Travis CottreauReply 30m Joe Hinman
There are a few issues in your blog post. Mystical experience doesn't mean the spirit world exists. It is an experience. People have mystical experience in lots of extreme situations including but not exclusively psychedelics.
I think jumping to god existing from this is a bit of a stretch. I think it's good to collect the information and talk about it. I don't think it quite means what you think it means.
Most theories out there for quantum physics and cosmology are WAY ahead of the practical experiments for them, so, they will be theoretical and mathematical. String theory isn't something just you have an issue with. There are lots of psycists who have abandoned it. Note: they move on to something equally incomprehensible to us. Loop quantum gravity say. But they are trying to form a framework that can make predictions. It's a fair thing to do and I wouldn't say "you can't see it so it doesn't exist". If it is able to make predictions, then you assume it is somehow related to reality. I don't get how "god exists" is the same kind of claim. The whole "I can't see/hear/smell god" is a dumb argument. What they should be saying is that there doesn't seem to be a difference between no god and a god that doesn't interact with the world in any way that we can detect.
Travis Cottreau my argument is that the experience has more empiricism behind it than do these theories of physics which are only backed mathematically,The link between the experience and God is easy, logical, and obvious. God is in the content of the experience, Itis n experience of Gd so say 90% if those who have it. its the basis of religion, it;s in every religion, the experiences are all they same even though they should not be. they means theres an external reality,
Reply\\\\ Travis Cottreau
clearly not the case though. They aren't ONLY mathematical. They are mathematical purely for predicting real world observations. However, if you get something that is predicting real world observations, there might be other implications to it that we have not observed. So,.something like many worlds or Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics are like this. The math can be seen in a couple of ways. They aren't the only ones either. "Only backed mathematically" is spoken by a non physicist, non mathematician. 🙂 The link is by no means easy, logical and obvious. Hindu versus Buddhist versus Christian versus Muslim all look different. People have content in their experiences that don't exist all the time. I don't know why you are trusting this one but not others. It might be because you want to believe? There are lots of these experiences, but they vary by culture and background of the participants. They don't go outside of their culture very often. I agree that it is probably the basis of religion. This is why there are so many different religions, because the expeirences are all different. You are not white washing the actual results and trying to make them all the same when they are varied.Reply 5h Edited Joe Hinman
Travis Cottreau subatomic particles and multiverses have no support except mathematical constructs, mystical experience has real first hand empirical proof.the latter are empirical the farmer are theological only''''\\\\\==We are talking about one certain kind of experience not all experiences. Of course you can find different experiences among the world religions but not among mystical experience, All mystical experiences have same contents and the same reactions, Religions do very by culture that's because religion is cultural not genetic. Thus we should expect mystical experiences to be different, the M scale studies prove they are not, they are the same in India, Arabia, Japan, England and so on."You are not white washing the actual results and trying to make them all the same when they are varied." I read tbe studies I didn't colate them, Contact Dr Hood if you dont believe me, Reply 1m Travis Cottreau
Subatomic particles create trails in cloud chambers at CERN, you aren't going to win that one. Multiverses are a consequence of a theory that predicts outcomes, specifically the Schrödinger wave equation. That's without any kind of measurement collapse. Mystical experiences are experiences. They are as much proof of anything as tasting chocolate is proof of a chocolate god. I have read a book on mystical experiences and they are not all identical. Unless you are making the claim that what you are talking about are only one, specific kind of experience? I'll read some of your references. I suspect I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure.Reply 10m Joe Hinman
SAPs aside, Multiverse has no empirical backing it not hard to find a lot of scientists who say MV may never be provable. Even if is that is not the point That doesn;'t disprove the emprical nature of the religious experiences.
Tell me about it. There is someone named Dale Bigford that is saying how Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, and neither did Joseph of Arimathea. Here is what he said:
ReplyDeleteQuote"NAZARETH DID NOT EXIST IN THE 1ST CENTURY CE.
For any "fresh eyes" here.
NOTE: I am not remotely interested in apologists who will appeal to "Big Christianity" or the Israeli Antiquities Authority (which is comfortably in bed with the tourism department on this) insisting it was there. I know every "biblical archaeologist" who ever dug there and 99% of them wore priest collars.
You will address the massive LACK of historical evidence for its existence. Which is overwhelming.
-The New Testament is quite clear it was supposedly a “CITY”. Not a hamlet, not a village or a town but a city. A city large enough to have a synagogue.
