Argument (for God) from Religious Experience
With this argument I hurl down the gauntlet to John Loftus for formal debate.
Overview:
Decision Making Paradigm: “the logic of the lamp post"
At the heart of all religious belief and all organized religions is experience and the sense of the numinous. This is the foundation of religious belief. If we are going to argue for God it would behoove us to examine the nature of this sense of the numinous.
The logic of the lamp post is this: we can't find our keys in the dark. We look under lamp post even if we did not drop them there because that is where we will find them. We can't find God in sense data, because God is not given in sense data. So we look in the place where we will find him, personal experience. Since this is the basis of religious belief it makes sense to look there.
Co-determinate: The co-determinate is like the Derridian trace, or like a fingerprint. It's the accompanying sign that is always found with the thing itself. In other words, it’s like trailing the invisible man in the snow. You can't see the invisible man, but you can see his footprints, and wherever he is in the snow his prints will always follow.
We cannot produce direct observation of God, but we can find the "trace" or the co-determinate, the effects of God in the world.
Now how do we know the co-determinate? Schleiermacher saw it as the feeling of utter dependence, because the object or correlates of having such a feeling was the thing that evokes the feeling. Just as feelings of awe imply that one encounters the sublime, and feelings of love imply that there is a beloved, so feelings of utter dependence imply that there is a universal necessity upon which the live world and worlds are supremely utterly dependent. We can also include mystical experience and life transformation because these are part and parcel of what is meant by the idea of religion and the divine. As far back as we can dig for artifacts we seem to find some form of mystical experience at the heart of all organized religion. So we can conclude that God, religion, and life transformation always go hand in hand. The studies themselves tell us that life transformation always accompanies dramatic experiences which are understood as and which evoke a strong sense of the Holy.
Is this really phenomenological? We can screw up our phenomenological credentials by responding to it in a non-phenomenological way. But it is the product of the phenomenological method, because it derives from observation of the phenomena and allowing the phenomena to tell us what categories to group the data into.
The only question at that point is "How do we know this is the effect, or the accompanying sign of the divine?” But that should be answered in the argument below. Here let us set out some general parameters:
(1) The trace produced content with specifically religious effects;
(2) The effects led one to a renewed sense of divine reality, and were transformative of life goals and self-actualization;
(3) Cannot be accounted for by alternate causality or other means.
_________________________________
This is the actual argument,
Argument:
(1) There are real effects from mystical experience.
(2) These effects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.
(3) Since the effects of mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations we should assume that they are genuine.
(4) Since mystical experience is usually experience of something, the Holy, the sacred, some sort of greater transcendent reality, we should assume that the object is real since the effects are real, and that the effects are the result of some real higher reality.
(5) The true measure of the reality of the co-determinate is the transformative power of the effects. Since those are real we can assume the apparent cause is real.
___________________________________
Analysis:
Real Affects of Mystical Experience Imply Co-determinate
A. Study and Nature of Mystical Experiences
Mystical experience is only one aspect of religious experience, but I will focuses on it in this argument. Most other kinds of religious experience are difficult to study since they are more subjective and have less dramatic results. But mystical experience can actually be measured empirically in terms of its affects, and can be compared favorably to other forms of conscious states.
1) Primarily Religious
Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration (unpublished paper 1992 by Jayne Gackenback)
http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm
Quotes:
"The experience of pure consciousness is typically called ‘mystical’. The essence of the mystical experience has been debated for years (Horne, 1982). It is often held that ‘mysticism is a manifestation of something which is at the root of all religions (p. 16; Happold, 1963).’ The empirical assessment of the mystical experience in psychology has occurred to a limited extent."
2) Defining characteristics.
[Gackenback]
"In a recent review of the mystical experience Lukoff and Lu (1988) acknowledged that the ‘definition of a mystical experience ranges greatly (p. 163).’ Maslow (1969) offered 35 definitions of ‘transcendence’, a term often associated with mystical experiences and used by Alexander et al. to refer to the process of accessing PC."
Lukoff (1985) identified five common characteristics of mystical experiences which could be operationalized for assessment purposes. They are:
1. Ecstatic mood, which he identified as the most common feature;
2. Sense of newly gained knowledge, which includes a belief that the mysteries of life have been revealed;
3. Perceptual alterations, which range from "heightened sensations to auditory and visual hallucinations (p. 167)";
4. Delusions (if present) have themes related to mythology, which includes an incredible range diversity and range;
5. No conceptual disorganization, unlike psychotic persons those with mystical experiences do NOT suffer from disturbances in language and speech.
It can be seen from the explanation of PC earlier that this list of qualities overlaps in part those delineated by Alexander et al.
3) Studies use Empirical Instruments.
