Dialogue with Skeptic on mystical experoience

Photobucket



Skep:
(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.
Meta I said in asteresk that many atheists do have mystical experience, The point is when they do the experiences are the same, this indicates it's the experience o an objective reality,


Skep:
(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.
Meta yes


Skep: 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.
Meta:
that is a lie. you can't know it based upon the titles in the bib I already showed you why because (1) you don't know the terms so you don't get that "Higher consciousness" is euphemism for mystical experience.Mystical experience is part of the larger topic of spirituality so you night have a study on spirituality that includes mystical experience. 

(2)all of this is cheating because you refuse to read the evidence then you can't to attack  the work but you have no idea what you are talking about.

(3) it's useless to tell me you have seen abstracts and not tell me which ones., you can't expect me to defend it if i don't know what it is. I thinks that is dishonesty because you did not really read them.



Skep:
Most of them are merely about spirituality.

Meta: You don't know the termenology so you see "higher consciousnjess" and yiuo dont know tht it is about mystical experience, Spiritualoity is the larger umbrella topic for mystical experience. somethig night well becalled :a look at spirituality: and it would include a lot about mystical experience. I organized this bib and I read gteh sojrce and i know they about nystical experiences,


Skep:
 But now you're claiming that they really are about mystical experiences.
Meta: 
I've never cklaied otherwise




Skep:
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.


Meta: 
No I did not say that to that question


Skep:
(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.

Meta: 
O brother your understanding is much niore rudimentary thanI thought, Medittion is a trigger for mystical exereince that doesn't mean a nyone time somone edicates it;s mystical, nor does it mean that any ystical experience is auotmaticaly a perfect score on the N scale, the scale is a way of valikdatinv hkow closly to Stace's theory modern people expeirnce, so there;s a range It's just autojatic that my nysticak experience is a perectvscroe. As it so happensw the studieson the bib about TM and other nedication do inclkudemystical expoereince,

Again if you buy the book I go thorugh eachstduuy and showv the methodology


Skep:
But then what use is 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?



Meta: 
There is no reason why I shoulkd put up with such willful,l ignoranc and obstinant obfiuscation, All those very basic obvious quiestionsI have answered timne and time again, read the article I postedhere on  Monday, it  very carfeuully ansers these questionss, this time read tghe whole article ot just the fierst line.


do you have problems reading? do you a reading disability? is this why you never read the materaial. All these kinds of  baskic questions that I have answered over and you would kijnow that had you red anything i've posted.


Skep:
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.

Meta
you thinking is very literal and you don't know anything. That;s the dependency,
I will not put up any more of your crap. I spent years gong through slander and abuse and crap from stupid illiterate atheist who did not give a rats ass what truth is. your response is irrational, irresponsible, stupid, and amounts to bullying. The academic world provides for proper means of dispute, That is why foot notes exist so critics can look up the material, I do not have to provide you with studies,I already did the research,If you want to distrust it just say you dont trust anything a Christian says get off blog. I will not play these assinine games,,

Comments

im-skeptical said…
There is no reason why I shoulkd put up with such willful,l ignoranc and obstinant obfiuscation, All those very basic obvious quiestionsI have answered timne and time again, read the article I postedhere on Monday, it very carfeuully ansers these questionss, this time read tghe whole article ot just the fierst line.

Please just answer my question. You haven't done that. You have steadfastly refused to answer. Please give me a quote from "Effect of meditation upon SREM" that says it is about M-scale rated mystical experiences.
Joe Hinman said…
Please just answer my question. You haven't done that. You have steadfastly refused to answer. Please give me a quote from "Effect of meditation upon SREM" that says it is about M-scale rated mystical experiences.
wrong bs I have answered every question numerous times aand I'v written whole papers to answer your questions you wont read them,

you still have not read the post frm alstv time have yiou?
im-skeptical said…
Joe, I've read every post you ever suggested about this. But I must confess, I don't have a clue what "the post frm alstv" is.
Joe Hinman said…
you got SREM from the Gackenback paper. She studies sleep so a paper includes stuff om sleep search but a huge part of her websid=]te i about mjystical experience, She wasone o the first sources I found.