- No one in history ever seems to have been from Nazareth. Not one person, not one comment of rebels, statesmen, thinker or writer, no workmen or slaves coming from there or sent there. not one event took place there or near there in thousands of years to warrant a mention. No riot, no celebration, no civil conflict nothing. No goods come from there or are shipped there.
-The Old Testament never mentions Nazareth once.
-No Jewish sage, thinker or historian ever mentions Nazareth in their writings. Not once.
-The Assyrians who conquered and ruled the region do not mention it.
-The Babylonians who conquered and ruled the region do not mention it.
-The Persians who controlled the region do not mention it.
-No Greeks under Alexander who took and ruled the region mention it.
-No Seleucid kingship mentions it.
-No Herodian kingship mentions it
-No Roman historian/cartographer/general/governor mentions Nazareth.
*Perhaps most tellingly of all: No tax collector/assessor of any regime in any time period ever mentions it.
-General Josephus commanding the Galilean defense from the city of Yodfat against Rome in 67 CE does not mention it though he mentions towns and cities all around its supposed location. Yodfat was 40 miles from the supposed location of Nazareth.
-No Roman commander, Vespasian or Titus mention taking the city in the Galilean campaign. Roman commanders always listed their conquests because military victories equated to political clout and prestige.
-Origen, the mentor of Eusebius living in Caesarea mentions he has no idea where Nazareth could be. It is 40 miles east from Caesarea. Had it existed he would know its location.
-A Medieval copy of a 4th (possibly even 5th) century Roman empire road system map. Believed to have been first drafted under Augustus with additions made as late as the 5th century. The oldest information goes back to at least before 79CE since Pompeii is indicated. Other temporal indications can be drawn from Jerusalem which is named Aelia Capitolina, name given in 132 AD and from Constantinople, the name commonly used since the 5th century for Byzantium.
Triangulating from:
Caesarea (6)
Tiberias (3)
Ptolemais/Acre (5)
Scythopolis/Beit She’an (4)
We see there was no city on the site where it now stands as late as the 5th century CE."Quote
I provided him the link to what you wrote on your site, and he dismisses it because it is from a Christian Apologetic site. He said that people like you and J.P. Holding just copy from other sites.
Here is the link to my stuff for those who are lurking: https://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/nazareth-was-inhabited-in-time-of.html
ReplyDeletethe Nazerath thing comes up from time to time, he's wrong about several things, there area couple of mentions of Nz in extra biblical sources. Refusing to read the counter evidence is just poisoning the well;
The major excavation was buy a Christian but he was ot priest. He was a qualified archeologist. Pfan I think. He's in my article.
I also showed him something from Bart Ehrman's blog (an agnostic), and he wouldn't accept it because he said that this one lady (Yardenna Alexandre) is a fraud because her work wasn't peer reviewed or published:
ReplyDeleteBart Ehrman: Did Nazareth Exist At the Time of Jesus
He also told me to use a "legit" site, and he provided me a link that gave John Loftus's opinion (on Joseph of Arimathea). I told him that Loftus was a joke.
MC: The link between the experience and God is easy, logical, and obvious.
ReplyDeleteYes. The idea of God was likely built upon these experiences.
But the likelihood that an actual God is behind these experiences can no more be shown true than things like strings and membranes can be shown to be behind the phenomenon of physics.
The empirical data that can be gathered relating to Mystical Experience only lets us isolate them from other experiences and formally define them. That allows for further investigation. In and of itself, it doesn't provide answers about the source.
Loftus, not the most unbiased source I know,
ReplyDeleteThere is clearly an objective reality that is not the human mind which is encountered in mystical experience. Religion is not genetic. Religious symbols are cultural. Yet mystical experience is universal and is most often linked with religious, it the basis of religion, it should not be universal yet it is. That says there's a reality out there being touched.
There is clearly an objective reality that is not the human mind which is encountered in mystical experience.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, maybe not. An objective reality is not the same as a God, Unless you are taking a Pantheistic/panentheistic view. Is that your take on God?
The universality of mystical experience does not count against the possibility of being a product of the mind. Unless you think the mind is a product of cultural.
>>"here is clearly an objective reality that is not the human mind which is encountered in mystical experience."
ReplyDeleteClearly? I don't know about that. It isn't objective if it isn't visible to everyone. Your experience is clearly subjective.
