does this relate to religious experience? It does not. There are no experts in this area. Sure there are priests and imams and shamans and whatever, but know of them actually have background knowledge of what is true. All they have is the guesses of previous priests and imams and shamans, not a solid framework of reliable and verified knowledge.


My immediate point was that RE is more than gut but that gut itself is not bad. But it's wrong to think there are no experts. The major point of my first book, the trace of God, there are expert. We can study RE scientifically. It's not all guesses.

Consider a car mechanic who has spent the last thirty years of his life fixing cars. He knows them well, he has been trained, he has taken them apart. You take your car to him, and just by the sound, he can have a good guess about what is wrong. His intuition is generally right because it is based on expert knowledge.

My position is not anti knowledge.

Now consider a guy who has not had the training, never actually got his hand dirty. He has been listening to cars for thirty years, but never gone the next step of fixing them, or even confirming his guesses were right. This guy's guesses are no better than yours or mine.


how about the example of a guy who doesn't listen?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

my point remains RE is more that just git feeling. get it? That's my point.

Experiencing God's presence is direct knowledge of God.

Kristen said...

I think there are different kinds of gut feelings-- hunches about things like what's wrong with a car (based on years of experience) is only one kind. There are also "good feelings" or "bad feelings" about taking certain courses of action. Some of that may be based on noticing what we call "red flags," but not all of it.

I agree that religious experience is not the same thing as gut feeling, but I think some gut feeling is a sense of direction or guidance from the divine. A good or bad feeling about a course of action that we have no reason to feel one way or another about. But the experience of God's presence, or of the still small voice, is different. These are not about whether or not to take a course of action, but are existential-- they are feelings of love, peace, affirmation, encouragement. Mystical experience is something else again-- an astonishing feeling of being lifted outside/above normal human consciousness, to see in a way you can't normally see.

In any event, there is more going on in all of this than just observation and analysis.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I agree some gut feeling can be special guidance, either from God or from oir own perceptions. I could say our own spirits. oooooooo. now sounds looney and ookie spookie. Not meaning familiar spirits but our actual psyches.

im-skeptical said...

my point remains RE is more that just git feeling. get it? That's my point. Experiencing God's presence is direct knowledge of God.
- I beg to differ. You THINK it's God's presence. But you don't know that. It's a feeling you have, no matter how strongly you feel it. THAT'S the point.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

my point remains RE is more that just git feeling. get it? That's my point. Experiencing God's presence is direct knowledge of God.
- I beg to differ. You THINK it's God's presence. But you don't know that. It's a feeling you have, no matter how strongly you feel it. THAT'S the point.
7:19 AM

It's a feeling of something and it started in direct response to calling on God. Moreover, it is in line with what other's have identified as their experiences of God. Granted that is not proof but I have reasons to believe that that is what it is. If you acknowledge that you are out of the atheist club so you must doubt it.

im-skeptical said...

Psilocybin gives you a feeling of something, too. And a lot of people swear it's God.

Kristen said...

What Psilocybin does is entirely beside the point. Suppose a psychiatrist hypnotized me or gave me a drug that made me believe I was sitting in a park having a picnic, when I was actually in a chair in the psychiatrist's office. Would you say, "The drug or hypnosis was able to duplicate the experience, and that means you have never actually been in a park on a picnic; it's all just in your head"?

im-skeptical said...

I's say you (and Joe) should read that paper I pointed out a while back that shows these experiences get a high rating on the M scale. In other words, they are the same kind of experience that Joe calls "direct knowledge of God".

Anonymous said...

Suppose the hypnosis made me really have a great time at the hallucinatory picnic? Still doesn't mean there's no such thing as a real picnic.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
Psilocybin gives you a feeling of something, too. And a lot of people swear it's God.


Not only my late twin and myself but the whole little circle of best friends all well acquainted with Psilocybin. Not comparable. Not the same kind of thing; like comparing happy drunk to parental love.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
I's say you (and Joe) should read that paper I pointed out a while back that shows these experiences get a high rating on the M scale. In other words, they are the same kind of experience that Joe calls "direct knowledge of God".

6:01 PM

You are ignoring the answer I gave at the time. Of course, you ignored it then, so why not now?

(1) show me the docs. Prove they do.
(2) You assert that drugs can have no connection to the divine. That is a fallacy. Drugs can open the some of the same receptors that respond to God's presence, Not to the same extent. There is no measure of depth. There is no measure for the texture of the experience. I might be happy eating ice cream and thinking how my parents loved me. That doesn't mean those things are on a par.

im-skeptical said...