In this paper I have examined a range of experiences which illustrate turning around on deembedding the self and/or union, numinous states. These are both held to be elements of the experience of pure consciousness which was argued herein to represent the core state of consciousness. The closer one is to this core state the more pervasive the effect of its experience is on all other experiences in life. It is suggested herein that approximations of PC (i.e., lucid dreaming, OBE's, NDE's, IAM's) serve an adaptive psychological function but may not have the pervasive positive effect of PC experienced on a regular basis.

Further it was shown that the whole range of experiences can occur in childhood and in some cases are likely to be at adult levels (lucid dreaming) or appropriate to the stage of development (NDE's). The borderline experiences occur most often in response to pain of some sort (physical and/or psychological) but there is evidence that the core experience(s) may in fact signal a "consciousness savant" or some sort of precocity. Therefore, it seems that at least these sets of transpersonal experiences are adaptive in a narrow (response to pain) and in some cases a broad range (enhanced school performance) sense.

look at her references, some of them. Alexader is one of mny main sources he did about five studies on mystical experience, their titles reflect mystical experience related things,

References

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.

Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Dixon, C.A., Dillbeck, M.C., Oetzel, R.M., Muehlman, J.M. & Orme-Johnson, D.W. (1990). 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.

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

Alexander, C., Boyer, R. & Alexander, V. (1987). Higher states of consciousness in the Vedic psychology of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: A theoretical introduction and research review. Modern Science and Vedic Science, (1), 89-126.

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.

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.
Joe Hinman said…
no you did not read the post,
Joe Hinman said…
these are from google search they are all source by Gackenback

V. Chapter Summary - Sawka.com
www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/vchapter.htm
Effect of meditation upon SREM. Sleep Research, 2, 90. Blackmore, Susan (1988). A theory of lucid dreams and OBEs. In J.I. Gackenbach and S.L. LaBerge ...

From Sleep Consciousness to Pure Consciousness Jayne Gackenbach
www.spiritwatch.ca/papers6.html
by J Gackenbach - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
... M. & Herter, G. (1973). Effect of meditation upon SREM. Sleep Research, 2, 90. Bird, E. (1989). Invasion of the mind snatchers. Psychology Today, April, 64-66.
Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature ...


spiritwatch.ca/papers7.html
1 (p. 182-186). West Germany: MERU Press. Becker, M. & Herter, G. (1973). Effect of meditation upon SREM. Sleep Research, 2, 90. Blackmore, Susan (1988).

read herspiritwatch watch you cant help but see a huge part of it is about mystical experience, She i the one I quoted the other day about the diferent types of scales,
im-skeptical said…
From the paper you linked:

"although experience of pure consciousness occurs with far less frequency in the general population, our research (and that of other researchers) indicates that its behavioral correlates are similar even among subjects who have received no exposure to meditation or the concept of pure consciousness." They conclude, "This enables us to go beyond the prevailing understanding of pure consciousness as an inaccessible, ineffable or "mystical" experience. Rather, we come to realize that the experience of pure consciousness is a natural consequence of unfolding the latent potential of human consciousness to fully know itself, that has profound utility for improving the quality of human life."

Clearly, this study is about something other than the "mystical experience" that you are trying to connect it to. And I seriously doubt that you even understand the sources you cite.
Joe Hinman said…
Gacenback's page om mystical experience

here

Joe Hinman said…
ypu are a very silly person. Here is a quote from Gackenback's page I lomked to above. Notice teh title:

I. Pure Consciousness/Mystical Experiences

There is a central psychospiritual state of consciousness for which there is now adequate scientific evidence that the experience of it is healthy, life enhancing, and promotes development. It is pure consciousness. Several other transpersonal experiences can be understood as clustering in some way around or leading to this central experience.

But what is pure consciousness (PC)? Alexander, Chandler and Boyer (1990) define PC as "a silent state of inner wakefulness with no object of thought or perception (p. 1)." They hold that it is conditioned not simply by cultural or intellectual elements, but by fundamental psychophysiological conditions which are universally available across cultures. Qualities of this state are implicated in their expanded definition:

If pure consciousness is without content, it would be, ..., nonchanging because there is no content in it that could change. It would be simple because without content, there are no parts. It would be completely one, having no diversity of content. It would be self-referring, because there is nothing other than itself to refer to or know. It would be unbounded because there is no bounded content of awareness to engage or limit awareness (p. 2-3).

