Children of the lack of reading what they criticize


  photo A_012br_GirlTrance.jpg



In 2014 my first book was published, (see add below). That work centered around a huge body of academic work that proves religious experience is good for you and is life transforming (long term positive dramatic change in life). There are 200 studies or more covering a 50 year period and they are still coming, I have found a couple since the book came out, I use this material in backing my God arguments. At the basis of the research is a methodological apparatus called "The M scale" it's a control mechanism for sorting between real mystical experience and mere wool gathering, Bringing this body of work together and focusing it on apologetic is ground breaking. Atheist blogger "I am Skeptical" (aka "Skepy" to the Cadre) put down my book having not read it. Now he's cut lose on an article I did on Cadre called "Children of The .Lack of a God." But it's really an excuse to bash my book more. His blog peice hatchet job is called "Children of the lack of objectivity." That explains the title of this piece.

 I wrote an article that received interested from  an academic conference at U of Georgia. It's basically a summary of my book with a good clear explanation of the M scale. That can be found here:


Here are my answer's to Skepy's blog article below.

Joe Hinman raises an issue [1] that is worth considering.  It is the question of how we can relate to something for which we have no familiarity and no experience.  It may not be easy to understand something that you've never seen or never experienced.  He asks the question:...What Hinman wants us to think is that atheists have no understanding of Christians' belief in God because they haven't experienced it for themselves.  Of course, this is the same old trope that we hear over and over again.  And it's just not true.[2]
He assumes that there is nothing there to explained so therefore any human feeling is as good as another therefore he knows all about it. That is manifest nonsense. One of the major things that body of researche I used in writing my book proves is that religious experience is not had by all humans and there is a huge difference in any old religious feeling and the kind we call "mystical." That is the point of having an M scale in the first place because all experiences are not the same,[3] Some atheists (small group) do have mystical experiences and the studies show that these atheists react to the experiences the same way that religious people do but they use different terminology, but they are the same experiences.I did write about this in my book.[4] Some atheists do wind up converting to religious belief as did I.

He takes up on my color analogy that one born having never seen blue or yellow can't understand what it's like by mere description, just as atheists can't understand religious experience just by hearing discrimination.Then he makes the argument that we can know enough it even without exposure to color:"
You can't understand what it's like qualitatively to see blue or yellow unless you've had the experience, but you can understand how those sensations are caused from a physiological perspective, and you can understand what kind of sensory stimulation causes them...."  But so what? That does not answer the issue, Understanding how they are caused is not the point, Without knowing what the sensation of religious experience is like  you can't judge it's reality, It's quite common for mystics to explain their experiences as "more real than reality," That is not the full basis for my argument but it is part of it.


But is it true that atheists have never had the inner experience of God that Hinman speaks of?  Not in the least.  Hinman ignores a couple of very key points:  One is that whether or not we believe in God, we are all humans and we all have the same kinds of inner feelings and experiences.  The other is that the majority of atheists are former believers."  
I just got through answering this, The fact of The M scale (which ha been validated  by research) proves that human experience is not all the same. Other scales exist as well, even though the M scale is the most corroborated by validating studies, they all find the same thing,[5] All the studies such as Wuthnow demonstrate this fact. Those who have mystical experience are experiencing something different than the average human that' why there;s a big correlation between this experience and life transformation, the results of two major studies: The Wuthnow study and the Noble study

Long-Term Effects
Wuthnow:
*Say their lives are more meaningful,
 *think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life isMeditate 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[6] 

The people who have these experiences are more likely then the average person to find themselves growing in these characteristics such as Wuthnow and Noble document. when he says "the other is that the majority of atheists are former believers." That proves nothing because most believers don't have mystical experiences and those who do are at the mature end of the spectrum. In other words, mystical experience is synonymous with maturity, at least in terms of Christian spirituality, according to the Voyle study.[7]

He asserts that we all have mystical experiences:


On the first of those points, there is no question that there is some kind of inner feeling we all experience that creates a sense of awe or spirituality.  It may be felt with more intensity by some, but we pretty much all feel it at some time in our lives.  In fact, Hinman makes this the basis of his pseudo-scientific claims about warrant for belief.  But as I said, this experience can be understood at different levels.  We all have some understanding of what it feels like because we all have felt it to some degree.

