"I am skeptical" says:
I'm not belittling anything. I'm telling you that personal experience does not constitute empirical evidence. I'm telling you that all those studies make no such claim, and you are reading that into them. They don't show the causation that you infer from them. You can have all the experiences you like. Be happy with it. I have experiences, too. But don't try to tell a scientist that it's empirical evidence, because it isn't. And all the positive effects your studies point out are not the product God unless you can show actual evidence that they are. Those studies don't say that. You haven't shown it.[1]The problem is we have two different concepts of reality working here, Notice his major concern is that there be scientific proof of God, Anythig short of that is not proof. This is not science but ideology. Science does not prescribe itself as the only form of knowledge, that is the ideology of scientism.I work by a new standard of proof, called "rational warrant." Rather than prove absolutely that God exists I seek to warrant belief. Atheists criticize fait by cayingitis believing things without a reason, That implies that having a good reason should be enough. This argument supplies a good reason to believe.
Why should we assume that such experiences are experiences of the divine? The first reason is because the content of the experience is largely that of the divine. Even when the experience is interpreted by the receiver not be about God the receiver has been known to act in way consistently with belief in God, and the experience described is the same experience as those described by those who say ‘this was God.’ Ergo it’s just a matter of interpretation. The vast majority of those who have these experiences do believe they are about God.[2]
In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter. Moreover, the researchers say, a majority of respondents attributed lasting positive changes in their psychological health—e.g., life satisfaction, purpose, and meaning—even decades after their initial experience.[3]
Secondly, there is a voluminous and ancient tradition of writing about experiences by people from all over the world, and the brunt of this tradition is that it’s an experience of the divine. Literary and philosophical works such as Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill,[4]
Experiences that people describe as encounters with God or a representative of God have been reported for thousands of years, and they likely form the basis of many of the world's religions," says lead researcher Roland Griffiths, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "And although modern Western medicine doesn't typically consider 'spiritual' or 'religious' experiences as one of the tools in the arsenal against sickness, our findings suggest that these encounters often lead to improvements in mental health."[5]The works of W.T. Stace [6] and many other such writings which catalogue these experiences, and many more works of the experiences of individual mystics by the mystics themselves reflect t. Thirdly, grounded in empirical evidence, the universal nature of such experiences implies the experience of a source external to the human mind encountered by all who have such experiences. When I say “external” I mean it originates externally but is experienced internally. This includes human brain structure and brain chemistry as a conduit not that it circumvents natural processes. The works of W.T. Stace are very influential. He shows that, as Ralph Hood Jr. put it, “within and eventually outside of the great faith traditions mysticism has flourished.”[7] Stace offers five characteristics that demonstrate the commonalities to mystical experience; these are characteristics that are found universally in all cultures and in all forms of mystical experience:
The contemporary interest in the empirical research of mysticism can be traced to Stace’s (Stace, 1960) demarcation of the phenomenological characteristics of mystical experiences (Hood, 1975). In Stace’s conceptualization, mystical experiences had five characteristics (Hood, 1985, p.176):
1. The mystical experience is noetic. The person having the experience perceives it as a valid source of knowledge and not just a subjective experience.
2. The mystical experience is ineffable, it cannot simply be described in words.
3. The mystical experience is holy. While this is the religious aspect of the experience it is not necessarily expressed in any particular theological terms.
4. The mystical experience is profound yet enjoyable and characterized by positive affect.
5. The mystical experience is paradoxical. It defies logic. Further analysis of reported mystical experiences suggests that the one essential feature of mysticism is an experience of unity (Hood, 1985).
The experience of unity involves a process of ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways (Hood, 1 976a). The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or a combination of the two.[8]
The experiences themselves are real and they have a total transformative effect upon thelifeofthe experoecer Thisisnot a trick or psychological problem it's real. The question is: what inexperienced? We have major reasons to think it's God:
(1)We would not even have religion without it. What are the odds this "imaginary" thing would affect the validity of the most hated aspect of life for atheists?
(2) The effects of the experience match the major promises made by God about redemption.
(3) the experiences themselves are the same the world over despite different names of deities,which indicates they are all dealing with the same reality.