A meditator describes this experience:

I was meditating one late afternoon when I began to settle down much more deeply than usual. As I became more and more still, all thoughts and feelings settled and I was left in a deep quietness. All familiar boundaries that defined where I was and what time it was, and even who I was, began to fade from awareness and dissolve altogether. I was still awake and yet all that remained was my own wakefulness. . . . There was nothing else. No trace of thought or memory entered into my awareness; even the sense of my body and its position in space had vanished. It's not that I missed these things. It simply did not enter my awareness to miss them or not to miss them.

For an indefinitely long time I remained in that state of perfectly simple wakefulness. How long I could not have guessed, for there was no measure in my awareness by which to judge the passage of time. Then, slowly, the world began to be reconstituted around me. At first some faint sensation of my body and surroundings returned; then some sense of where I was and what time it was; then some sense of my person, my projects, engagements, relations, and all those forms of awareness that make up the sense of our everyday world. The world returned to me and was organized and constructed into all the layers of awareness that make up our sense of reality. I was left with a sense of refreshment, of having drunk deeply the blissful nectar of a timeless far away realm of Being. At that moment, my whole body and mind experienced a rush of blissful joy and well being (p. 3-4).


that description is exactly the description of mystical experience, she sayson the page they are the same, hey are different terms for the same thing, you come along and say:I don't want garbondzo beans I only l,ike chikck peas
im-skeptical said…
I quoted her directly, telling us that they are not the same thing. Read it again.
im-skeptical said…
From the latest site you linked:

As noted Alexander et al. (1990) say of these states that to call them 'mystical' is a misnomer, for they 'transcend' ordinary thinking in no more mystical a way than abstract thinking transcends motor behavior in infancy.

Now there is no doubt in my mind that YOU are the one who doesn't read the material you cite, or you don't understand it. I think you just search got papers that contain the term "mystical experience", find some quotable sentence in them, and completely ignore the substantive content of the paper. Ans THAT's the 200 studies that support your thesis.
Joe Hinman said…
I quoted her directly, telling us that they are not the same thing. Read it again.

no you didn't, not what it says. doesn't matter because she talks about mystical experience and clearly says it[s good for you she discussing the studies i'k talking about including the M scale. She says Mystical experience is a from of pure consciousnesses.

you ae so dishonest and so silly so unwilling to look at the facts, you are totally distention,say anything just so your wide wins not matter how wrong iut is.
Joe Hinman said…
"although experience of pure consciousness occurs with far less frequency in the general population, our research (and that of other researchers) indicates that its behavioral correlates are similar even among subjects who have received no exposure to meditation or the concept of pure consciousness." They conclude, "This enables us to go beyond the prevailing understanding of pure consciousness as an inaccessible, ineffable or "mystical" experience. Rather, we come to realize that the experience of pure consciousness is a natural consequence of unfolding the latent potential of human consciousness to fully know itself, that has profound utility for improving the quality of human life."


that does not say what you think it does, Notice she puts mystical in scare quotes. That means she using the term in a way that other people use it not her usual way.

The context is inaccessibility, So she is referring to ideas of others that mystical and other kinds of pure experience are inaccessible then she says they are not.

even if we take it your way she still says pure consciousness goes beyond mystical but she would have to mean that it sisal included. so mystical is at least part of pure experience, That doest change the things says about mystical being proved by the studies to be good for you the N scale being valid,
Joe Hinman said…
here she says pure consciousness is called mystical, iot is under the sub heading mystical experience.


A. "Mystical Experiences

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."
Joe Hinman said…
quote:

"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.


[still quoting]
"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."

[here she's going to mention the M scale--by Hood so its also called Hood's scale]

"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."
im-skeptical said…
Joe:

no you didn't, not what it says. doesn't matter because she talks about mystical experience and clearly says it[s good for you she discussing the studies i'k talking about including the M scale. She says Mystical experience is a from of pure consciousnesses. ... you ae so dishonest and so silly so unwilling to look at the facts
- Joe, I can read. Can you? Your thesis is that the only "genuine mystical experience" is the religious variety as determined by the M-scale. You keep harping about this. She's saying that it is broader than that. It is the kind of thing that is a natural part of humanity (the same as I have been saying all along), that anyone can experience. The interpretation of it can be religious, but that's not the essence of the experience. This is not consistent with your thesis.