(1) I did show you. It's documented. And if you deny that this is the same kind of experience, then you are denying the validity of the M scale.
(2) I made no such assertion. The assertion is that certain drugs are one means of artificially inducing a "mystical experience". There are others.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
(1) I did show you. It's documented. And if you deny that this is the same kind of experience, then you are denying the validity of the M scale.

You still don't understand how the scale works, It does not measure intensity of experience. It doesn't measure the feeling. You did not answers the argument about receptors.


(2) I made no such assertion. The assertion is that certain drugs are one means of artificially inducing a "mystical experience". There are others.

that doesn't even speak to either argument,

7:48 AM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

1) I did show you. It's documented. And if you deny that this is the same kind of experience, then you are denying the validity of the M scale.


show me where it says they used the M scale

im-skeptical said...

You still don't understand how the scale work
- Tell that to the people who published the research.

show me where it says they used the M scale
- It was right in the abstract.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

look I read hundreds of articles writing my book, I deal with articles all the time. I have no way of remembering some deal you showed me. I probably shot it down. If you wat me to believe I did not shoot it down then give the source.

any debater who advances a source has the responsibility of making the source known.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I don't see how a drug high could be subjected to the M scale. That's like saying soup get high score.

im-skeptical said...

I get it. The research goes against your ideology. So you simply dismissed the whole thing.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

You are so gullible. you totally ignore evidence, your refusal to learn about the M scale
or read anything of the material I present. But if a study saying something you like hey that's it,its gospel. Methodology is nothing to you.

I notice you have produced the document.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

that should say not produced. You expect me to remember t but didn't book mark it?

im-skeptical said...

Joe I showed you the document. Don't ask me to find it again because I didn't bookmark it either. You can find it in your own blog (recent). Read it and weep, because it is scientific research that blows apart the core of your "warrant for belief".

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Sorry not good enough, you didn't book mark that's your excuse? If we were in a debate round in college debate any judge, all judges would say "You don't have the evidence you don't win the point." They would not assume you are right even though we can't double check. They would simply not give you the point,

Hey I have a coulter study I didn't book mark it but it disproves your study do you get the point?

As to your idiotic science worship, no debater just gives up at the first mention of science, every single Friday during my undergraduate years I faced claims that science disproves my case.. You don't just wilt because it's science, You find the methodological flaw. All studies have them.

Of course you totally ignore what I said about this stuff the first time. I dealt with it in my book.

im-skeptical said...

YOU didn't book mark what I showed you. It's YOUR excuse for not reading what I told you in your own blog. But I think the real truth is that you don't want to see it.

You don't just wilt because it's science, You find the methodological flaw. All studies have them.
- I've been pointing out your methodological flaws for years now, and your logical flaws, too. You haven't been listening.

Kristen said...

About this drugs argument, I don't see that it holds water. I know that steroids can artificially increase stamina. Does that mean the person has no actual stamina of their own? Of course not. If a drug enhances your ability to open yourself to experience of God, it hardly follows that you didn't actually experience God.

im-skeptical said...

If a drug enhances your ability to open yourself to experience of God, it hardly follows that you didn't actually experience God.
- Opening someone up to the experience is an assumption that is not supported by the research. There are several ways of artificially inducing the experience. One of them is by altering chemical levels in the brain. When I discussed this with Joe some time ago, his answer was that it wasn't a genuine mystical experience. But that was before I found this research using the M scale. Joe's position has been that the M scale is used to distinguish genuine mystical experience (which are caused by God) from others (which presumably are not caused by God). Now we find that an experience caused by chemicals is rated by the M scale as the real deal. But this is because of the way the person subjectively perceives his experience (which is what the M scale evaluates, after all). Joe and I have gone round and round about what the M scale actually does. I even showed him another paper that explicitly states that the M scale only rates the person's subjective feelings about the experience he had. And that's all it can do because it works by scoring the person's answers to a series of questions. It doesn't make any actual measurements. It is entirely dependent on the person's frame of mind, his beliefs and feelings at the time he is answering those questions.

Kristen said...

I'm taking exception with this word "artificial," which seems like a judgment or interpretation, not a factual statement. What if a drug-induced experience isn't actually "artificial," but is simply an aid to experiencing the divine? Is the assistance of medication in all cases to be interpreted as causing an unreal response-- that we will only accept things that are "natural"? When someone takes antidepressants, do we say their improved mood is artificially induced, and therefore not real?