"But don't try to tell a scientist that it's empirical evidence, because it isn't." The studies themselves are empirical in the scientific sense, the researchers say so."Three empirical instruments have been developed to date. They are the Mysticism Scale by Hood (1975), a specific question by Greeley (1974) and the State of Consciousness Inventory by Alexander (1982; [9] the data is empirical we are extrapolating from that.This is done in science as with smoking causes cancer before they had a causal mechanism.
The experience of mystical consciousness itself is empirical: Definitions from Oxford Languages · em·pir·i·cal /imˈpirək(ə)l/ adjective based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"[10] Webster:"originating in or based on observation or experience. empirical data. 2. : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.``[11] In scientific terms: "Empirical research is based on observed and measured phenomena and derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief.Jan 5, 2024"[12] That wpi;d still indclude the actual experience of God as emirical.
Science offers it's specialized version of empirical that fits scientific learning. But why should that be the standard by which all belief is measured? Even so the data is scientifically empirical, we are extrapolating to ask what does that data teach us?
Notes
[1] "Is there evidence for an infinite loving God?" Metacrock's BlogFEBRUARY 03, 2024 https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2024/02/is-there-evidence-for-infinite-loving.html
[2] Joseph Hinman, Trace of God:Rational warrant for Belief.Colorado Springs:Grand Viaduct, 2014.
[3]Vanessa McMains.
"Profound Experiences Linked to Mental Health Benifits," HUB,Johns Hopkins Unversity. Apr 26, 2019, https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/04/26/experiencing-god-psychedelics-mental-health/
[4] Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A study on the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual consciousness. New York: Dutton, 1911.
[5]OP Cit, Vanessa McMains
[6] W.T. Stace, Teachings of the Mystics: Selections from the Greatest Mystics and Mystical Writers of the World. New American Library 1960. A good General overview of Stace’s understanding of mysticism is Mystical Experience Registry: Mysticism Defined by W.T. Stace. found onine at URL: http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_experiences/learn/experts_define/stace.shtml
[7] Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.” In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. Patrick Mcnamara ed. West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235. Google books on line version: URL http://books.google.com.cu/books?id=0bzj3RtT3zIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true visited 8/20/2012
[8]Robert J. Voyle, “The Impact of Mystical Experiences Upon Christian Maturity.” originally published in pdf format: http://www.voyle.com/impact.pdf. google html version here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:avred7zleAEJ Voyle is quoting Hood in 1985, Hood in return is speaking Stace.
:www.voyle.com/impact.pdf+Hood+scale+and+religious+experience&hl=en&gl =us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8\\
[9]Vanessa McMains, op cit
[10] About 32,400,000 results (0.32 seconds) based on experiments or experience rather than ideas or theories. empirical evidence/knowledge/research.empirical adjective - Oxford Learner's Dictionaries
Oxford Learner's Dictionaries https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com › english
[11]Empirical, Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › empirical
[12]"Empirical Research in the Social Sciences and Education," Penn state University libraries
https://guides.libraries.psu.edu ›Jan 5, 2024
21 comments:
"Notice his major concern is that there be scientific proof of God, Anythig short of that is not proof. This is not science but ideology."
- You really don't listen. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence. Empirical evidence for the divine is what you claim to have. So let's focus on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is objective, not subjective. Science is based on empirical evidence, not subjective feelings.
"Science does not prescribe itself as the only form of knowledge, that is the ideology of scientism."
- There you go again, screaming "scientism!" Science is not the only form of knowledge. I never said it was. And I have told you that many times. Science isn't even a form of knowledge. It is a method of obtaining knowledge. And it works.
"I work by a new standard of proof, called "rational warrant." Rather than prove absolutely that God exists I seek to warrant belief."
- Warrant is another way of saying evidence. I have NEVER demanded absolute proof from you or anyone else. Evidence is what I base my beliefs on. And it's what I demand from you (if you claim to have "rational warrant").
"Why should we assume that such experiences are experiences of the divine? ... The vast majority of those who have these experiences do believe they are about God."
- Fine. But that's subjective experience. It is NOT empirical evidence of the divine.
"the brunt of this tradition is that it’s an experience of the divine."
- Ditto.
"grounded in empirical evidence, the universal nature of such experiences implies the experience of a source external to the human mind"
- Here's where you go off the rails. It isn't empirical evidence. Just because someone asks people about their experiences and catalogs them, that doesn't magically transform a subjective experience into objective evidence of the thing people believe they are experiencing. And there is no implication of any external source, unless you think that human DNA is external. At this point, you have jumped to conclusions that are not justified by empirical evidence.
"Stace offers five characteristics that demonstrate the commonalities to mystical experience;"
- What that really means is that we all share common human DNA that causes us to have common experiences.
"The experiences themselves are real and they have a total transformative effect upon thelifeofthe experoecer"
- If I have an experience (or delusion) about pink elephants, it is a real experience. It doesn't mean pink elephants are real. You are drawing a false conclusion here. Furthermore, if that experience causes me to stop drinking, that's transformative. There is no implication that some external source made me do it.
"Science offers it's specialized version of empirical that fits scientific learning. But why should that be the standard by which all belief is measured?"
- What science offers is knowledge of how things work in our world, based on empirical observation. Nobody says that's all the knowledge there is. But when you start claiming you have knowledge that doesn't come from empirical sources, you might be claiming knowledge that isn't truly justified in a valid epistemological sense.
"Even so the data is scientifically empirical, we are extrapolating to ask what does that data teach us?"
- The extrapolations you make are based on your ideology. They certainly don't follow a valid scientific or logical process.
Skep: *(me)"Notice his major concern is that there be scientific proof of God, Anythig short of that is not proof. This is not science but ideology."
him- You really don't listen. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence. Empirical evidence for the divine is what you claim to have. So let's focus on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is objective, not subjective. Science is based on empirical evidence, not subjective feelings.
Gotta get science in there the only form or knowledge. It's just scientism
"Science does not prescribe itself as the only form of knowledge, that is the ideology of scientism."
- There you go again, screaming "scientism!" Science is not the only form of knowledge. I never said it was. And I have told you that many times. Science isn't even a form of knowledge. It is a method of obtaining knowledge. And it works.
yet that is the only concern you will voice
Skep:>>>(me)I work by a new standard of proof, called "rational warrant." Rather than prove absolutely that God exists I seek to warrant belief."
(him)- Warrant is another way of saying evidence. I have NEVER demanded absolute proof from you or anyone else. Evidence is what I base my beliefs on. And it's what I demand from you (if you claim to have "rational warrant").
the studies upon which I draw provide a ton of evidence. It's objective it's peer reviewed all I do is draw conclusions. Warrant is not evidence per se but the conclusion evidence provides. That's a fine distinction. We can speak of warrant as evidence.
(Joe)"Why should we assume that such experiences are experiences of the divine? ... The vast majority of those who have these experiences do believe they are about God."
(skep)- Fine. But that's subjective experience. It is NOT empirical evidence of the divine.
It is a conclusion based upon first hand experience, to discount that because it's experiment is silly that is clearly an ideological response trying to extinguish a logical point, science has a place for participant observer they use it all the time in sociology.
"the brunt of this tradition is that it’s an experience of the divine."
- Ditto.
I would like to point out a logical fallacy that Joe relies on in his argument. It's a sleight of hand that may be regarded as equivocation. Notice this sentence: "The vast majority of those who have these experiences do believe they are about God". And this one: "... the content of the experience is largely that of the divine." Now, let's focus on the words 'about' and 'of' as they are used here. Clearly, they both refer to the same thing. In these two cases, "of the divine" means the same thing as "about the divine". The subject matter of the experience is "God" or "the divine". So far, so good.
But then what happens? Joe transitions to saying "... it’s an experience of the divine." Now, he is no longer talking about the subject matter of the experience. He is making the claim that "the divine" is the thing being experienced in itself. It's a subtle transition in the meaning of a word, but it changes the whole complexion of the argument. Because anyone would accept that these experiences are ABOUT the divine. But it takes some real justification to accept that the divine is actually being experienced. Justification that Joe doesn't offer. What Joe is doing is equivocation, and it's a logical fallacy. That's a no-no, Joe.
Speaking of fallacies, here's another one. Whenever Joe is losing an argument between faith and science, how does he defend himself? He shouts "Scientism!", and he paints it as a severely deficient ideology, worthy of discrediting the one who is accused of abiding by it. And this is nothing more than ad hominem. Another logical fallacy. Because even if it were true, it still doesn't help you win the argument. So just keep screaming it, Joe. It tells us more about you than about me.
skep you don't understand basic fairness, I have a hell of a lot of writing for a dyslexic to get caught up with, huge amount of text you pit down there you keep adding more stuff in, the least you could do would be wait until i am finished.
Here's where you go off the rails. It isn't empirical evidence. Just because someone asks people about their experiences and catalogs them, that doesn't magically transform a subjective experience into objective evidence of the thing people believe they are experiencing. And there is no implication of any external source, unless you think that human DNA is external. At this point, you have jumped to conclusions that are not justified by empirical evidence.
science says, science says. we can onlly believe stffofficialy accept by a science wrship shitelabscoat guy.Ypur scxientific egalis is illogical, It is clearly emoircak becauseit's observed first and, * qyite several dictinaireinmy definition,
I am working on answerng the extra stuff you put in, I woule appreciate it if you would wait until I get that p0sted before putting more,
1:54 PM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
I would like to point out a logical fallacy that Joe relies on in his argument. It's a sleight of hand that may be regarded as equivocation. Notice this sentence: "The vast majority of those who have these experiences do believe they are about God". And this one: "... the content of the experience is largely that of the divine." Now, let's focus on the words 'about' and 'of' as they are used here. Clearly, they both refer to the same thing. In these two cases, "of the divine" means the same thing as "about the divine". The subject matter of the experience is "God" or "the divine". So far, so good.
But then what happens? Joe transitions to saying "... it’s an experience of the divine." Now, he is no longer talking about the subject matter of the experience. He is making the claim that "the divine" is the thing being experienced in itself. It's a subtle transition in the meaning of a word, but it changes the whole complexion of the argument. Because anyone would accept that these experiences are ABOUT the divine. But it takes some real justification to accept that the divine is actually being experienced. Justification that Joe doesn't offer. What Joe is doing is equivocation, and it's a logical fallacy. That's a no-no, Joe.
that is a very trivial point, perhaps I should change the way I talk about it, that's the worst. In fact I think both are true the subject matter is about God the expe9rence is of feeling God's presence. Obviously the latter is subjective that doesn't make9t false
2:02 PM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Speaking of fallacies, here's another one. Whenever Joe is losing an argument between faith and science, how does he defend himself? He shouts "Scientism!",
I am nit losing ths argument. I am clobbering you. you re dicombueratted.
and he paints it as a severely deficient ideology, worthy of discrediting the one who is accused of abiding by it. And this is nothing more than ad hominem. Another logical fallacy. Because even if it were true, it still doesn't help you win the argument. So just keep screaming it, Joe. It tells us more about you than about me.
2:20 PM
You aew saying that it's illogical or S HOM TO POINT OUT THEIDEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF YUR ARGUMENT, THAT REALLY STINISF DESPIRATION
you can answer now
"what you are really saying is we have to ignore our experiences regardless of what they tell us ... the experiences of the mystics are not objective but we can treat them objectively."
- I'm not saying that but you need to understand that the mind experiences all kinds of things that don't exist in reality. And that is precisely the reason we value objective evidence.
"yes there sure is, The nature of the experience that's why it's important notto ignore subjectivity."
- Now that's ideological. Because it's ABOUT the divine, you accept it as reality, and no amount of actual objective evidence can dissuade you from your belief. So why do you keep insisting that what you have is empirical evidence?
"He is not making any conclusion, you are not being objective you are imposing your assumptions upon the data."
- That's projection. I am proposing a reasonable explanation for the commonality of experience that is entirely consistent with what we observe and consistent with the vast body of scientific knowledge. But you are definitely imposing your assumptions on the data.
"These studies prove the experiences are real."
- Experience is in the mind.
"it;s demonstrated. that may or may not prove there's a God but it sure as hell proves there is an experience with real effects."
- NO!!! The studies show a correlation. They do not show any kind of causal mechanism. If you insist they show that, then give me citations. Quote the words where they say what you claim. I've been waiting for years for you to show that. But you never have, and you never will. Because that's NOT what the studies say.
"science says, science says. ..."
- Joe, YOU are making claims about what science says. If you can do that, why is it a problem if I use science to refute your claims?
"that is a very trivial point"
- It's not trivial at all. It makes your argument invalid.
"I am nit losing ths argument. I am clobbering you. you re dicombueratted."
- In your deluded mind.
"You aew saying that it's illogical or S HOM TO POINT OUT THEIDEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF YUR ARGUMENT, THAT REALLY STINISF DESPIRATION"
- My ideology: I am an empiricist. I believe that the evidence of the senses provides justification for belief. This "sciemtism" thing is made up. I ask you to quote me saying something that agrees with your claims about it. Your ideology? For one thing, you place religious faith above real evidence. For another, you are at war with people who don't agree with your ideology.
(Joe)Blogger im-skeptical said...
"what you are really saying is we have to ignore our experiences regardless of what they tell us ... the experiences of the mystics are not objective but we can treat them objectively."
(SKP)- I'm not saying that but you need to understand that the mind experiences all kinds of things that don't exist in reality. And that is precisely the reason we value objective evidence.
That doesn't mean that everything experienced is unreal. you are building a fence around the law.
Joe: "yes there sure is, The nature of the experience that's why it's important notto ignore subjectivity."
SKP:
- Now that's ideological. Because it's ABOUT the divine, you accept it as reality, and no amount of actual objective evidence can dissuade you from your belief. So why do you keep insisting that what you have is empirical evidence?
the reason I seem tp see things that way is because my reason for quitting atheism and becoming a Christian is based upon actual objective evidence. You can't accept that so you lay down an ideological assertion that blocks out any possibility of experiencing reality accurately. You asset actually objective evidence can only bein your favor.
Joe: "He is not making any conclusion, you are not being objective you are imposing your assumptions upon the data."
SKP- That's projection. I am proposing a reasonable explanation for the commonality of experience that is entirely consistent with what we observe and consistent with the vast body of scientific knowledge. But you are definitely imposing your assumptions on the data.
No you aew try8ing to just8fy ruling out any possibility but the one your ideology says you have to have.
Joe:"These studies prove the experiences are real."
SKP- Experience is in the mind.
that proves my point You are imposing an epistemological assumption upon any possible observation of reality. In so doing you rule out any possibility of reality other than the one to which you march in lock step.
Joe "it;s demonstrated. that may or may not prove there's a God but it sure as hell proves there is an experience with real effects."
skp- NO!!! The studies show a correlation. They do not show any kind of causal mechanism.
where did I say anything about mechanism? You blindly read that i said there an experience with real effects I didn't say what caused it. Most everyone agrees with that most all commutators agree with this including atheists,
If you insist they show that, then give me citations. Quote the words where they say what you claim. I've been waiting for years for you to show that. But you never have, and you never will. Because that's NOT what the studies say.
"Religious experiences can be characterized generally as experiences that seem to the person having them to be of some objective reality and to have some religious import. That reality can be an individual, a state of affairs, a fact, or even an absence, depending on the religious tradition the experience is a part of. A wide variety of kinds of experience fall under the general rubric of religious experience. "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/
"Researchers show that the religious experience also have therapeutic implications. It is able to change the views of a person to themselves, their own lives, the world and to other people." Springer
https://link.springer.com › article
What is the effect of a religious experience?
Specifically religious experience has been variously identified in the following ways: the awareness of the holy, which evokes awe and reverence; the feeling of absolute dependence that reveals a human being's status as a creature; the sense of being at one with the divine; the perception of an unseen order or of a ...
Religious experience - Mysticism, Spirituality, Faith | Britannica
britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com › topic › religious-experience
"That doesn't mean that everything experienced is unreal. you are building a fence around the law."
- It means we need external corroboration to verify that the things we experience are real.
"the reason I seem tp see things that way is because my reason for quitting atheism and becoming a Christian is based upon actual objective evidence."
- No. It's based on your misinterpretation of some studies that don't tell you that.
"you lay down an ideological assertion that blocks out any possibility of experiencing reality accurately."
- I fully accept reality. Corroboration is my assurance that it's true. I haven't ruled out anything. I never said mystical experience is doesn't give you an experience of reality. What I keep telling you is that we don't know that.
"that proves my point You are imposing an epistemological assumption upon any possible observation of reality. In so doing you rule out any possibility of reality other than the one to which you march in lock step."
- You don't listen to what I tell you. I keep saying it. You keep refusing to hear what I say.
"where did I say anything about mechanism? "
- You didn't. That's the problem. You keep saying the experiences have real effects. That means they are the cause of these transformative effects. But that's not what the studies show. They only show a correlation. You infer the causation, but there's no causal mechanism.
"Religious experiences can be characterized generally as experiences that seem to the person having them to be of some objective reality and to have some religious import. That reality can be an individual, a state of affairs, a fact, or even an absence, depending on the religious tradition the experience is a part of. A wide variety of kinds of experience fall under the general rubric of religious experience."
- Don't you understand what this says? They seem to be of some objective reality. It clearly does NOT say that they are of some objective reality. But you see what you want to see in this and all the other material you cite. And that's your big problem. You don't know how to make use of the data you have.
"religious experience also have therapeutic implications. It is able to change the views of a person to themselves, their own lives, the world and to other people."
- Any kind of experience can change our views. This is meaningless.
"evokes awe and reverence; the feeling of absolute dependence that reveals a human being's status as a creature; the sense of being at one with the divine; the perception of an unseen order or of a ..."
- Emotions, feelings, perceptions. Yes, we all agree that this is what we get from mystical experience.
You are reading more into this material than what it actually says.
im-skeptical said...
"That doesn't mean that everything experienced is unreal. you are building a fence around the law."
- It means we need external corroboration to verify that the things we experience are real.
all those studies like King and Nobel tyat measure the effects of the experience and they demonstrate corroboration. Something physicals is left from the experience.
"the reason I seem tp see things that way is because my reason for quitting atheism and becoming a Christian is based upon actual objective evidence."
- No. It's based on your misinterpretation of some studies that don't tell you that.
First, I did not become a Christian because of any studies, i had never heard of those studies at that time. It was because i experienced the presence of God in the room literally when I gave my life to Christ.
Joe: "you laid down an ideological assertion that blocks out any possibility of experiencing reality accurately."
- I fully accept reality. Corroboration is my assurance that it's true. I haven't ruled out anything. I never said mystical experience is doesn't give you an experience of reality. What I keep telling you is that we don't know that.
yes we do know that because the vat majority pf those who have mystical experience wind up with the same outcomes.
joe "that proves my point You are imposing an epistemological assumption upon any possible observation of reality. In so doing you rule out any possibility of reality other than the one to which you march in lock step."
- You don't listen to what I tell you. I keep saying it. You keep refusing to hear what I say.
everything you say about the experiences shows us that you refuse to even consider the passivity, you define the experiences as "delusions" you refuse to accept that there are positive effects that are real and that's the kind of thing you say all the time. You make public service announcements to the effect that you consider possibilist but you don't.
"where did I say anything about mechanism? "
- You didn't. That's the problem. You keep saying the experiences have real effects. That means they are the cause of these transformative effects. But that's not what the studies show. They only show a correlation. You infer the causation, but there's no causal mechanism.
First of those who have the experiences do attribute 8t to God. Second many of the researchers believe it is God doing it but they din't say because they prove it. Thirdly no study rules out the possibiity of God. they just deal with psychology and leve leave the ultimate ca8sue open ended.
"Religious experiences can be characterized generally as experiences that seem to the person having them to be of some objective reality and to have some religious import. That reality can be an individual, a state of affairs, a fact, or even an absence, depending on the religious tradition the experience is a part of. A wide variety of kinds of experience fall under the general rubric of religious experience."
- Don't you understand what this says? They seem to be of some objective reality. It clearly does NOT say that they are of some objective reality.
don't you understand that I know that? what it really says is the possibility is there but they are not going to push one; the people who have the experience that accept God. You have not had the expense you are trying to disprove experience you have neverv] had to people who have had them.
But you see what you want to see in this and all the other material you cite. And that's your big problem. You don't know how to make use of the data you have.
I know they aren't saying ths proves the existence of God,, Nether are they ruling God out They speak i neutral wy.
"religious experience also have therapeutic implications. It is able to change the views of a person to themselves, their own lives, the world and to other people."
- Any kind of experience can change our views. This is meaningless.
"evokes awe and reverence; the feeling of absolute dependence that reveals a human being's status as a creature; the sense of being at one with the divine; the perception of an unseen order or of a ..."
- Emotions, feelings, perceptions. Yes, we all agree that this is what we get from mystical experience.
You are reading more into this material than what it actually says.
7:42 AM
No tht is totally wromg. the psychology industry has tosif statmensby theraists that the effects are thera00utiedk thatiwel po=roven.
Post a Comment, Ib sme case they use mustical experiecme as treatment for deperession.
"all those studies like King and Nobel tyat measure the effects of the experience and they demonstrate corroboration."
- They don't measure anything. All they do is point out a CORRELATION. Period. Others (like Maslow and many sociologists that you completely ignore) have postulated that it is most likely the attitude that changes, because a person's religious belief has been strengthened. And a changed attitude (like "I need to get right with God") causes behavioral changes. None of this means that an actual God was in any way involved. It is the belief that brings about changes.
"It was because i experienced the presence of God in the room literally when I gave my life to Christ."
- I buy that. But you just told me that it was "objective evidence". That clearly was not true.
"yes we do know that because the vat majority pf those who have mystical experience wind up with the same outcomes."
- Which tells us that common DNA produces common experiences.
"you define the experiences as "delusions" you refuse to accept that there are positive effects that are real"
- You don't listen. I used an obvious delusion as an example of experiences that seem to be of something real, but aren't.
"First of those who have the experiences do attribute 8t to God."
- That's what they believe. Others don't believe that.
"Second many of the researchers believe it is God doing it but they din't say because they prove it. "
- Yes. The religious ones. But you're right. They can't demonstrate what they believe, so they don't say that in their studies, because (unlike you) they have some respect for science. So what they do is show a correlation, and leave it up you to make that leap that they don't make. But as I've told you, there are others who do try to make postulations or conclusions about what really causes those outcomes, and that's the stuff that you refuse to listen to. So what you are doing is cherry-picking. There's more information out there, and you refuse to listen. You only pay attention to the ones who say what you want to hear.
"You have not had the expense you are trying to disprove experience you have neverv] had to people who have had them."
- I am not trying to disprove anything. I am refuting your misuse of science and logic. And you don't know jack-squat about what I have experienced.
"I know they aren't saying ths proves the existence of God,, Nether are they ruling God out They speak i neutral wy."
- Because they understand what is justified by the evidence.
"No tht is totally wromg. the psychology industry has tosif statmensby theraists that the effects are thera00utiedk thatiwel po=roven."
- If therapists are using mystical experience as a therapeutic tool, that's proof that it's not God doing it, because they are creating these experiences. Do you want to claim that a therapist is able to summon the presence of God so that his patient can experience it? Think about it, Joe.
Joe: im-skeptical said...
"all those studies like King and Nobel tyat measure the effects of the experience and they demonstrate corroboration."
SKP:- They don't measure anything. All they do is point out a CORRELATION. Period.
wrong you haven't read them you don't know i think a couple off hand that do
Others (like Maslow and many sociologists that you completely ignore) have postulated that it is most likely the attitude that changes, because a person's religious belief has been strengthened. And a changed attitude (like "I need to get right with God") causes behavioral changes. None of this means that an actual God was in any way involved. It is the belief that brings about changes.
those sociologists have not done studies, they are talking off the cuff, Maslow didn't did not have empirical data ot prove that point,
Joe: "It was because i experienced the presence of God in the room literally when I gave my life to Christ."
- I buy that. But you just told me that it was "objective evidence". That clearly was not true.
At the time I had my born again experience I was studying Festinger's when prophesy fails, I did a lot of study on ideas and tried to fine empirical back up to debunk my own experience, I could not. I had an experience that got my attention. I tried to sort it out with data and phycological studies ect. then made major commitment and had bigger experience.
Joe: "yes we do know that because the vat majority pf those who have mystical experience wind up with the same outcomes."
SKP:- Which tells us that common DNA produces common experiences.
You cannot link t[ DNA. You have no data in that regard
Joe: "you define the experiences as "delusions" you refuse to accept that there are positive effects that are real"
SKP- You don't listen. I used an obvious delusion as an example of experiences that seem to be of something real, but aren't.
You may seek to do that but I notice you never to those experiences in ways that are not degrading or dissmiive.
Joe: "First of those who have the experiences do attribute to God."
SFP:- That's what they believe. Others don't believe that.
Sure but they are also the one's who had the experience, The others arei
trying to tell them what they experienced. Religion is not generic It iw cultural and well known to be so, we should not find the same reactions and the same experiences in every cultural but we do.It's well known among [sycho therapists that the experience is therapeutic and help people recover from mental illness.
Joe: "Second many of the researchers believe it is God doing it but they din't say because they prove it.
"
SkP- Yes. The religious ones. But you're right. They can't demonstrate what they believe, so they don't say that in their studies, because (unlike you) they have some respect for science.\\
you assume the one who are already religious but they are not. Many of them were atheists until they studied religious experience, Ralph Hood is not religious.
So what they do is show a correlation, and leave it up you to make that leap that they don't make. But as I've told you, there are others who do try to make postulations or conclusions about what really causes those outcomes, and that's the stuff that you refuse to listen to. So what you are doing is cherry-picking. There's more information out there, and you refuse to listen. You only pay attention to the ones who say what you want to hear.
tight correlation is a good indication of causality this is so tight there are no counter examples
"You have not had the expense you are trying to disprove experience you have neverv] had to people who have had them."
- I am not trying to disprove anything. I am refuting your misuse of science and logic. And you don't know jack-squat about what I have experienced.
You have counter data, Not experiencing God is not proof
"I know they aren't saying ths proves the existence of God,, Nether are they ruling God out They speak i neutral wy."
mystical experience obviously Justifies belief in God. It doesn't maneqte it but it justifies it/
- Because they understand what is justified by the evidence.
this clearly is, you are just playing games trying to dney what you dot want ro believe
"No tht is totally wromg. the psychology industry has tosif statmensby theraists that the effects are thera00utiedk thatiwel po=roven."
- If therapists are using mystical experience as a therapeutic tool, that's proof that it's not God doing it, because they are creating these experiences. Do you want to claim that a therapist is able to summon the presence of God so that his patient can experience it? Think about it, Joe.
2:23 PM
the idea that they can create mystical experiences in the lab is bull.that research does not use the M scale. examples of what they are calling mystical are laughable.
2h3n therapists use it they evoke it with TM
Just to get you STARTED with some actual science:
DNA and mystical experience:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandasiebert/2021/06/28/first-ever-study-looks-at-ayahuascas-impact-on-dna-expression/?sh=3b2f3341361f
Mystical experience induced by ritual activity:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/true-believers/201604/how-have-mystical-experience
Therapeutic mystical experience:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9340494/
Brain structure and mystical experience:
https://www.sralab.org/articles/news/new-research-reveals-brains-role-mystical-experiences
Neurobiological research on mystical experience: (see linked articles)
https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(21)01791-1/abstract
science says, stand on yur head science says science says DNA is notproven to caused mystical experience, that js just rubbish ideology and propatandwa
even if you could prove DNA does it it would only be showing how God does it. is just a tool. It would be ridiculous to think that DNA just accidently produced this experience that cause people to believe in God.
OK, Joe. You stick with your religious "studies". I'll stick with the "rubbish ideology and propatandwa" produced by real scientists.
Post a Comment