The context is inaccessibility, So she is referring to ideas of others that mystical and other kinds of pure experience are inaccessible then she says they are not.
- She's referring to it in the sense that YOU use it - that is a more restrictive, religious or mystical sense. She's telling you that her use of the term is much more inclusive than that.

even if we take it your way she still says pure consciousness goes beyond mystical but she would have to mean that it sisal included. so mystical is at least part of pure experience, That doest change the things says about mystical being proved by the studies to be good for you the N scale being valid,
- She's saying that it can be beneficial, but the religious interpretation that some people have is not what makes it beneficial. The M-scale rating is not what matters. This is a NATURAL phenomenon. God has nothing to do with it. So much for your "Trace of God".

Joe Hinman said…
- Joe, I can read. Can you? Your thesis is that the only "genuine mystical experience" is the religious variety as determined by the M-scale.


can you read? you appear to only read the first couple lines of any post,where did i ever say that? I never said that anywhere, That's extreme simplification that really alters the meaning. of course if you read the book you would know but i have pointed it out several times, I think that proves you don't read even the posts here. Makes me wonder if you can read. Atheists can have mystical experiences an that proves God all the more, how? red the book,

You keep harping about this. She's saying that it is broader than that. It is the kind of thing that is a natural part of humanity (the same as I have been saying all along), that anyone can experience. The interpretation of it can be religious, but that's not the essence of the experience. This is not consistent with your thesis.


that doesn't contradict anything I said. But it doesn't mean"naturalistic" as in not involving god, it involves god.Gackenback does not go into theology I would expect her theology to be non christian,

Me:The context is inaccessibility, So she is referring to ideas of others that mystical and other kinds of pure experience are inaccessible then she says they are not.
- She's referring to it in the sense that YOU use it - that is a more restrictive, religious or mystical sense. She's telling you that her use of the term is much more inclusive than that.

no she;s not. She is not saying anything about that one way or the other. Your little them vs us mentality has conjured what you think a Christian must think and you don't know Christianity because you have no idea what i think


even if we take it your way she still says pure consciousness goes beyond mystical but she would have to mean that it sisal included.

she says pure consciousness is mystical she just said it.I just quoted it above.


Me: so mystical is at least part of pure experience, That doest change the things says about mystical being proved by the studies to be good for you the N scale being valid,


- She's saying that it can be beneficial, but the religious interpretation that some people have is not what makes it beneficial.

that is neither here nor there


The M-scale rating is not what matters. This is a NATURAL phenomenon. God has nothing to do with it. So much for your "Trace of God".

you have no idea what the M scale is about, The M scale has nothing to do with Christian ideas, Hood is not a Christian and Stace was not aw Christian,

mystical experience does not have to conform to Christian doctrine to be a warrant forbekief in god,
im-skeptical said…
I quote from YOU:

The argument from religious experience is deemed too subjective to be of any real interest to rationally minded skeptics. Yet over the last 50 years, a huge body of empirical scientific work has emerged in peer reviewed journals that strengthens the case for religious experience as a God argument.

Your argument has been ALL ABOUT RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. Now you are away from that when I point out to you that your "empirical data" doesn't support your thesis in the manner that you think it does. Sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Joe Hinman said…
Your argument has been ALL ABOUT RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. Now you are away from that when I point out to you that your "empirical data" doesn't support your thesis in the manner that you think it does. Sheer intellectual dishonesty.


you say that because you are assuming that if atheists can have mystical experiences then that disprove god is behind it because God would not give an atheist na experience is that right that's what you think? I assume that is what you mean when you say ""empirical data" doesn't support your thesis"

that is a total mistake. If God did not give atheists experiences I wound not be a Christian now. Atheists who have these experiences have the same experience that?Christian do they just see them differential and e interpreter them differently, that is proven by the studies,


the empirical data supports my thesis completely because i developed the thesis around the data I did not research the data to conform to the thesis.Except in general to prove its good for you, that's where it started and the data sure as hell proves that. There is not one single study that shows any bad effects,
Don McIntosh said…
"You don't understand…"

Of course not. Also there's

"You misrepresent..."

"Your argument is a straw man..."

"You're intellectually dishonest..."

I wouldn't bother with him, Joe. It's a black hole. No one who disagrees with Skeptical ever "understands" him (or understands science or anything else), whether it's you, me, or fellow atheists like Stardusty. Otherwise he might be shown wrong here and there.