Many skeptics have argued that one cannot study mystical experience scientifically. But it has been done many times, in fact there are a lot of studies and even empirical scales for measurement.
(Ibid.)
Quote:
"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; Alexander, Boyer, & Alexander, 1987). Hood's (1975) scale was developed from conceptual categories identified by Stace (1960). Two primary factors emerged from the factor analysis of the 32 core statements. First is a general mysticism factor, which is defined as an experience of unity, temporal and spatial changes, inner subjectivity and ineffability. A second factor seems to be a measure of peoples tendency to view intense experiences within a religious framework. A much simpler definition was developed by Greeley (1974), "Have you ever felt as though you were very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift you out of yourself?" This was used by him in several national opinion surveys. In a systematic study of Greeley's question Thomas and Cooper (1980) concluded that responses to that question elicited experiences whose nature varied considerably. Using Stace's (1960) work they developed five criteria, including awesome emotions; feeling of oneness with God, nature or the universe; and a sense of the ineffable. They found that only 1% of their yes responses to Greeley's question were genuine mystical experiences. Thus Hood's scale seems to be the more widely used of these two broad measures of mysticism. It has received cross cultural validation." (Holm, 1982; Caird, 1988)
4) Incidence.
(Ibid.)
Quote:
"Several studies have looked at the incidence of mystical experiences. Greeley (1974) found 35% agreement to his question while Back and Bourque (1970) reported increases in frequency of these sorts of experiences from about 20% in 1962 to about 41% in 1967 to the question, ‘Would you say that you have ever had a 'religious or mystical experience' that is, a moment of sudden religious awakening or insight?’ Greeley (1987) reported a similar figure for 1973.
"The most researched inventory is the State of Consciousness Inventory (SCI; reviewed in Alexander, Boyer, and Alexander, 1987). The authors say, ‘the SCI was designed for quantitative assessment of frequency of experiences of higher states of consciousness as defined in Vedic Psychology (p. 100).’
"In this case items were constructed from first person statements of practitioners of that meditative tradition, but items were also drawn from other authority literatures. Additional subscales were added to differentiate these experiences from normal waking experience, neurotic experience, and schizophrenic experience. Finally, a misleading item scale was added. These authors conceptualize the ‘mystical’ experience as one which can momentarily occur in the process of the development of higher states of consciousness. For them the core state of consciousness is pure consciousness and from it develops these higher states of consciousness.”
Whereas most researchers on mystical experiences study them as isolated or infrequent experiences with little if any theoretical "goal" for them, this group contextualizes them in a general model of development (Alexander et al., 1990) with their permanent establishment in an individual as a sign of the first higher state of consciousness. They point out that "during any developmental period, when awareness momentarily settles down to its least excited state, pure consciousness [mystical states] can be experienced.” (p. 310). In terms of incidence they quote Maslow who felt that in the population at large less than one in 1,000 have frequent "peak" experiences so that the "full stabilization of a higher stage of consciousness appears to an event of all but historic significance.” (p. 310)
"Virtually all of researchers using the SCI are very careful to distinguish the practice of meditation from the experience of pure consciousness, explaining that the former merely facilitates the latter. They also go to great pains to show that their multiple correlation's of health and well-being are strongest to the transcendent experience than to the entire practice of meditation (for psychophysiological review see Wallace, 1987; for individual difference review see Alexander et al., 1987.”
The point of all of this is that the long term positive effects of mystical consciousness demonstrate for themselves the divine in action in the world. The argument is not that we can't figure out how such effects are caused. This is not an explanation of something based upon an appeal to God, as the atheist straw man would have it. That's the only way atheists know how to think about things. We know this is caused by brain chemistry--that's not the issue. That doesn't tell us anything because it could be just a matter of random evolution, or it could be that this is how God creates corporeal life, he use chemicals links for consciousness. That is not at issue. The issue is that nothing else can produce such effects. It is God's action because nothing else will produce these effects to this degree.
At that level questions of causation do come into it but as ex post facto argument on counter causality.
B. Long-Term Positive Effects of Mystical Experience
What follows is a summary of the major studies. The data is gathered by subjecting subjects whose experiences are measured by Hood's "M scale" (mystical scale) to standardized personality tests and demographics. We seen in these first examples high ratings of self actualization for mystical experiences. Self actualization tests are standardized and form a measurable base in psychological research. Essentially it means how comfortable you are with being you. In these results we see those who have had religious experiences score much higher than those who have not.
Research Summary
From Council on Spiritual Practices Website
"States of Unitive Consciousness"
Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:
Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.
Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). “Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.
Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). “Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.
Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.
Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). “Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.
Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)
Long-Term Effects
Wuthnow:
*Say their lives are more meaningful
*Think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
*Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style
Noble:
*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*Intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength
*Relationships, symbolization, values
*Integration, allocentrism
*Psychological maturity
*Self-acceptance, self-worth
*Autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude
*Increased love and compassion
Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences)
*Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive
*Likely changes in self and the world,
*Space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate
*Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends
*Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions
Links to Maslow's Needs, Mental Health, and Peak Experiences
When introducing entheogens to people, I find it's helpful to link them to other ideas people are familiar with. Here are three useful quotations. 1) Maslow - Beyond Self Actualization is Self Transcendence “I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still `higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, self-actualization and the like.''
Abraham Maslow (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being, Second edition, -- pages iii-iv.
2) States of consciousness and mystical experiences
The ego has problems:
the ego is a problem.
Within the Western model we recognize and define psychosis as a suboptimal state of consciousness that views reality in a distorted way and does not recognize that distortion. It is therefore important to note that from the mystical perspective our usual state fits all the criteria of psychosis, being suboptimal, having a distorted view of reality, yet not recognizing that distortion. Indeed from the ultimate mystical perspective, psychosis can be defined as being trapped in, or attached to, any one state of consciousness, each of which by itself is necessarily limited and only relatively real.” -- page 665
Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.
3) Therapeutic effects of peak experiences
“It is assumed that if, as is often said, one traumatic event can shape a life, one therapeutic event can reshape it. Psychedelic therapy has an analogue in Abraham Maslow's idea of the peak experience. The drug taker feels somehow allied to or merged with a higher power; he becomes convinced the self is part of a much larger pattern, and the sense of cleansing, release, and joy makes old woes seem trivial.'' -- page 132
Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). “Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.
Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration. Unpublished paper by Jayne Gackenback, (1992)
http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm
"These states of being also result in behavioral and health changes. Ludwig (1985) found that 14% of people claiming spontaneous remission from alcoholism was due to mystical experiences while Richards (1978) found with cancer patients treated in a hallucinogenic drug-assisted therapy who reported mystical experiences improved significantly more on a measure of self-actualization than those who also had the drug but did not have a mystical experience. In terms of the Vedic Psychology group they report a wide range of positive behavioral results from the practice of meditation and as outlined above go to great pains to show that it is the transcendence aspect of that practice that is primarily responsible for the changes. Thus improved performance in many areas of society have been reported including education and business as well as personal health states (reviewed and summarized in Alexander et al., 1990). Specifically, the Vedic Psychology group have found that mystical experiences were associated with ‘refined sensory threshold and enhanced mind-body coordination’ (p. 115; Alexander et al., 1987)."
(4) Greater happiness
Religion and Happiness
by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD
Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?
Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.
What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness
Argyle, M., and Hills, P. (2000). Religious experiences and their relations with happiness and personality. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 157-172.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Comment on my board, Doxa froum
Comments
In any case this is an uninteresting debate topic to me for a few reasons. In the first place you never dealt with any objections to your argument. The objections have been set forth by many philosophers including Michael Martin, who has already demolished the argument for religious experience in his book Atheism, pp. 154-187, as did J.L. Mackie in his book Miracles, pp. 177-198, as does Nicholas Everitt in his book, The Non-Existence of God, pp. 150-177, none of which you referred to.
Also, it would take me into a field that I consider off center from my goals. My goal, my primary and targeted goal, is to debunk evangelical Christianity. I want to move these people off of center. Where they end up afterwards isn't my problem. I'm participating in negative counter-apologetics. My aim is to tear down certain beliefs. Many former evangelicals become agnostics or atheists once they move off center anyway. Have you noticed I don't spend much time arguing against the existence of God? That's because one can believe in God and not be an evangelical. Most people do. I don't care as much if people believe in God so long as I can debunk evangelicalism for the reason I have stated.
Lastly, I can happily concede there might be a God behind these mystical experiences. Maybe there is. I just don't think so. Even if these experiences are veridical there can be no propositional content to them. Therefore the entity you end up defending with this argument is no more than some kind of spiritual force, and that's it. This entity is perfectly able to be incorporated into every single religion in the world. Nothing more can be believed about such an entity from your argument, and hence such a being is not dangerous enough to humanity such that I would care to debunk it.
It should be noted, John, that not every argument (I would say not any single argument) is capable of establishing every-last-single-bit-of-doctrine-more-or-less-reflective-of-'evangelical'-Christianity. I've been doing journal entries here on principle metaphysics for a while, none of which even argue specifically in favor of theism (yet), much less in favor of trinitarian orthodoxy (yet), much less in favor of historical Christianity (yet), much less in favor of whatever it is you principally care to attack in 'evangelical Christianity' (so far as I can tell)--but all of which are quite necessary for purposes of a progressing metaphysical argument. The series can be said to start here, and is one of three preliminaries to another series I engaged in last summer starting here. The end result of the series is an argument for orthodox trinitarian theism (including the filioque), plus expectations of what to look for historically: God can be expected to do such-n-such things generally in history eventually, so is there evidence somewhere that He has done so already? In that sense, the series is a vastly expanded update to Lewis' Miracles: A Preliminary Study (though the structure is different at many points); which is also a proceeding argument that doesn't arrive at something approximating 'evangelical' Christianity until near the end.
This particular argument of Joe's, then, could in principle lead to the kind of thing you're principally concerned to attack and "tear down". But, I can also see that it would make good tactical sense not to worry about that bridge until it's built. (This is aside from particular criticisms to Joe's argument as it stands, of course.)
JRP
Thanks John.
I may have missed it but why is there no reference to William James or William P. Alston's essays?
I love both James and Alston. I use James on other pages with more detailed info of the same ilk. but Maslow e al update him, he did not use the sort of modern scientific data gathering methods they do. So rather than have some posters go "O that's out dated." I just use the most modern studies I have. Alston, while great, is philosophical and not empirical.
In any case this is an uninteresting debate topic to me for a few reasons. In the first place you never dealt with any objections to your argument.
I am waiting for you to make them.
The objections have been set forth by many philosophers including Michael Martin, who has already demolished the argument for religious experience in his book Atheism, pp. 154-187, as did J.L. Mackie in his book Miracles, pp. 177-198, as does Nicholas Everitt in his book, The Non-Existence of God, pp. 150-177, none of which you referred to.
he doesn't' deal with any of these studies. he doesn't deal with Maslow or with the co-determinate. At least that's my impression. If I'm wrong about it please quote the passages where he does so?
btw I'm doing a piece on my own blog with arguments I've been getting on my broads, so you might want to watch for that.
Also, it would take me into a field that I consider off center from my goals. My goal, my primary and targeted goal, is to debunk evangelical Christianity.
But you can't do that. I mean once the fundies realize they they are out gunned by you and the DC guys they will come flocking to my website and my book and my boards and learn form me, then you will be up the creek.:-)
besides you are just harding from the hard part. I have to see this as disingenuous. This is where the real brunt of Christian thought is, the world of real theology. Just to pick off the easy cheesy targets is not a major accomplishment.
I want to move these people off of center. Where they end up afterwards isn't my problem. I'm participating in negative counter-apologetics.
wait a minute, doesn't that come out to positive apologetics? is that like a double negative?
My aim is to tear down certain beliefs. Many former evangelicals become agnostics or atheists once they move off center anyway. Have you noticed I don't spend much time arguing against the existence of God? That's because one can believe in God and not be an evangelical. Most people do. I don't care as much if people believe in God so long as I can debunk evangelicalism for the reason I have stated.
Well of course once fundies read my stuff they are no longer fundies. Once they realize they have to move further along to maintain their views they come over and find the major stuff and change and there you have it.
that is a fallacy. The ground of being cannot be a force within being because then it wouldn't be the ground. the ground is not a "force" it's the basis of all that is. there is an aspect of reality such that this aspect can be considered divine.To that extent we are talking about "God" by anyones reasonable definition. And actually, not to put too fine a point on it, is a prori and can't be denied.
so in other words, if Tillich was right when he said "if you know that being has depth you cannot be an atheist" then to even understand this argument is to realize that there has to be God and one's atheism is anachronistic.
This entity is perfectly able to be incorporated into every single religion in the world. Nothing more can be believed about such an entity from your argument, and hence such a being is not dangerous enough to humanity such that I would care to debunk it.
Well, I think one would have gotten the drift by now: I am a christocentric adherent of the perennial philosophy. saying that this would allow any religion to be true is no argument against it. Nothing more than us good universalists would accept.
final comment is nuts?. the data demonstrates that this it he best thing going. To know god in this waysi better than sex. who wouldn't want this? to dismiss it as "harmless" is irrational. Its' empirically demonstrated to change lives. Basically its' the only valid empirically demonstrable belief system in the world. At least in religious terms.
Once the fundies get the drift on how this works with Christianity you wont have anyone to argue with.
2/29/2008 04:47:00 AM
Let them. it won't bother me any. And yes I can. ;-)
But you can't do that. I mean once the fundies realize they they are out gunned by you and the DC guys they will come flocking to my website and my book and my boards and learn form me, then you will be up the creek.:-)
Well, you can count me in that boat. 8^D I don't really know if I was a "fundy" to begin with, but I found DC after a post of John's in the WLC boards and then found the CADRE after a series of responses from you guys there. I've been hooked on both sites ever since.
Blast this "thinking" and all that! 8^D Keep up the great work!