Many Native American cultures use drugs as part of their religious practices. Maybe they're onto something.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
YOU didn't book mark what I showed you. It's YOUR excuse for not reading what I told you in your own blog. But I think the real truth is that you don't want to see it.

Because it's vull shit I pointed that out

You don't just wilt because it's science, You find the methodological flaw. All studies have them.
- I've been pointing out your methodological flaws for years now, and your logical flaws, too. You haven't been listening.

Ny statement assumes one gets it right, you do not get it right,

10:11 P

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

f a drug enhances your ability to open yourself to experience of God, it hardly follows that you didn't actually experience God.
- Opening someone up to the experience is an assumption that is not supported by the research.

O yes it is. That is an ignorant statement. you don't read the material you research. For example in the Good Friday experiment they all scored high on the M scale taking drugs, but reach it you find they all had mystical experiences in their childhoods. That means the drugs just revived something they already had.


There are several ways of artificially inducing the experience. One of them is by altering chemical levels in the brain. When I discussed this with Joe some time ago, his answer was that it wasn't a genuine mystical experience. But that was before I found this research using the M scale. Joe's position has been that the M scale is used to distinguish genuine mystical experience (which are caused by God) from others (which presumably are not caused by God). Now we find that an experience caused by chemicals is rated by the M scale as the real deal.

Nit really, You have not documented your claim so for all we know it could be a lie. without showing us the material you insulate yourself from criticism but that means you haven't proven anything.

But this is because of the way the person subjectively perceives his experience (which is what the M scale evaluates, after all).


NO IT'S NOT. You are still afraid to learn anything about the scale.

Joe and I have gone round and round about what the M scale actually does. I even showed him another paper that explicitly states that the M scale only rates the person's subjective feelings about the experience he had.

The atheist fear of subjectivity, anything labeled subjective has to be wrong, That is ideology not science. Yes we are discussing experience that means it's subjective. That is neither here nor there. The point is the scale helps us determine if they had what is commonly called mystical experience or some other kind of experience, it doesn't mean squat that it's subjective.


And that's all it can do because it works by scoring the person's answers to a series of questions. It doesn't make any actual measurements. It is entirely dependent on the person's frame of mind, his beliefs and feelings at the time he is answering those questions.

That's all you need to know. I've said this a lot but you don't know anything so in one ear and out the other: The M scale does not prove God exists. It does not prove RE makes you better. The only thing it proves is that one had experience A as opposed to experience B. That's all we need to know. Then we can study the effects of having had experience A. When we do study that it turns out having the experience is good for you.
The only thing the M scale does in that process is to set up a control so you know what you are studying,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

btw my study says your study is crap. U don't it here niw but it says that.

im-skeptical said...

in the Good Friday experiment they all scored high on the M scale taking drugs, but reach it you find they all had mystical experiences in their childhoods. That means the drugs just revived something they already had.
- That's a change of tune. When I pointed out to you before that there are drug-induced religious experiences, you insisted that these experiences weren't genuine, and the M scale distinguishes the difference. You didn't have the facts then, and you are now looking for ways to reconcile your ideological beliefs with things that you didn't believe before. But there are more facts, as I've been trying to point out to you all along. And if you pay attention to ALL of the facts, you have a lot more reconciliation to do. Either that, or you may have to decide that there's something wrong with your ideological beliefs.

The only thing it proves is that one had experience A as opposed to experience B
- It proves a person gave answers that are consistent with experience A or experience B. That person might be lying, or exaggerating. Or he might not remember exactly what he was experiencing. The M scale only evaluates what he says about it.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe:"In the Good Friday experiment they all scored high on the M scale taking drugs, but reach it you find they all had mystical experiences in their childhoods. That means the drugs just revived something they already had."

Skepie:
- That's a change of tune. When I pointed out to you before that there are drug-induced religious experiences, you insisted that these experiences weren't genuine, and the M scale distinguishes the difference.

The one thing the M scale does is to tell what is a mystical experience and what is not. It does not prove God. I never claimed it did. You decided that because you don't listen. It's not a change in tune you just finally heard that part.

You didn't have the facts then, and you are now looking for ways to reconcile your ideological beliefs with things that you didn't believe before.


You have no idea what I have said because you don't listen you are so sure you know it all and you know very little. You have idea of any facts.

But there are more facts, as I've been trying to point out to you all along. And if you pay attention to ALL of the facts, you have a lot more reconciliation to do. Either that, or you may have to decide that there's something wrong with your ideological beliefs.