Wuthnow (above) proposes a theory that all have such experiences but for most it's very mild. He points to William James who  also made such an argument, The whole point of scoring the scale is that there are varying intensities. If he's not a believer in God or any sort of transformative ontology then he probably has not had such experience to the degree necessary for understanding. As for my claims about warrant I have documented this time and time again, they are based upon the works of a major logician in the rhetorical tradition who made major contribution to debate theory, Stephan Tulmin.[8]

He reduces the complexity of cause to a one liner that is essentially  a falsehood because it's too much a simplification to amount to anything. "There is disagreement about what causes it.  Theists think it is caused by God, but science has shown that the same feelings can be caused by certain kinds of physical stimulus, or even by psychological manipulation." I devoted a whole chapter to this in the book,  By physical stimulus he means brain chemistry, I document philosopher John Hick showed that researcher's who use helmets and so forth to stimulate such experience do not use controls like the M scale thus they cannot establish that they have indeed produced mystical experiences,[9] Moreover, there is an argument made by Dr. Hood (inventor of the M sclae) that atheists cannot answer. There is just as much reason to think God would use brain chemistry to allow u to feel his presence as not, Thus merely tying the experience to brain chemistry proves nothing, The tie at this stage is broken by my (8) tie breakers, see the article link to at the top.

At this point he wastes a lot of time in foolish speculation over "meaning: of the experience when he could be reading my book and understanding how actual scientists (psychologists) think about it,

And then there is the question of meaning.  How does the mind interpret this experience?  That depends entirely on what concepts and associations already exist in the mind.  We associate red with the concept danger mainly because that concept is culturally ingrained in us.  The same is true of religious experience.  The interpretation of a religious experience is based on concepts we already have in our mind.  No Christian would ever have a religious experience that causes him to become a Buddhist if he didn't already have some knowledge of Buddhism, and vice versa.  Nobody ever learns something new from a religious experience.  The religious experience only serves to reinforce what we already believe.
This shows his utter ignorance, I document cases where mystical experience converted people, the famous Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo became Vadanta because of such an experience. It is quite common for one to find that one's sacred doctrine is contradicted by mystical experiences. I don't advise using it to establish doctrine and I deal with this in a whole chapter, the last chapter of my book, Eventually, doctrines are dependent on many things such as reason and logic, culture, tradition, but mystical experiences are the same the world over regardless of the doctrines. [10] these experiences do not determine one;s religious tradition but they demonstrate a reality behind all traditions.

He ventures off into more ignorant prattle trying to claim credit  for an experience he's never had:

The other point that Hinman ignores is a common mistake among Christians who love to pretend that their understanding is so much superior to that of atheists.  Most of us have been raised as believers.  We do know what it's like to have a religious experience and interpret it as the experience of God.  We've been there and done that.  The difference is that the atheist who is an ex-believer has more ways to interpret the experience.  The atheist understands that God is not the only possible reality, and not the only possible way to explain what we observe and what we feel.  The atheist sees it from a wider perspective, because he knows what the Christian feels, and he can still take a more objective view that encompasses a greater body of understanding.
Some of the more authoritative measures of incidence rate put mystical experience at about 1 in 4 and that does not even speak to the level of intensity. True mystics are more rare. So just being a believer is not a ticket to mystical enlightenment. There is a difference, As I said  above the Voyle study proves that mystical experience is the mature end of Christian experience, in so doing it also proves that just being a believer doesn't mean you have had a mystical experience.
I have to laugh every time I hear Christians making these claims about how blind atheists are, how limited their epistemological toolbox is.  We reject God belief, not because it is outside our understanding, but because our understanding is broader.  When it comes to interpreting our experiences, we have more than just one way to see everything.  We are not limited to always arriving at the same old conclusion that was instilled in us when we were children.  We can look beyond those childhood beliefs and see more.  Most of all, when looking at a broader range of choices in how to understand something, we can base our decision on objective evaluation, because we are not hemmed in by religious faith.

Comments

JBsptfn said…
Good job, Joe. Yes, Skep seems to think that you are lying about what you talk about, and he thinks it's pseudo-scientific (he is the expert on science, you know [lol]).

I saw that you invited Stardusty Psyche and Gary to debate on your message board. You should invite Ryan M and Skep to do the same thing (although Ryan would go on and on about how people shouldn't debate or something).
Joe Hinman said…
I would rather have Ryan and Eric on it than others but I doubt any of them will go.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
Now he's cut lose on an article I did on Cadre called "Children of The .Lack of a God." But it's really an excuse to bash my book more. His blog peice hatchet job is called "Children of the lack of objectivity." That explains the title of this piece.

Joe,

Here we go again. My article was not an excuse to bash your book. It never mentioned your book. It was a direct response to the article that you wrote. It may be fair to say that I criticize what you say, but that's because you say so many things that are patently ridiculous. In that article, you made claims that are simply not true, and I pointed that out. It is your religious beliefs that prevent you from taking a more objective or scientific view. If that happens to underscore the scholarship in your book, so be it, but that was not the topic of my article.

I'll have more to say, since you obviously didn't understand what I said, and now you're misrepresenting it.
Joe Hinman said…
Here we go again. My article was not an excuse to bash your book. It never mentioned your book. It was a direct response to the article that you wrote.


ok glad to hear it, you are doing a good impression of it though


It may be fair to say that I criticize what you say, but that's because you say so many things that are patently ridiculous.


so ridiculous 200 academic journals published studies about them

In that article, you made claims that are simply not true, and I pointed that out.


BS everything i've said is backed by empirical research where all of your stupid statements are just your ignorant opinion,

It is your religious beliefs that prevent you from taking a more objective or scientific view. If that happens to underscore the scholarship in your book, so be it, but that was not the topic of my article.


you would nit know a scientific view if it bit you in the ass. you don;t know science you spout opinions that you get fro atheist gurus and don't don;t even understand their reasons fir saying them. Look the proof i in the pudding, you have no studies and I do ,period,end of argument. I have the docs you don't.

give me an example and I;ll show, show me what you are talking about.
im-skeptical said…
Joe,

ok glad to hear it, you are doing a good impression of it though

- Your original article that I was responding to didn't mention your book, and neither did my response. I was responding strictly to what you said in that article. If you were talking about what is in the book, I don't care. I was talking about what you said. I was not attacking your stupid book. Get over it.

so ridiculous 200 academic journals published studies about them

- Now you are talking about the book. Fine. I'll respond. How many of those "200 academic journals" specifically discuss mystical experiences or M-scale? If you want to cite these things, you need to show specifically how they support your thesis. The mere fact that some of them (not all, as far as I can tell) relate to spirituality, but not to mystical experiences, does not support the claims you make about being backed by empirical research. You are blowing smoke.

you would nit know a scientific view if it bit you in the ass.

- I have degrees in science. Do you? I have made a career in science. Have you? You can lie about me all you please, but that only convinces people who don't know any better. Clearly, if you make claims like this, then you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
JBsptfn said…
Skep, you need to get off your high horse with this science crap. You think that you are so intellectually superior to Joe despite not having any social science knowledge whatsoever. You (and your buddies that comment on your blog) just spit on anything Christian despite knowing what you are talking about.

Christians and theists aren't all simple-minded. You need to get that out of your head.
im-skeptical said…
Christians and theists aren't all simple-minded. You need to get that out of your head.

- And you need to get out of your head the idea that I have made all these claims that you attribute to me. When did you ever hear me say that? I respond to specific statements that people like you or Joe make. Why don't you (and Joe) respond to what I say, instead of making up things that I never said?
Joe Hinman said…
ok glad to hear it, you are doing a good impression of it though

- Your original article that I was responding to didn't mention your book, and neither did my response. I was responding strictly to what you said in that article. If you were talking about what is in the book, I don't care. I was talking about what you said. I was not attacking your stupid book. Get over it.

ok that article does not have 200 studies backing it up, but nothing I said in it is ridiculous,I don't any example here.



so ridiculous 200 academic journals published studies about them

- Now you are talking about the book. Fine. I'll respond. How many of those "200 academic journals" specifically discuss mystical experiences or M-scale?

all of them are about mystical experience that's the point, that's why I chose them that's what they are they are a body of work in psychology on mystical experience.At least are about the M scale because that;s how many are by Hood, But more than just him use it so maybe half have teh M scale,


If you want to cite these things, you need to show specifically how they support your thesis.

obviously You didn't read the article (remember the title those who don;t read what they criticize) that is such bad form, if any thing says "hey there I'm ignorant and have no ide


a what I'm talking about, it's blunders like this.


The mere fact that some of them (not all, as far as I can tell) relate to spirituality, but not to mystical experiences, does not support the claims you make about being backed by empirical research. You are blowing smoke.


they are all about mystical experience, Since you have not read either the book are the article I assume you just judging by titles that quite stupid, you haven no idea what you are talking abouit you have not even read the article,. so you are NOT qualified to even ask questions,

you would nit know a scientific view if it bit you in the ass.

- I have degrees in science. Do you?

ys-sociology, you have a bachelors degree. I studied history and Philosophy of science at Ph,D, level for 12 years,you don't know the basics of study methodology,

I have made a career in science. Have you?

doing what? you don't know anything abouit science so I impinge its not very advanced. science is about method primarily that's the key,if you don't understand that understand nothing,l sciences not just a list of facts about they workings of nature,


You can lie about me all you please, but that only convinces people who don't know any better. Clearly, if you make claims like this, then you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I have not lied about you at all. you either didn't read the article, I((the one above in this blog piece) or you are very stupid because it's obviously about the studies of mysticalk experince and how they aredonhe and how they back my God arguments,
Joe Hinman said…
And you need to get out of your head the idea that I have made all these claims that you attribute to me. When did you ever hear me say that? I respond to specific statements that people like you or Joe make. Why don't you (and Joe) respond to what I say, instead of making up things that I never said?