The subtleties and nuances of the language we speak make reasonable conversation dependent on taking at least a minimally charitable interpretation of our partners in communication. Skeptical routinely takes the most uncharitable interpretation possible of what we say – resulting in a "straw man" of his own making, not ours (again the irony runs deep here) – then expects us to prove that skeptical interpretation false before we can discuss anything of substance. It's a technique reserved for advanced trolls.

im-skeptical said…
That's right, Don. You wouldn't dare engage someone on the merits of their argument. I got your number.
Don McIntosh said…
"I got your number."

Well you got my goat anyway. Congratulations.
im-skeptical said…
Final resolution of this debate here.
" Atheists can have mystical experiences an that proves God all the more, how? red the book,"
"Go read a book" is a particularly weak form of conversational argumentation (in the rational sense, not the sense of an angry or combative exchange).

Lots of people have described going into the void, or entering a state of consciousness that seems to separate them from all their usual sensory experiences and stream of contagiousness.

If you cannot succinctly explain how this brain state somehow "proves god" then you don't understand it yourself, undoubtedly because it does not "prove god".

I have had 2 near death experiences. The first was very brief and resulted in some very strange distortions of my perceptions of time, sound, light, and my surroundings. The second was much longer and resulted in embedding in my consciousness after the fact a visceral sense of how it feels to be dead.

Brain states are sufficient to account for my near death experiences and sufficient to account for the void experience of "pure consciousness".




Joe Hinman said…
Stardusty Psyche said...
" Atheists can have mystical experiences an that proves God all the more, how? red the book,"
"Go read a book" is a particularly weak form of conversational argumentation (in the rational sense, not the sense of an angry or combative exchange).


not if you wrote a whole book about a subject and real complex and people can;t do justice t the criticism refuse to read so they never really understand., you want to criticize things you know nothing about. simple,,

Lots of people have described going into the void, or entering a state of consciousness that seems to separate them from all their usual sensory experiences and stream of contagiousness.

If you cannot succinctly explain how this brain state somehow "proves god" then you don't understand it

I have explained it time and time again you guys refuse to listen, notice skeptic has not argued against the idea at all.In all childish denials that the literature talks about mysticism he never once argued with the reasoning the ideas connecting the data to
God.


I have had 2 near death experiences. The first was very brief and resulted in some very strange distortions of my perceptions of time, sound, light, and my surroundings. The second was much longer and resulted in embedding in my consciousness after the fact a visceral sense of how it feels to be dead.

Brain states are sufficient to account for my near death experiences and sufficient to account for the void experience of "pure consciousness".


that is not mystical experience.

the reason atheists experiences contribute more to belief is because the experience are the same as all religions people and they are all the same around the world. That proves they are not just taking ques from their belief but actually experiencing something objective.




Joe Hinman said…
above I quoted one of my thief sorceress, one Skeptic said doesn't talk about mystical exerciser, I quoted her saying higher consciousnesses is called mystical experience. right there in front of his face. he still over on his sight with his BS about "I read the bib and a couple of abstracts," That's not good enough.

even when the evidence con tradicts him directly he just wont accept it, Either

a. he;s liar we can 't trust him


b. he didn't read the comments as he did not read the essay

c. he has no reading comprehension.




d. all of the above.


He;s done that trick too many times not be doing it on purpose,

this comment section is closed. The lying skeptic is banned, He is dishonest he is not trying to argue fairly he's a creep not worth wasting y time on.
im-skeptical said…
Hinman's grand equivocation has been exposed as a complete fraud. His argument is based on religious experience, which he calls "mystical experience", but which is his basis for claiming this "trace of God". His empirical evidence consists of many studies that correlate spirituality with well-being, and that show positive outcomes in people's lives associated with mystical experiences. But those studies that examine the effects of mystical experience actually are about a broader category of experiences that Maslow has called "peak experiences". Still they refer to them by the commonly used terminology "mystical experience". However, in this sense, it is not the same thing as Hinman's use of the term, which specifically refers to religious experience. There is nothing specifically religious about these, except for the fact that many religious people interpret them as being religious in nature. However, that is only a subjective interpretation, and it is irrelevant to the empirical connection with positive outcomes. These experiences can be had by anyone, and there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO empirical data that links them in any way with God. This is Hinman's grand equivocation.