>>"Religion is not genetic."
Most scientists disagree with you. Here are a few of the many articles you might want to read.
- Religious inclination is in our DNA:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-born-to-be-religious/
- Plenty of biological research points to evolution of religion in humans:
https://brill.com/view/journals/jrat/7/1/article-p303_14.xml?language=en
- The genetic basis of mystical experience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
>>"Religious symbols are cultural. Yet mystical experience is universal and is most often linked with religious, it the basis of religion, it should not be universal yet it is. That says there's a reality out there being touched."
Symbols are cultural. The cross is cultural. Religious propensity is common to humans because it is in our genetic makeup. The "universal" aspect of mystical experience is prima facie evidence of a common genetic basis.
There is clearly an objective reality that is not the human mind which is encountered in mystical experience.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, maybe not. An objective reality is not the same as a God, Unless you are taking a Pantheistic/panentheistic view.
God is an objective reality He's objective to us. He has his own subjectivity but he's an objective reality because he's there.
Is that your take on God?
No, one aspect
The universality of mystical experience does not count against the possibility of being a product of the mind. Unless you think the mind is a product of cultural.
yes ut us. Because religion is not genetic but cultural so experiences should very, but they are the same the universality of it,
Joe: here is clearly an objective reality that is not the human mind which is encountered in mystical experience."
ReplyDeleteSkep: Clearly? I don't know about that. It isn't objective if it isn't visible to everyone. Your experience is clearly subjective.
"Religion is not genetic."
Most scientists disagree with you. Here are a few of the many articles you might want to read.
- Religious inclination is in our DNA:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-born-to-be-religious/
Deterministic propaganda, They can't line up mystical experience ad any kind of specific DNA: "Religious belief seems modestly influenced by genetic correlates of education. Patterns are consistent with effects on life course divergences in belief—possibly through both socialization and innate cognitive traits—but not on late life change in this outcome." modestly influenced is the key there https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40750-020-00131-7#:~:text=Religious%20belief%20seems%20modestly%20influenced,life%20change%20in%20this%20outcome.
- Plenty of biological research points to evolution of religion in humans:
https://brill.com/view/journals/jrat/7/1/article-p303_14.xml?language=en
no way to translate that into the content of mystical experienced,
- The genetic basis of mystical experience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
those are just determinists who assume it's all determinism they have no actual data
>>"Religious symbols are cultural. Yet mystical experience is universal and is most often linked with religious, it the basis of religion, it should not be universal yet it is. That says there's a reality out there being touched."
Symbols are cultural. The cross is cultural. Religious propensity is common to humans because it is in our genetic makeup. The "universal" aspect of mystical experience is prima facie evidence of a common genetic basis.
the content of mystical experience should very because symbols very
10:57 AM Delete
the second article he links to: The genetic basis of mystical experience:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
that source assumes a God gene which is tonally uproven and ridiculous.
>>"those are just determinists who assume it's all determinism they have no actual data"
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with determinism. It's scientific reaearch. Did you look at the bibliography? There's a wealth of information and data to support the conclusions. And if you so a little more searching, you can find plenty more of it.
>>"the content of mystical experience should very because symbols very"
You are confused. The genetic disposition toward religion isn't based on symbols. Symbols are what we use to express the feelings and beliefs we have. Yes, those symbols are culturally based. But the basic idea of the supreme being is not symbolic. It only becomes symbolic when we attach a symbol like the cross to it. Other cultures attach different symbols.
>>"that source assumes a God gene which is tonally uproven and ridiculous."
God is totally unproven. But at least scientific theories are based on objective evidence.
>>"those are just determinists who assume it's all determinism they have no actual data"
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with determinism. It's scientific reaearch. Did you look at the bibliography? There's a wealth of information and data to support the conclusions. And if you so a little more searching, you can find plenty more of it.
no it is not scientific research. no research disproves God, science draws upon upon philosphy.
>>"the content of mystical experience should very because symbols very"
You are confused. The genetic disposition toward religion isn't based on symbols. Symbols are what we use to express the feelings and beliefs we have. Yes, those symbols are culturally based. But the basic idea of the supreme being is not symbolic. It only becomes symbolic when we attach a symbol like the cross to it. Other cultures attach different symbols.
yo really don't know anything, determinism is a philosophical blinder those afflicted by it impose that idea on everything,
>>"that source assumes a God gene which is tonally uproven and ridiculous."
God is totally unproven. But at least scientific theories are based on objective evidence.
God is not unproven, the pretension of atheism asserts so but that is BS. Even so that does not sanction the pretense in othe ares, If God us unproven that doesn't justify assertions of a God gene
ReplyDeleteGod is an objective reality He's objective to us. He has his own subjectivity but he's an objective reality because he's there.
If there is a God then yes it would be objectively real. You have yet to make the case that he is there and mystical experiences don’t make that case. They may point to another level of reality but to say that that is God is just an assertion or defining God into existence.
yes it is. Because religion is not genetic but cultural so experiences should very, but they are the same the universality of it,
Yes it is, what? Yes, mind is a product of culture? Or yes, it does count against the possibility of being a product of the mind?
Religion may be built upon these experiences in ways that are specific to culture.
The experiences are not however the products of religion. So to label them “religious experiences” is perhaps confusing things.
I think there is foundational mental functionality that all humans have. Culture is built on top of that. So, if mystical experiences are related to this foundational level then we would expect them to be universal and not culturally differentiated. Thus we cannot really point to their universality as definitive evidence that they originate externally.
most mystical experiences are understood by those ho have them as experiences of God or involving God,
ReplyDeleteYour argument simply asserts the nature of mystical experienced with no docs and no induction,. There us not enough there to function as an argument. All of remarks there are speculative and have no basis in reality. Not that mine do!
Me: yes it is. Because religion is not genetic but cultural so experiences should very, but they are the same the universality of it,
ReplyDeleteYou: Yes it is, what? Yes, mind is a product of culture? Or yes, it does count against the possibility of being a product of the mind?
The argument I make is that mystical experiences are same the world over. They transcend culture except for the names--of gods--they are the same, yet they should nt be because religion is culturally bound, that they are indicates that a reality is being experienced.
>> "The argument I make is that mystical experiences are same the world over. They transcend culture except for the names--of gods--they are the same, yet they should nt be because religion is culturally bound, that they are indicates that a reality is being experienced."
ReplyDeleteAll it really indicates is that they are common to humanity - not of a particular culture. There are plenty of traits that we all share. Those traits are part of our genetic heritage. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that.
The argument I make is that mystical experiences are same the world over. They transcend culture except for the names--of gods--they are the same, yet they should nt be because religion is culturally bound, that they are indicates that a reality is being experienced.
ReplyDeleteThe argument I make is that religions are partly based upon these experiences, the experiences are not arising out of the religion. I think that is where calling them "religious experiences" confuses the issue.
The universality may indicate that a reality is being experienced. It may also be explained by the physiology and psychology that we all share.
If it is another level of reality being experienced, what makes that God?
It may just be a kind of reset of the mind to the default settings, pre all the filtering and classification we construct in order to navigate the world.
>>"religions are partly based upon these experiences, the experiences are not arising out of the religion"
ReplyDeleteRight. Religions are partly based on these feelings we have, and partly based on culture. The experience of these feelings don't arise from religion, but religion arises from them, at least in part. This is what I've been saying. But again, it is from something within us - this sense of awe and wonder and unity. Now, you might make the claim that it is "another level of reality" (ie. God) that we feel, and I'm sure you believe that. But you have to understand that it is these general feelings (awe and wonder and unity) that are "universal". The God part is what you add in to the package because that's what you believe. That part isn't universal. Not everybody feels that it is God. It just happens to be a very common way of interpreting what we feel.
Exactly. I don't equate "another level of reality" with God. If the experience is not mind generated, I see it as being closer to an undifferentiated apprehension of reality without all the filtering and classification the mind does in order to cut sensory input into manageable chunks.
ReplyDeleteSkep:
ReplyDeleteAll it really indicates is that they are common to humanity - not of a particular culture. There are plenty of traits that we all share. Those traits are part of our genetic heritage. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that
People have been making this argument since the day my book was released (my first book the Trace of God) and it is clearly and obviously wrong. First of all if it were true that having universal experiences was gaurntonted by being human we should all speak the same language. WE should have only one culture. It also ignores the fact that religious experiences are not universal. religion is not genetic.. Talking about other than mystical kinds of religious experience are not universal.
ReplyDeleteThe argument I make is that religions are partly based upon these experiences, the experiences are not arising out of the religion. I think that is where calling them "religious experiences" confuses the issue.
Yes It's widely recognized by historians and theologians that mystical experience is the foundation of religion. Somehow I get the feeling that you twist that into saying that mystical experience is not religion, it is obviously, although it's not as developed. It's a more rudimentary form but it is what religion is really about...
The universality may indicate that a reality is being experienced. It may also be explained by the physiology and psychology that we all share.
If that were true then all forms of RE would be universal.
If it is another level of reality being experienced, what makes that God?
It may just be a kind of reset of the mind to the default settings, pre all the filtering and classification we construct in order to navigate the world.
One reason that it's not just the experience of another plane of existence is the fact that it largely consists of all pervasive love. love is personal. Love reques a consciousness.
"religions are partly based upon these experiences, the experiences are not arising out of the religion"
ReplyDeleteRight. Religions are partly based on these feelings we have, and partly based on culture. The experience of these feelings don't arise from religion, but religion arises from them, at least in part. This is what I've been saying.
I agree to the extent that ME is the basis of religion religion organizes reality thus moves away from the experience.
But again, it is from something within us - this sense of awe and wonder and unity. Now, you might make the claim that it is "another level of reality" (ie. God) that we feel, and I'm sure you believe that.
One of the two major parts of ME is the sense of undifferentiated unity of all things. The other is all pervasive love. Neither of those would suggest that ME is rooted in us. WE are part of something bigger and means we experience these things but they are not arising out of being human, not entirely.
But you have to understand that it is these general feelings (awe and wonder and unity) that are "universal". The God part is what you add in to the package because that's what you believe. That part isn't universal. Not everybody feels that it is God. It just happens to be a very common way of interpreting what we feel.
The M scare shows us that God is universal. The names are different and specific theology is differed that arises out of the attempt to understand. ME is beyond understanding, To be a mystic one must accept not being able to understand, at least not fully, but to experience beyond understanding
People have been making this argument since the day my book was released (my first book the Trace of God) and it is clearly and obviously wrong. First of all if it were true that having universal experiences was guaranteed by being human we should all speak the same language. WE should have only one culture. It also ignores the fact that religious experiences are not universal. religion is not genetic.. Talking about other than mystical kinds of religious experience are not universal.
ReplyDelete"it is clearly and obviously wrong." Because it disagrees with you.
No, the universal basic guaranteed by being human means we all speak. It doesn't mean we should all speak the same language. That's like claiming that because we all have heads then there should be only one kind of hat. Cultures are different yet they are all based upon core human needs.
You say it ignores the fact that religious experiences are not universal, yet that very universality is what you claim points to an external source. So are they universal or not universal?
The M scale shows us that God is universal.
ReplyDeleteNo. The M scale shows us the universal nature of the experience. It's a means for differentiating those experiences from others. Of itself, it can tell us nothing about the source of that experience
Yes It's widely recognized by historians and theologians that mystical experience is the foundation of religion. Somehow I get the feeling that you twist that into saying that mystical experience is not religion, it is obviously, although it's not as developed. It's a more rudimentary form but it is what religion is really about...
ReplyDeleteI’m not twisting anything. I’m saying plainly that mystical experience is not religion. Religion is a construction of ideas as an attempt to understanding the experience.
You are blurring the boundary between the experience and those religious ideas.
If that were true then all forms of RE would be universal.
I though your claim was that they are universal? If the experiences are products of physiology and psychology that doesn’t mean all forms would be universal.
One reason that it's not just the experience of another plane of existence is the fact that it largely consists of all pervasive love. love is personal. Love requires a consciousness.
Feelings of love are generated in the mind. They are not imposed from outside. Feelings of pervasive love may point to the experience being purely a product of the mind.
>>"People have been making this argument since the day my book was released"
ReplyDeleteAnd you don't listen to reasoned arguments.
>>"First of all if it were true that having universal experiences was gaurntonted by being human we should all speak the same language."
Our behaviors are produced by a variery of factors: genetics, culture, experience. By genetics, we are all capable of communicating by spoken language. By culture, we have a variety of different languages.
>>"... the fact that religious experiences are not universal"
Correct. But the universal part of ME is (as I told you) the general sense of awe that everyone feels, regardless of how they place it in a religious or non-religious framework.
>>"Yes It's widely recognized by historians and theologians that mystical experience is the foundation of religion."
It is not the sole basis of religion. It is a factor that tends to push people toward religious belief. You (and most others) were deeply entrenched in religious belief before you ever had a mystical experience. It is not at all surprising that you link your experience to your beliefs.
>>"WE are part of something bigger and means we experience these things but they are not arising out of being human, not entirely."
That's strictly your opinion. There is no basis in evidence or science for this claim. And that goes for your 200 studies, too. Not one of them supports this claim.
C-bones:"it is clearly and obviously wrong." Because it disagrees with you.
ReplyDeleteNo, the universal basic guaranteed by being human means we all speak. It doesn't mean we should all speak the same language. That's like claiming that because we all have heads then there should be only one kind of hat. Cultures are different yet they are all based upon core human needs.
you can't assert because this case is such, therefore, all like cases are the same thus all other seeming similar cased are also like that. It's not analogous just we all speak so there are some universal behaviors, yes but is this one of them? it should not because religion is cultural
You say it ignores the fact that religious experiences are not universal, yet that very universality is what you claim points to an external source. So are they universal or not universal?
Myxtical experience is universal. Not to the extent that most experience is a religious experience it can't be universal gematrically it's universality draws from the reality of what it apprehends. In other words it's not universal because there's a human gene for religion but because the thing experienced, ie God is real,
C-bones: Yes It's widely recognized by historians and theologians that mystical experience is the foundation of religion. Somehow I get the feeling that you twist that into saying that mystical experience is not religion, it is obviously, although it's not as developed. It's a more rudimentary form but it is what religion is really about...
ReplyDeleteI just got through saying that above
I’m not twisting anything. I’m saying plainly that mystical experience is not religion. Religion is a construction of ideas as an attempt to understanding the experience.
You are blurring the boundary between the experience and those religious ideas.
Mystical experience is the basis of religion and usually is found in religious context. There are atheists who claim their mystical experience is not religious but that doesn't change the role of mystical expertise in the development of religion,
Me:If that were true then all forms of RE would be universal.
CB--I though your claim was that they are universal? If the experiences are products of physiology and psychology that doesn’t mean all forms would be universal.
I never said all forms of religious experience are universal. Mystical experience is.
Me: One reason that it's not just the experience of another plane of existence is the fact that it largely consists of all pervasive love. love is personal. Love requires a consciousness.
him: Feelings of love are generated in the mind. They are not imposed from outside. Feelings of pervasive love may point to the experience being purely a product of the mind.
love is not had in a vacuum.
im-skeptical
ReplyDelete>>he quotes me saying:"People have been making this argument since the day my book was released"
he says:
And you don't listen to reasoned arguments.
still waiting for you to give one,
>>my argument "First of all if it were true that having universal experiences was guaranteed by being human we should all speak the same language."
here is his reasoned argument:
Our behaviors are produced by a variery of factors: genetics, culture, experience. By genetics, we are all capable of communicating by spoken language. By culture, we have a variety of different languages.
That does not answer my argumemt: Since religion is part of that culturally bound phenomena it should be that mystical experience is limited to culture nd thus is not universal.
>>"... the fact that religious experiences are not universal"
Correct. But the universal part of ME is (as I told you) the general sense of awe that everyone feels, regardless of how they place it in a religious or non-religious framework.
mystical experience is not feeling awe. It consists two things: all pervasive love, and undifferentiated unity.
Me>>"Yes It's widely recognized by historians and theologians that mystical experience is the foundation of religion."
Him: It is not the sole basis of religion. It is a factor that tends to push people toward religious belief. You (and most others) were deeply entrenched in religious belief before you ever had a mystical experience. It is not at all surprising that you link your experience to your beliefs.
My first mystical experience was when I was between four and six years old. Running about in the Oak cliff section of Dallas, woods and creeks, that's when it hit me. At that point in my life I knew very little theology. theology. I was in my front yard but that section of town is wood and creeks. But it true that most religious people don't have full blown mystical experience.
Me>>"WE are part of something bigger and means we experience these things but they are not arising out of being human, not entirely."
Him: That's strictly your opinion. There is no basis in evidence or science for this claim. And that goes for your 200 studies, too. Not one of them supports this claim.
It's clear humanity is part of something bigger than itself that isn't necessarily God. Nature, the universe, something. You have no basis for the assertion that mystical and other forms of religious experience are only because we are human, you have no basis for that claim.
>>"You have no basis for the assertion that mystical and other forms of religious experience are only because we are human, you have no basis for that claim."
ReplyDeleteThere are many scientific papers and studies that point to the genetic basis of religion. That is my basis. On the other hand, there are none that reach the conclusion you have made about "something greater". That's what you read into it. I'm following the science. You are following your religious beliefs. It's what you want to be true, but the science doesn't support that.
No science will ever say God exists or that God does not exist. Most's scientists figure that that question is not for science. Even scientists who are believers will not science proves God. They might say science lends credence to belief but not they will not say, as scientists, science says this.
ReplyDeleteIt's not surprising that there re studies showing religion is genetic. That is not an official position of sciences. Genetic determinism is is strong part of that scientism ideology, those studies are all suspect for that reason. There is no official scientific position.
Essentially if something is universal they will assume it's genetic.
>>"No science will ever say God exists or that God does not exist. "
ReplyDeleteNo matter what I say, you always go back to lecturing me about proving or disprovine God. But I made no such claim. I'm talking about what is supported by science, and what isn't. The claim of genetic basis of religion is. The claim of "something greater" isn't.
>>"That is not an official position of sciences. Genetic determinism is is strong part of that scientism ideology"
Genetic determinism is a minority view because it doesn't account for experience, culture, and other environmental factors. it is not my position. either.
>>"There is no official scientific position."
Science doesn't have official positions. It has positions that are strongly supported and accepted by the majority.
>>"Essentially if something is universal they will assume it's genetic."
There's more to it than you think.
>>"No science will ever say God exists or that God does not exist. "
ReplyDeleteNo matter what I say, you always go back to lecturing me about proving or disprovine God. But I made no such claim. I'm talking about what is supported by science, and what isn't. The claim of genetic basis of religion is. The claim of "something greater" isn't.
I doubt it. Dr. Hood doubts it, i think most of that is merely ideological assumption,
>>"That is not an official position of sciences. Genetic determinism is is strong part of that scientism ideology"
Genetic determinism is a minority view because it doesn't account for experience, culture, and other environmental factors. it is not my position. either.
those re not genetic factors. of course it doesn't. experience and culture not genetic so why would genetic determinism account for it?
>>"There is no official scientific position."
Science doesn't have official positions. It has positions that are strongly supported and accepted by the majority.
Obviously it does
>>"Essentially if something is universal they will assume it's genetic."
There's more to it than you think.
there is no proof of a gene for religion, come to think of it genetic basis for religion might be anagrammed for God
MC Are you saying that Mystical experience is different to what is termed religious experience?
ReplyDeleteAs far as I see it they are just different names for the same thing.
MC -Since religion is part of that culturally bound phenomena it should be that mystical experience is limited to culture and thus is not universal.
There is no reason for mystical experience to be limited to culture just because religion is.
So the fact that it appears to be universal tells us nothing about the origin of the experience.
the assertion that mystical and other forms of religious experience are only because we are human, you have no basis for that claim.
The universality of the experience is the basis for that claim. Just as it is for your claim that it points to an external source like "God".
Nothing, so far, shifts the scales more to one than the other.
JAB128 I would never sy Loftus is a joke; he once said I am the best Christian apologist and that I am 'the real deal," meaning an intellectual scholar. so I have to say he's perceptive. ;-)
ReplyDeleteshow me where you argue with Bigford?
ReplyDelete>>"I doubt it. Dr. Hood doubts it, i think most of that is merely ideological assumption"
ReplyDeleteGod is an ideological assumption. Even your Dr. Hood never published any scientific research that concludes there is "something greater". He doesn't try to claim that mystical experience must be of divine origin.
>>"those re not genetic factors. of course it doesn't. experience and culture not genetic so why would genetic determinism account for it?"
So why are you railing about genetic determinism? I don't know anybody who holds that position, and nobody here has argued in support of it.
>>"Obviously it does"
There is no "official scientific position". When science closes itself to questioning and disagreement, then it becomes religion.
>>"there is no proof of a gene for religion, come to think of it genetic basis for religion might be anagrammed for God"
There is plenty of EVIDENCE - real, objective evidence, based on real scientific investigation. It is NOT merely a default assumption.
Joe, here is one place where Bigford spouts crap:
ReplyDeleteFacebook group Atheist vs. Theist debates: Dale Bigford on Christ dying for our sins
Check out that Facebook group (Atheist vs. Theist debates, Original). That's where he posts.