I just responded., you stated that my studies are not all about mystical expedience if you read the article you cant help but see that they are. Now I don't believer you are stupid so yuv must not have read it,
im-skeptical said…
they are all about mystical experience

- No. Most of them at best are studies that correlate spirituality with well-being. That's not the same as mystical experience. You did speak about Wuthrow and Noble. Those might be relevant to your thesis, but 200 studies? I looked at your list, and I don't see how you can possibly make the claim that all of these are relevant in the same manner.
Joe Hinman said…

- No. Most of them at best are studies that correlate spirituality with well-being. That's not the same as mystical experience. You did speak about Wuthrow and Noble. Those might be relevant to your thesis, but 200 studies? I looked at your list, and I don't see how you can possibly make the claim that all of these are relevant in the same manner.

no you don't know what you are talking about. you have not read a single study you are going by the titles. mystical experience is a from of spirituality but these are specifically about mystical experience,. name three studies that you think are like this?
Joe Hinman said…
as for your further commentary, you everyday confused about the way things work,l you don't get to make a bunch of unsupported claims then i have to disprove them,no! doesn't work that way. you have to back up the idiocy that you claim.

you bravely say "I will not give financial support but you wont even read the free article in front of your face.
Joe Hinman said…
in this article right before fn 7 I said:

The Wuthnow study and the Noble study

Long-Term Effects
Wuthnow:
*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life isMeditate 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[6]

both of these studies are directly about mystical experience. get them and read them. I did. read the article that commentbswection is about
Joe Hinman said…
in the article i say

[5] Jayne Gacenback, "Pure Consciousness mystical experiences" Childhood Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration SWAKA on line URL http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm (accessed Oct 22, 2016)

"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).


what do you suposse that;s about?
JBsptfn said…
SKEP: And you need to get out of your head the idea that I have made all these claims that you attribute to me. When did you ever hear me say that? I respond to specific statements that people like you or Joe make. Why don't you (and Joe) respond to what I say, instead of making up things that I never said?

You didn't say that in those words, but you have implied it on different sites with your snarky and scientistic remarks.
Don McIntosh said…
Hey there Skeptical,

This has become an irritatingly familiar refrain: No one understands science except you and those who agree with you, and no one understands what you're saying except you and those who agree with you.

I think there's a circular argument in there, viz., we disagree with you only because we don't understand, and we don't understand because, well, otherwise we would agree with you.

But even if your statement is valid (or at least noncircular) it hardly means you actually do understand more than everyone but those who agree with you. It may be that you simply have an exceedingly hidebound view of "science" which you don't communicate particularly well.
im-skeptical said…
This has become an irritatingly familiar refrain: No one understands science except you and those who agree with you, and no one understands what you're saying except you and those who agree with you.

Irritatingly familiar, indeed. Here's a suggestion for you. Try responding to what I actually say, instead of your gross misrepresentations.

Joe and JB want to try to convince everybody that I'm ignorant of science, because I have spoken about their false statements of scientific fact or their gross misunderstanding of scientific principles. That's their opinion. But facts speak for themselves. You can believe facts, or you can refuse.

If JB thinks that metabolic processes of living things violate the second law of thermodynamics, he's wrong. Period.

If Joe thinks that 200 studies that correlate spirituality with well-being provide empirical evidence for his contention that belief in God is warranted, he's wrong. There's a reason that none of those studies made any such conclusion. It's because that conclusion is not implied from the scientific data. Joe refuses to look at the bigger picture - to examine other possibilities. His thesis is flawed from a scientific perspective because the conclusion was fixed in his mind before he ever began looking for data to support it. That's not how scientific method works.
JBsptfn said…
SKEP: Joe and JB want to try to convince everybody that I'm ignorant of science, because I have spoken about their false statements of scientific fact or their gross misunderstanding of scientific principles. That's their opinion. But facts speak for themselves. You can believe facts, or you can refuse.

By gross misunderstanding, do you mean that we are mistaken because we don't have the same materialistic, scientistic view that you do?

SKEP:If JB thinks that metabolic processes of living things violate the second law of thermodynamics, he's wrong. Period.

I never said that. And, I am not sure if Pogge ever said that, either.

SKEP: If Joe thinks that 200 studies that correlate spirituality with well-being provide empirical evidence for his contention that belief in God is warranted, he's wrong. There's a reason that none of those studies made any such conclusion. It's because that conclusion is not implied from the scientific data. Joe refuses to look at the bigger picture - to examine other possibilities. His thesis is flawed from a scientific perspective because the conclusion was fixed in his mind before he ever began looking for data to support it. That's not how scientific method works.

How do you know that it isn't implied? You haven't read the papers. Also, how do you know that the conclusion was fixed in his mind? Oh, I know: That is something that you are used to. You have materialist conclusions fixed in your mind before you look at anything, and then you say that others don't understand science.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe and JB want to try to convince everybody that I'm ignorant of science, because I have spoken about their false statements of scientific fact or their gross misunderstanding of scientific principles.

no actually hat;s not what I want or what I think, You are not ignorant of science but you are myopic when facts contradict your ideology you are an ideologue,you don't believe facts, it;s a fact that 200 academic journals pushed studies showing that mystical experience is good for you. That is a fact they were good studies and that is a fact,because they are in peer reviewed journals.you don't accept it becaouse you doht lkike what it implies not because it is nit a fact,

If JB thinks that metabolic processes of living things violate the second law of thermodynamics, he's wrong. Period.

that is not an issue in this discussion.


If Joe thinks that 200 studies that correlate spirituality with well-being provide empirical evidence for his contention that belief in God is warranted, he's wrong.

why is it wrong: you can;t given a ration, argument as to why it;s wrong, the studies show that kind of experience makes yiour life better so it;s reasonable to have or seek it and it's reasonable to understand it as true, then there are three different argument as to how it backs God arguments you wont even consider then because you are afraid to,

(1) the assumption of the co determinate

(2) fit's epistemic criteria

(3) universe experience indicates objective realityil

you have no logical answer for any of those so you just dismiss the whole issue by asserting it cannot be the case,
I know there and i know what it is because I ask the researchers and it;s not because they think God is impossible. it's because they think it;s out of their preview as scientists to make any statement about the reality of god either way,Hood says that in his book.

It's because that conclusion is not implied from the scientific data.

this is where your understanding of science falls apart., if the data is valid then one can c use it as eh basis for reason to make argument for God anything else along asyoucan justify theological,you can't answer is/

this is your worst nightmare this is closer to proving God than anything you ever thought you would, see and it scares you to death,

sciences your fail safe against hell. since you deify science to turn against God then yuo can't undeify it if it says God is true, so you can't have that no matter what,



Joe refuses to look at the bigger picture - to examine other possibilities.


of course I examined other possibilities Einstein I was an atheist, and a druggie and a communist.

His thesis is flawed from a scientific perspective because the conclusion was fixed in his mind before he ever began looking for data to support it. That's not how scientific method works.

obviously a load of crap because philosophers were making those arguments about the studies whenI was in grade school and new nothing about the,

that is an extremely unscientific move, you are trying to taint the data having never even looked art it knowing nothing abouit it Even refuse read the article you are scared to deathi it will disprove your fail safte agsint hell,
Don McIntosh said…
"Here's a suggestion for you. Try responding to what I actually say, instead of your gross misrepresentations."

Okay, so when I suggest that your debate tactic, of asserting that everyone who disagrees with you has misunderstood you, has outlived its usefulness, you respond by asserting that I have misrepresented you. Awesome.

"Joe and JB want to try to convince everybody that I'm ignorant of science, because I have spoken about their false statements of scientific fact or their gross misunderstanding of scientific principles."

Another powerfully ironic statement.

C'mon Skeptical. You can do better than this.
im-skeptical said…
Don:

Okay, so when I suggest that your debate tactic, of asserting that everyone who disagrees with you has misunderstood you, has outlived its usefulness, you respond by asserting that I have misrepresented you. Awesome.
- If you would quote where I said what you claim, that would be awesome.

C'mon Skeptical. You can do better than this.
- You could, too. Simply by engaging what I have said.


JB:

By gross misunderstanding, do you mean that we are mistaken because we don't have the same materialistic, scientistic view that you do?
- No. I mean that you misrepresent or misunderstand scientific FACTS.

I never said that. And, I am not sure if Pogge ever said that, either.
- You directed me to those statements by Pogge where he makes these scientifically ignorant claims.

How do you know that it isn't implied? You haven't read the papers.
- I explained the reasoning. Go back and read it. If you refuse to understand it because I'm not Pogge, that's not my problem. And by the way, I read everything that was made available for me to read. No, I am not about to go out and purchase 200 books and papers. But I asked Joe over and over to show me more, and all he showed me was a few abstracts. Of all the abstracts that I read (more than just the ones Joe showed me), I didn't see a single one that directly supports the claims he makes, but I saw many that seem to be completely irrelevant.

im-skeptical said…
Joe:

it;s a fact that 200 academic journals pushed studies showing that mystical experience is good for you.
- I know you spoke of two or three that specificallly discuss mystical experience. af far as I can tell, the rest of those 200 don't. I have seen the list that you cite. I have seen abstracts. I see no evidence that your claim is true. Perhaps I'm wrong. Can you show me where they say what you claim? I have asked you this before, and I got nowhere with it. Give me some quotes. Give me some reason to think that I'm wrong.

why is it wrong: you can;t given a ration, argument as to why it;s wrong,
I did, and you didn't listen. First, If you claim that a person who claims to be "spiritual" is the same a s a person who claims to have had a "Mystical Experience", I think you're stretching too far. Your argument is specifically about mystical experiences. A study that correlates spirituality with well-being is irrelevant to that. Second, even if spirituality is the same thing as a mystical experience, there is no causal link that would justify your conclusion. I have examined your arguments, and nowhere do I see any evidence of causation - that this experience is the cause of the beneficial behavior.

(1) the assumption of the co determinate
(2) fit's epistemic criteria
(3) universe experience indicates objective realityil
you have no logical answer for any of those ...

- Forgive me, but your arguments are incoherent. They are not logically valid. See my discussion here.

this is where your understanding of science falls apart., if the data is valid then one can c use it as eh basis for reason to make argument for God anything else along asyoucan justify theological,you can't answer is/ this is your worst nightmare this is closer to proving God than anything you ever thought you would, see and it scares you to death, ...
- If the data is valid (which I never disputed), you can try to use it to support an invalid argument, but your argument is still invalid. This is where your knowledge of science falls apart. Science is based on both evidence and logic. And your logic sucks. If you can 1) demonstrate a causal connection between the experience and the subsequent beneficial behavior, and 2) demonstrate that the experience is in fact something that comes from God, then you can prove your case logically. But you have demonstrated neither of those things. You simply jump to the conclusion. That's not valid logic.

of course I examined other possibilities Einstein I was an atheist, and a druggie and a communist.
- And that's how I know you made an objective evaluation of the data? Bullshit.

obviously a load of crap because philosophers were making those arguments about the studies whenI was in grade school ... you are trying to taint the data ...
- I already told you that I didn't dispute the data you present. What's wrong is your approach to interpreting the data. It doesn't follow any kind of scientific method. You have a religious agenda. You ignore any facts that might lead to a different conclusion. It ain't science, no matter how much you protest that I'm the one who doesn't understand.
Joe Hinman said…
I know you spoke of two or three that specificallly discuss mystical experience. af far as I can tell, the rest of those 200 don't. I have seen the list that you cite. I have seen abstracts. I see no evidence that your claim is true. Perhaps I'm wrong. Can you show me where they say what you claim? I have asked you this before, and I got nowhere with it. Give me some quotes. Give me some reason to think that I'm wrong.

you cannot make a stupid claim "I've read the abstract." No you have not read any abstracts you lying pillock. even assuming you did i read the fucking studies! I wrote a book .I spent seven years researching it. you can't name a single study, claiming you read an abstract you can't even say which one it was! that is just a worthless claim, how am I supposed to disprove a claim when I don't even know whichone to look at So that is a worthless claim,


I'm not going to talk to you about this again,all you are proving is that you o not understand research argument or debate, I will tell you one thing look at the Mohan article he talks ab out a huge number of studies most of then are about mystical experience and I used most of them.that proves the studies are bout mystical experience,


Look at hoods vita he's got 50 studies they are about mystical because that's what he researches, that proves you are a liar. for that matter I quoted a huge paragraph above in this comment section talking ab about the M scale and three other verification methods. that in itwelf proves there are a bunch of studies about mystical experience,

the truth is you are goijg byi the titel noit abstracts you have seen no abstract,
Don McIntosh said…
"You could, too. Simply by engaging what I have said."

Engaging what you have said (or more precisely, getting you to acknowledge that such engagement has ever taken place) is impossible, given your unfortunate tendency to accuse your debate opponents of misunderstanding science or misrepresenting you rather than directly answer their arguments. And by habitually accusing your opponents of misunderstanding science and misrepresenting you, instead of directly answering their arguments, you fail to engage what they say. All the while you don't hesitate, evidently, to misunderstand science or misrepresent the rest of us yourself.

I will concede to you this much: Only an exceptionally intelligent person could come up with such rich sophistry. And I do mean that.
Joe Hinman said…
the refusal to read the sources is anti intellectual stupidity, if anyone buys the book read chapters two two and three you see I go thorough talk about studies and their methodologies all the way though, in those two chapters I talk about maybe half the studies I use or more,you can see they are about mystical experiences, i go though and list the methodologies of a whole bunch of then, you can see clearly.
Joe Hinman said…
here is what he;s doing here are a few entries from my bib for the book


References
Adams, N. (1995). Spirituality, science and therapy.


he takes that sand says it doesn't say mystical experience so it must say nothing a out it, it does talk about it but he;s just asserts that it doesn't any time it doesn't say it and that;s real stupid. they all talk aout it but see if more than two use the term.terms like pure consciousness also refer to mystial

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 16 (4), 201-208.

Alexander, C. (1978). A literature review of the individual differences approach to mystical states of consciousness and a proposed alternative perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Cambridge, MA.

Alexander, C. (1982). Ego development, personality and behavioral change in inmates practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique or participating in other programs: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
[TM is a trigger for mystical]


Alexander, C., Boyer, R. & Orme-Johnson, D. (1985). Distinguishing between transcendental consciousness and lucidity. Lucidity Letter, 4(2), 68-85.

[transcendental consciousness is mystical experience]

Alexander, C.N., Chandler, K. & Boyer, R.W. (in press). Experience and understanding of pure consciousness in the Vedic Science of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In Gackenbach, J.I. & Hunt, H. (Eds.). Higher states of consciousness: Theoretical and experimental perspectives, N.Y.: Plenum. 1990

Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Dixon, C.A., Dillbeck, M.C., Oetzel, R.M., Muehlman, J.M. & Orme-Johnson, D.W. (in press). Higher stages of consciousness beyond formal operations: The Vedic psychology of human development. In C.N. Alexander and E.J. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Adult growth beyond formal operations, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Allman, L.S., Dela, R.O., Elins, D.N., & Weathers, R.S. (1992). Psychotherapists attitude towards mystical experiences. Psychotherapy, 29, 564-569


Savage, C., Fadiman, J., Mogar, R. & Allen, M. (1966). “The effects of psychedelic therapy on values, personality, and behaviour”. International Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 2, 241-254.
[deals with it]


Anson, O., Antonovskay, A., & Sagy. (1990). “Religiosity and well-being among retirees: A question of causality”. Behaviour, Health & Aging, 1, 85-87.



Armstrong Hickey, D. (June, 1988). A psychological and self-report study of lucid dreams in school age children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Dreams, Santa Cruz, CA.


Armstrong, T. (1984). Transpersonal experience in childhood. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(2), 207-230.

Atchley, R.C. (1997). “The subjective importance and being religious and its effects on health and morale 14 years later”. Journal of Aging Studies, 11, 131-141.


Ball, R.A & Goodyear, R.K. (1991). “Self-reported professional practices of Christian psychotherapists”. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 10, 144-153.
Balodhi, J.P., Chowdhary, J.R. (1986). “Psychiatric concepts in Atharva Veda: A review”. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 63-68.


Banquet, J.P., & Sailhan, M. (1976). Quantified EEG spectral analysis of sleep and Transcendental Meditation. In D.W. Orme-Johnson & J.T. Farrow (Eds.), Scientific research on the Transcendental Meditation program: Collected papers, Vol. 1 (p. 182-186). West Germany: MERU Press.

Becker, M. & Herter, G. (1973). Effect of meditation upon SREM. Sleep Research, 2, 90.

this is not an eight of the bib which is 20 pages in the book. everyone of these sources deals with mystical experience even they don't say it, all he's; doing is looking at the title and assuming I must be lying because i'm a Christian christians have to be wrong,
im-skeptical said…
the refusal to read the sources is anti intellectual stupidity
- I asked you to show me your material and you refused to provide it. You showed me a bibliography that contained a lot of stuff that was irrelevant and different from this. Some of these things might be relevant (provided you could explain the relevance). Others still appear to be only superficially relevant, or not at all. For example, how does "Effect of meditation upon SREM" support your thesis? If you can't explain it, then show me the article, and I'll read it.

It sounds as if you are merely searching for things that mention anything about alternate states of consciousness, and then claiming that all this material backs up your claims. I don't think so. But please do explain it for someone who doesn't have access to the material. All I have been asking you from the beginning is to show how this stuff makes your case. But you haven't done that. Send me a copy of your book. then I'll have all the answers.
im-skeptical said…
Engaging what you have said (or more precisely, getting you to acknowledge that such engagement has ever taken place) is impossible, given your unfortunate tendency to accuse your debate opponents of misunderstanding science or misrepresenting you rather than directly answer their arguments

Don, I responded directly to your argument here, for example. you are the one who failed to engage what I said. remember what you said? "I would refute the rest of your post if I thought it worth the time and trouble. Thankfully, I don't."
Joe Hinman said…
he refusal to read the sources is anti intellectual stupidity
- I asked you to show me your material and you refused to provide it. You showed me a bibliography that contained a lot of stuff that was irrelevant and different from this. Some of these things might be relevant (provided you could explain the relevance). Others still appear to be only superficially relevant, or not at all. For example, how does "Effect of meditation upon SREM" support your thesis? If you can't explain it, then show me the article, and I'll read it.


I'm not going through this sophomoric bullshit with another atheist, get off your little high horse, I am not obligated to get you the studies,I had to get then you can get them. That's what bibliographers are for did you not know that:why did you think they have bibs and footnotes>Is critic can look up the sources genius.It's ridiculous to expect the author to provide it.,i paid my dues by doing the research. Moreover. I am not going to type a whole study in a text box. They are not all on the net, some are but you have to pay for them. If you are not wiling to put out some effort then shut your gob and stop flapping your gums,

It sounds as if you are merely searching for things that mention anything about alternate states of consciousness, and then claiming that all this material backs up your claims. I don't think so.

what did I say? I said read the chapters 2 and 3 ane you see the studies discussed in detail there;s the fallacy of your method you refuse ever read the material, I wrote an article that explains it but you wont read the tickler, a lazy idiot can sit back and flap his gums all his life criticizing thing he doesn't know about and never has look at the evidence.

how big a sucker does one have to be to fall for that? you never have to try to see any of the material and you can go on insisting that it;s my duty to get you the material that you never intend to look at, you pay this game all your life,screw it I am no playing




But please do explain it for someone who doesn't have access to the material. All I have been asking you from the beginning is to show how this stuff makes your case. But you haven't done that. Send me a copy of your book. then I'll have all the answers.

what did i say just bow?: read the bloody article you parasite! btw get off my bog you idiot,.
Don McIntosh said…
'Don, I responded directly to your argument here, for example. you are the one who failed to engage what I said. remember what you said? "I would refute the rest of your post if I thought it worth the time and trouble. Thankfully, I don't."'

Yes, Skeptical, and immediately preceding that was my reason for deciding not to bother (the first paragraph is yours, the second is mine):

'"Don is careful to note that this is not the actual argument made by atheists, but it is just formulated from the logical implications of what atheists claim. Therefore, you can't call this a straw man. However, it IS a straw man by any reasonable definition of the term. It is Don's own contrived version of what he thinks atheists claim, which he then proceeds to tear down in order to make his own argument. If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is."

So you don't know what a straw man is, other than an argument that can't be called a straw man. Nice work.'

In other words, you were then, as now, so preoccupied with this weird theme of "misrepresentation" that even though my argument was NOT a straw man by your own admission, you turned around and decided that somehow it must have been a straw man anyway.

Ongoing quibbles about what is and isn't a straw man are terribly uninteresting distractions from anything substantive as far as I'm concerned, so I decided not to discuss it further at that time.

Nor will I discuss it further now. :-)
im-skeptical said…
OK, Joe. Let's try a different approach.

(1) You say that the mystical experience is something special. It's something that is unknown to atheists. That was the central point of your article Children of the lack of God. you say that the M-scale is used to distinguish a true mystical experience from the real thing.

(2) You say that there are over 200 empirical studies back up your claim that mystical experience provides warrant for belief. A key element of this is that mystical experiences produce positive life changes, and this is shown by all these studies.

(3) I looked at your bibliography (and read whatever abstracts i could find), and it appears that most of these don't really deal with mystical experiences. Most of them are merely about spirituality. But now you're claiming that they really are about mystical experiences. I ask, how does "Effect of meditation upon SREM" support your thesis? Your reply is I'm not going through this sophomoric bullshit with another atheist. You tell me all that material is about mystical experiences.

(4) There's a HUGE disconnect between (1) and (3). If (3) is true, then any kind of higher consciousness would qualify as a mystical experience. Sam Harris meditating would count just as much as someone who scores perfect on the M-scale. But then what use id the M-scale? What makes a mystical experience so special? And how can you go around claiming that atheists don't have the same experiences as religionists?

What I'm asking of you is to explain this discrepancy. And if you don't care to discuss it here (which would be strange because you did post this article, and it is specifically about what I said), please come to my blog and discuss it.
im-skeptical said…
Don,

I'm surprised, because you used to be willing to discuss issues that we disagree on. I think your argument was a straw man, and I showed you the definition. It fits perfectly. You refuse to discuss it. So go ahead and tell me that I'm the one who refuses to engage on topic at hand.
Joe Hinman said…
my answer to this stuff is here

I will not respond futher here this thread is closed,
im-skeptical said…
In statement (1), it should say: You say that the M-scale is used to distinguish a true mystical experience from something that is not the real thing.

Popular posts from this blog

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

The Meaning of the Manger

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?