Furthermore, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO logical basis for making any claim that they constitute "warrant for belief". If you start with some religious conviction, and you then interpret the peak experience as a religious experience, and then claim that this experience constitutes warrant for belief (which is what Hinman does), that is nothing but circular reasoning.
"not if you wrote a whole book about a subject and real complex"
How complex can it be? A person meditates and thus enters various brain states not typically entered by other means. Pretty simple to describe.

How could that possibly "prove god"? If it somehow does "prove god" you should be able to explain it very easily. If you require a volume of argumentation then you obviously have not "proved god", merely thrown up a massive smoke screen of obfuscating and convoluted language.

"I have explained it time and time again you guys refuse to listen"
Sorry, I did not see any explanations in your words as to how a meditative brain state somehow "proves god". Mostly you just argued about terminology.

It is a fact that by meditating a person can enter a void-like state, and you can call that pure consciousness, or a mystical experience, or whatever you want to call it. To say that somehow "proves god" is a non-sequitur and you have presented no rational case for that leap that does not follow.

"Again if you buy the book"
So, you want people to give you money, which appears to be your real motivation here in being so obtuse and secretive as to how a meditative brain state somehow "proves god".

"you thinking is very literal and you don't know anything"
In terms of logical argumentation literal thinking is a good thing, isn't it? Isn't it best to argue for literal truth with literal facts and literal reasoning?

Or do you mean "proves god" in a non-literal sense? So, when you say "proves god" you don't literally mean a brain state proves god?

"stupid illiterate atheist who did not give a rats ass what truth is"
Can you define truth? I am actually very interested in that subject and it is one of the reasons I find the presuppositionalists to be valuable contributors to public discourse, because like the child incessantly asking "why" the presup forces us to question our most fundamental assumptions and deffinintions.
Joe Hinman said…
-skeptical said...
Hinman's grand equivocation has been exposed as a complete fraud. His argument is based on religious experience, which he calls "mystical experience", but which is his basis for claiming this "trace of God". His empirical evidence consists of many studies that correlate spirituality with well-being, and that show positive outcomes in people's lives associated with mystical experiences.

notice he sort of speaks in a tone that implies religious experience is some kind of illicit cheating, it is not allowed It's known to be bogus,. Thus is pure bull shit and question begging.Typical attempt to privilege atheist assumptions.


But those studies that examine the effects of mystical experience actually are about a broader category of experiences that Maslow has called "peak experiences". Still they refer to them by the commonly used terminology "mystical experience".


Those are merely synonyms. A trivial fact


However, in this sense, it is not the same thing as Hinman's use of the term, which specifically refers to religious experience.

that is another lie from his little made up source of crap, he has not read Maslow i have, they are same thing, it;s B S to think mysticl experience only applies to religious experience and peak experience is secular nonsense. Had he really read marshmallow would know better.


He lies, he distorts information he says the same falsehoods as though they are facts with no attempt to document or prove. So he is banned, Next time he posts here I'll take it off.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
Dusty your arguments are really stupid, You think you can dismiss mystical experience because it's triggered by meditation That doesn't disprove it. That;s like saying math is just numbers so it's not true.


Joe Hinman said…
are going to tell students to stop insisting on the same stupid even after they have been disproved by quoting the experts?
Hoe "Dusty your arguments are really stupid, You think you can dismiss mystical experience because it's triggered by meditation That doesn't disprove it."
Straw man, not my argument, so not my "stupid".

I said you can call it whatever you want, in other words, the label doesn't matter, it's the brain state that matters and what it tells us about ourselves and potentially facts about the universe.

"That doesn't disprove it.""
You are the one who said "proves god". I never said "disproves god", merely that you have offered no argument I have seen here as to how this supposedly "proves god".

"are going to tell students to stop insisting on the same stupid even after they have been disproved by quoting the experts? "
Is that directed to me? It is a bit of a fragment and I don't really see the point in your question. How does quoting experts disprove things students insist on? That sounds like argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy strictly speaking, but has validity in a limited context. Maybe that is what you mean, that students should accept settled science as presented in the classroom, but even then I would encourage students to realize the provisional nature of all science, even the most accepted science that seems to be settled.

Still, how does any of this "prove god"?

You said this state "proves god". What is your rational argument for that claim? It should be very simple to state, yet I have seen no presentation here that this state somehow "proves god" as you claim it does.
Joe Hinman said…
I said you can call it whatever you want, in other words, the label doesn't matter, it's the brain state that matters and what it tells us about ourselves and potentially facts about the universe.