I wrote a book about this you jackass. You don't even know how to research,

Me: "The only thing it proves is that one had experience A as opposed to experience B"


- It proves a person gave answers that are consistent with experience A or experience B.

well dua! Of course they are all lying.


That person might be lying, or exaggerating. Or he might not remember exactly what he was experiencing. The M scale only evaluates what he says about it.

That is simple idiotic. only an idiot would think is an answer. Your so intimidated by science betraying your hatred of God you can't consider the facts be bothered to red it all. ok genius in an anonymous study why would they lie? Of course sop for such studies is nit to let them knw what is being research so where's the motive to lie?Atheists who don't know shit about study methodology think all studies with live respondents are biased and thus no good; the social work text book I quoted from says 81% of societal science studies are with live people

7:19 AM

im-skeptical said...

It does not prove God. I never claimed it did. You decided that because you don't listen.
- I didn't say anything about proving God. You decided that because you don't listen.

You have no idea what I have said because you don't listen you are so sure you know it all and you know very little. You have idea of any facts.
- I know what you told me before. And it contradicts what you are saying now.

I wrote a book about this you jackass. You don't even know how to research,
- I have published peer-reviewed scientific research. You haven't. Any jackass can write a book. That doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. Haven't you ever read a book that you find to be ignorant and insipid?

well dua! Of course they are all lying.
- I didn't say that. I'm talking about what the M scale proves. Which isn't much.

Atheists who don't know shit about study methodology think all studies with live respondents are biased and thus no good;
- Joe, you miss the point. I'm not accusing the respondents of lying or anything else. The point is that the M scale is entirely dependent on what people say, and it doesn't prove anything at all about what kind of experience they had.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: It does not prove God. I never claimed it did. You decided that because you don't listen.

Skep:
- I didn't say anything about proving God. You decided that because you don't listen.

sure

You have no idea what I have said because you don't listen you are so sure you know it all and you know very little. You have idea of any facts.


- I know what you told me before. And it contradicts what you are saying now.

not really



I wrote a book about this you jackass. You don't even know how to research,


- I have published peer-reviewed scientific research. You haven't.

My field is generally liberal arts not science. I have published peer reviewed articles in history and philosophy and theology. just publishing something deosn't mean yo know how to research,


Any jackass can write a book.

Not good one ,my two are great. You ae afraid to read them so you don't know.

That doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. Haven't you ever read a book that you find to be ignorant and insipid?

Professors everyone respects sat both og my books are dynamite.


well dua! Of course they are all lying.
- I didn't say that. I'm talking about what the M scale proves. Which isn't much.


You don't know shit about the M scale

Atheists who don't know shit about study methodology think all studies with live respondents are biased and thus no good;


- Joe, you miss the point. I'm not accusing the respondents of lying or anything else. The point is that the M scale is entirely dependent on what people say, and it doesn't prove anything at all about what kind of experience they had.

why would people who have the experience not know what kind of experience they are having? If you know what mystical experience is than you must see how stupid your statement is. The idea that there's some reasom why people who have an experience can't be trusted to say what that was is just stupid. it shows you really have no idea of what we're talking about.

the whole purpose of the scale is to show what is a mystical experience and what is not, It successes. It/s proven. no one even argues that it doesn't do it.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387660

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 691-705 (15 pages)
Published By: Wiley


In a mostly Christian American sample (N = 1,379), confirmatory factor analysis of Hood's (1975) Mysticism Scale verified the existence of Stace's (1960) introvertive and extrovertive dimensions of mystical phenomenology along with a separate interpretation factor. A second study confirmed the presence of these three factors in not only another group of Americans (N = 188), but also in a sample of Iranian Muslims (N = 185). Relationships of the introvertive and extrovertive factors with the interpretation factor were essentially identical across these two cultures, but the Americans displayed a stronger association between the two phenomenology factors. In both samples, the interpretation factor correlated positively with an intrinsic and negatively with an extrinsic religious orientation, and the introvertive factor predicted psychological dysfunction. Associations of the interpretation factor with relative mental health appeared only in the Iranians. These data offered general support for Stace's phenomenology of mysticism, although the ineffability he linked with interpretation proved to be as much or even more a feature of the introvertive experience, as hypothesized by Hood.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

title: Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three-Factor Structure in the United States and Iran

im-skeptical said...

So let's take a look at this. What does it tell us?

The first thing to note is that confirming the three-factor structure simply means that the factors chosen by Hood are correlated with the self-reported aspects of a psychological phenomenon that you call the "mystical experience". But that says less about the intrinsic nature of that phenomenon than about how the phenomenon is perceived by the subjects. OK, so there are commonalities in what some people think about the experience they had, and Hood has identified some of those.

The second thing I see is that there is some cultural difference noted in this study. Iranian Muslims apparently don't correlate as strongly on the phenomenology factors.

The third thing is that this study is far from being comprehensive. It covers (mostly) religious people from two different cultures. It might be worthwhile to obtain a broader sampling different cultures and religious backgrounds, including atheists. It could be the case that Hood's factors hold up more within certain religious/cultural groups than others. And if that's true, then that certainly amplifies the concern that we are talking more about people's subjective perceptions rather than the intrinsic aspects of the phenomenon.

You can copy an abstract without knowing what its significance is. It doesn't make your case to simply say "I have a study to support my thesis" if you cant examine that study with a scientific eye and understand what it tells you and what it doesn't. You have been trying to link material like this to the intrinsic (or physiological) aspects of what you call "mystical experience", but that's now what this study does.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
So let's take a look at this. What does it tell us?

The first thing to note is that confirming the three-factor structure simply means that the factors chosen by Hood are correlated with the self-reported aspects of a psychological phenomenon that you call the "mystical experience". But that says less about the intrinsic nature of that phenomenon than about how the phenomenon is perceived by the subjects. OK, so there are commonalities in what some people think about the experience they had, and Hood has identified some of those.

You still have that stupid idea that people cant be trust to know what experiences they've had. You say that like Here's the dirty secret behind The M scale. It relies people to know what they experienced. so?

now I will finish this but first I have to watch in the heat of the night, I will put it in the major new post spot to finish, I close this thread


DO YOU SEE? i CLOSE THE THREAD. nEW POST WILL ANSWER THIS SOON,

The second thing I see is that there is some cultural difference noted in this study. Iranian Muslims apparently don't correlate as strongly on the phenomenology factors.

The third thing is that this study is far from being comprehensive. It covers (mostly) religious people from two different cultures. It might be worthwhile to obtain a broader sampling different cultures and religious backgrounds, including atheists. It could be the case that Hood's factors hold up more within certain religious/cultural groups than others. And if that's true, then that certainly amplifies the concern that we are talking more about people's subjective perceptions rather than the intrinsic aspects of the phenomenon.

You can copy an abstract without knowing what its significance is. It doesn't make your case to simply say "I have a study to support my thesis" if you cant examine that study with a scientific eye and understand what it tells you and what it doesn't. You have been trying to link material like this to the intrinsic (or physiological) aspects of what you call "mystical experience", but that's now what this study does.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

You still have that stupid idea that people cant be trust to know what experiences they've had. You say that like Here's the dirty secret behind The M scale. It relies people to know what they experienced. so?

now I will finish this but first I have to watch in the heat of the night, I will put it in the major new post spot to finish, I close this thread

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
So let's take a look at this. What does it tell us?

The first thing to note is that confirming the three-factor structure simply means that the factors chosen by Hood are correlated with the self-reported aspects of a psychological phenomenon that you call the "mystical experience". But that says less about the intrinsic nature of that phenomenon than about how the phenomenon is perceived by the subjects. OK, so there are commonalities in what some people think about the experience they had, and Hood has identified some of those.

Most people are not seeking to prove their experiences are valid. Since half of all mystical exper9emces are with children it;s not likley they know about such things as validating studies.

Joe:You still have that stupid idea that people cant be trust to know what experiences they've had. You say that like Here's the dirty secret behind The M scale. It relies on people to know what they experienced. so?

now I will finish this but first I have to watch in the heat of the night, I will put it in the major new post spot to finish, I close this thread


DO YOU SEE? i CLOSE THE THREAD. nEW POST WILL ANSWER THIS SOON,

The second thing I see is that there is some cultural difference noted in this study. Iranian Muslims apparently don't correlate as strongly on the phenomenology factors.

It says it's weaker not non existent, it says it's weaker for phenomenological measure, what does that mean? It does not say this destroyers the study or this disproves mystical experience.

The third thing is that this study is far from being comprehensive. It covers (mostly) religious people from two different cultures. It might be worthwhile to obtain a broader sampling different cultures and religious backgrounds, including atheists.

As thought this huge population is being overlooked. Atheists are about 3% of the population. Your criticism is veg and meainingless,
AM