In the book sI give eight tie breakers, in the aritcle I linked to which youcan access (see the lattest blog post "my final word..." I talk about three of theml, The tie tie brekers disprove your point. read the article it's up on the blog now

"That doesn't disprove it.""
You are the one who said "proves god". I never said "disproves god", merely that you have offered no argument I have seen here as to how this supposedly "proves god".


I may have uttered those words but not inthe context of claiming to prove it I am not into proof.



"are going to tell students to stop insisting on the same stupid even after they have been disproved by quoting the experts? "

Is that directed to me? It is a bit of a fragment and I don't really see the point in your question. How does quoting experts disprove things students insist on?

if studenhts insit our ofr ignorance and experts way they are wrong,


That sounds like argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy strictly speaking, but has validity in a limited context.

(1) you do not understand the fllacy commonly called"apeal to authority: it edoes not applly to expert opinoin, (20) EXPERT OPNION ISNEVER ALLACIOIUS as such, A govem expert can make a fallacy it;snever a fallkacy tocalim expert opinon.


Maybe that is what you mean, that students should accept settled science as presented in the classroom, but even then I would encourage students to realize the provisional nature of all science, even the most accepted science that seems to be settled.

No skewptical sciece is not the only from of knowlede, experts can be in any field, experts are shoalrs with academic degrees who spend their oiives studyinga given discipline, kike me.

Still, how does any of this "prove god"?


sock puppet wht did I say above about proofvvs warrant? still not readking the text are you skepie?

You said this state "proves god". What is your rational argument for that claim? It should be very simple to state, yet I have seen no presentation here that this state somehow "proves god" as you claim it does.


Nooooo I didn't

12/12/2016 04:47:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Don McIntosh said…
"If you start with some religious conviction, and you then interpret the peak experience as a religious experience, and then claim that this experience constitutes warrant for belief (which is what Hinman does), that is nothing but circular reasoning."

Compare that with this:

If you start with some scientific hypothesis, and you then interpret certain data in light of that hypothesis, and then claim that this data constitutes evidence for that hypothesis (which is what scientists do), that is nothing but circular reasoning.
Joe "I may have uttered those words but not inthe context of claiming to prove it I am not into proof."
Ok, so you misspoke. This brain state does not "prove god" as you said it did. Well, at least we are making a little progress then.

" read the article it's up on the blog now"
"go read a book", or "go read an article" is very poor conversational argumentation. I can cite endless articles and books for you to go read that show how wrong you are. So there, I have proved you are wrong because I say some books and articles out there prove you are wrong. Are you now convinced you are wrong? Nope, didn't think so.

If you cannot succinctly make your own points in your own words then you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

"it;snever a fallkacy tocalim expert opinon."
Just because an "expert" says so does not make it true, and to claim it does is fallacious. If you have a point to make then use your own words, else I conclude you do not understand what you are saying.


"sock puppet wht did I say above about proofvvs warrant?"
"Joe Hinman said...
12/08/2016 10:46:00 AM
Atheists can have mystical experiences an that proves God all the more"
You said mystical experiences "proves god".

You said this brain state "proves god". Your words, not my "sock puppet".

Oh, wait, I think you are saying StardustyPsyche is a Skep sock puppet. No, first, you can read for linguistic style and realize two different authorships. Second, if you really care, you can go to The Skeptic Zone and see where I have strongly disagreed with the folks there, especially about the woo coming from Krauss about something from nothing.

"Nooooo I didn't"
Actually, you did, 12/08/2016 10:46:00 AM


Don McIntosh said...
12/12/2016 12:53:00 PM
"If you start with some religious conviction, and you then interpret the peak experience as a religious experience, and then claim that this experience constitutes warrant for belief (which is what Hinman does), that is nothing but circular reasoning."

Compare that with this:

If you start with some scientific hypothesis, and you then interpret certain data in light of that hypothesis, and then claim that this data constitutes evidence for that hypothesis (which is what scientists do), that is nothing but circular reasoning.

Hypothesis:
Magical pixies make helium balloons go up.
Observation:
Helium balloons go up.
Therefore belief in magical pixies is warranted.

Sorry Don and Joe, but you both are so clearly lacking in understanding of the scientific method that you are confusing it with confirmation bias of idle speculation.

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

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

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

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

The Meaning of the Manger

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition