Science, Naturalism,and Apologetics

Image result for debate



This is an exchange from the comment section from this blog,it is not a personal attack   against the commemorate. I post  because think it illustrates important points about how to deal with science in apologetics. Also I am sire the discussion will continue and all readers are urged to join.


Joe:
that's like saying "you keep criticizing capitalism but you have to use economics to do it."


Skep:
- No, Joe. It's actually more like saying "you keep criticizing capitalism, but you take advantage of the capitalist system whenever you find it economically worthwhile." This statement does not imply that capitalism is the only economic system. But it does point out a blatant hypocrisy.

Joe: there is no hypocrisy in being critical of science and using scientific thinking. The porpoise of criticism is to make science better. The use of science is limited to those areas where it applies. I don't use science to tell me about God because God is not under the domain of science,


Skep:
With regard to science, it's the same thing. You agree with the notion that "science purports to tell us how the physical world stacks up and wont allow any other method to introduce other kinds of truth" (your own words). But along comes somebody with this M-scale, which purports to be scientific, yet it violates the very precept of naturalism in science that you so despise.

Joe:
First of all naturalism is not science. It is not a methodology it's a philosophy;a metaphysical assumption. Rejecting naturalism and doing science is not a contradiction. You can do science and not be a naturalist.You claim to know so much about science and yet you don't even know the difference in philosophy and scientific method.

Secondly, there is nothing in M scale that opposes naturalism. It doesn't make any supernatural assumptions,it has nothing to do with the theory of naturalism. the M scale does not assume God exists.


Skep:
And you are quite happy to latch onto it, claiming that you have scientific backing for your non-naturalistic beliefs.
Joe:
In your,little cult of science worship the philosophical assumptions like naturalism are integral to science bit in real science they are not,,

These quotes say that naturalism is a philosophy,

the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy


The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944; Kim 2003).





Answer: Naturalism is the belief that all that exists in the universe is physical, material matter. There is no soul; we are just a complex collection of neurons. There is no Creator; there is evolution. And experiences like pain, pleasure, beauty, and a sense of self do not really exist. They are merely physiological reactions.
The philosophy of naturalism leads to several incomplete ways of thinking about the world. One of the most important concerns the philosophy of telos, or purpose. The Christian worldview holds that the purpose of a thing must be given to it by a higher authority. Since naturalism teaches there is no higher authority (no deity), it deduces that mankind, creation, and individuals have no purpose in life."
5/25/2018 08:00:00 AM



Joe:
The use of science is limited to those areas where it applies. I don't use science to tell me about God because God is not under the domain of science

Skep:
- That statement is inconsistent with your claims that the "scientific" M-scale gives you empirical evidence that provides warrant for believe in God.
Joe:
First of all naturalism is not science. It is not a methodology


Skep:
- That's right. And it is the metaphysical basis on which science is based. I never said otherwise.
Joe:
Secondly, there is nothing in M scale that opposes naturalism.

Skep:
- If it gives you reason to believe in something supernatural (which is your claim), then it is not a tool of science. Science does nor deal with the supernatural.
Joe:
In your,little cult of science worship the philosophical assumptions like naturalism are integral to science bit in real science they are not

Skep:
- See section 2 of the SEP article in naturalism (yes, the same one that you cited but didn't read). Science cannot proceed without a presumption that the physical world behaves in accordance with laws of naturalistic regularity.
5/25/2018 04:05:00 PM
 Delete
Blogger Joe Hinman said...

Joe:
The use of science is limited to those areas where it applies. I don't use science to tell me about God because God is not under the domain of science.

Skep:
- That statement is inconsistent with your claims that the "scientific" M-scale gives you empirical evidence that provides warrant for believe in God.
Joe:
Not at all inconsistent it just means you haven't bothered to follow the argent.No one ever said evidence for God has to be direct empirical observation of God. That's why it's called the 'trace' of God and not "the direct observation of God."

First of all naturalism is not science. It is not a methodology

Skep:
- That's right. And it is the metaphysical basis on which science is based. I never said otherwise.
Joe:
yes you did, You said M scale violated naturalism as though Naturalist is a methodology rather than a metaphysical assumption,

Secondly, there is nothing in M scale that opposes naturalism.

Skep:
- If it gives you reason to believe in something supernatural (which is your claim), then it is not a tool of science. Science does nor deal with the supernatural.

Joe:

that is based upon your misunderstanding of what SN is,

Me: "In your,little cult of science worship the philosophical assumptions like naturalism are integral to science bit in real science they are not"

Skep:
- See section 2 of the SEP article in naturalism (yes, the same one that you cited but didn't read). Science cannot proceed without a presumption that the physical world behaves in accordance with laws of naturalistic regularity.
Joe:
that is not naturalism: one can assume that the the world behaves with naturalistic regularity without makimng it a metaphysical assumption. Moreover, you can't account for such laws, the major point of my overall argument(remember the argument?) is to account for those laws. The only rational way to account for them is to see them as product of mind,

commentary: 
Christians can assume that God set up the natural world to function on its own. The reason is obvious, because if we know factually that God created the world it would make faith unnecessary and the quest for relationship with God would be undermined. God wants us to take a  journey of faith, That seems rather obvious  because the bible tells us 'we walk by faith and not by sight,"(2 Cor 5:7).

Science needs to assume naturalism in terms of it's operational understanding, otherwise we would not be studying the natural world. Moreover, God and science have separate domains of knowledge that  is what God meant to be, a world that functions on it's own, by naturalistic principles, but we do not have to make those principles into major metaphysical assumptions. We can keep them as operational assumptions for doing science. We can be aware that if Go works in the world we are moving beyond science into philosophy or theology when we talk about that.


Comments

Anonymous said…
Joe: In your,little cult of science worship the philosophical assumptions like naturalism are integral to science bit in real science they are not,,

Science is not a cult.

No one worships philosophical assumptions.

When you use BS like this, you only make yourself look like a ranting fundamentalist.

Joe: In your,little cult of science worship the philosophical assumptions like naturalism are integral to science bit in real science they are not,,

So go prove God! So far the best you can offer is a "warrant" for belief, which is better called a rationalisation! Go show us how anything can be shown to be true without naturalism.

Joe: Christians can assume that God set up the natural world to function on its own. The reason is obvious, because if we know factually that God created the world it would make faith unnecessary and the quest for relationship with God would be undermined. God wants us to take a journey of faith, That seems rather obvious because the bible tells us 'we walk by faith and not by sight,"(2 Cor 5:7).

This is called presuppositional apologetics, and I can see the appeal. But it does not hold up.

Science assumes methological naturalism, but every law in science supports that hypothesis. Every time someone tests the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, or whatever, they are testing all the assumptions of the hypothesis. If relativity is true and if naturalism is true, then what we would expect to see is this, and when we do the experiement, that is indeed what is observed. Every confirmation in science is a confirmation of naturalism.

Presuppositional apologetics does not have that. Once it does, you can hold it up as equivalent to science.

Joe: ... We can be aware that if Go works in the world we are moving beyond science into philosophy or theology when we talk about that.

Moving beyond reality and into the fantasy world of the author, you mean? Because that is what it is without evidence. You can philosophise all day long about what the universe might be, but without evidence, it is just opinion.

With regards to the M scale, that is merely a gauge; a way to quantify something. It gives no way to say where the experiences actually come from anymore than measuring the diameter of fruit tells us what country they came from. Sure we can say the fruit exist, and we can say mystical experiences happen. Bt a tool for quantifying them tells us nothing about their origins.
im-skeptical said…
Christians can assume that God set up the natural world to function on its own. The reason is obvious, because if we know factually that God created the world it would make faith unnecessary and the quest for relationship with God would be undermined. God wants us to take a journey of faith, That seems rather obvious because the bible tells us 'we walk by faith and not by sight,"(2 Cor 5:7).
- There's something amiss here. First, you are admitting that faith overrides science. It isn't philosophy that overrides science, but faith. That's what that biblical passage is saying. Faith is your basis for believing what you do about the creation of the world. And how do you justify that? By claiming that you know what God wants, which is (if you'll pardon the expression) a leap of faith. On what basis do you presume to know what God wants? How do you even know that there is a God in the first place (because you sure don't get that knowledge from science)? It's by faith. So what we have here is circular reasoning. You choose faith over science because it's what God wants. And you know it's what God wants because that's what faith tells you.


We can be aware that if Go works in the world we are moving beyond science into philosophy or theology when we talk about that.
- First, there are reasons science works on a presumption of methodological naturalism: 1) it's what we observe, and 2) without that presumption there would be no science at all. If it ever came to pass that God could intervene in the world, then it would change the pattern of behavior that we see. Scientific laws would not be valid. Behavior of physical things would not be predictable. But the fact of the matter is that they ARE predictable. Scientific laws are regarded as laws precisely because there are NEVER any observed violations of these patterns of behavior.

Second, you can assume that God works in the world in a manner that is fully consistent with naturalism, but then you have no way of showing the existence any such works, and you have no basis for making such an assumption. It's like assuming that there is a race of green humanoid creatures on the planet Zebulon in the galaxy Andromeda. You can believe it, and it might just be true. But then it might not. And you have no basis whatsoever for saying, one way or the other. That's because that race, if it exists, does not have any detectable impact on our world. If it did, then we'd have scientific evidence for it. But there is no such evidence. There is no reason for us to believe it. And until there is, I'm not going to bet the farm in it. It might be a matter of faith for you, but that's not how science works.
Joe Hinman said…
2 CommentsClose this windowJump to comment form
1 – 2 of 2
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: In your,little cult of science worship the philosophical assumptions like naturalism are integral to science bit in real science they are not,,

Science is not a cult.

I didn't say it was,I told Skepie (not you) he has a cult of science worship.

No one worships philosophical assumptions.

I did not say anything about that



When you use BS like this, you only make yourself look like a ranting fundamentalist.

Only to those of of you who don't bother to read carefully and who misconstrue what is said.

what do you make yourself look like when you clearly don't comprehend a sentence?





Joe: In your,little cult of science worship the philosophical assumptions like naturalism are integral to science bit in real science they are not.

given what was said above we need coma placement: "...little cult of science worship,,,, the philosophical assumption...", thus, "worship, the philosophical..." not "worship the philosophical..."

So go prove God! So far the best you can offer is a "warrant" for belief, which is better called a rationalisation! Go show us how anything can be shown to be true without naturalism.

No a warrant is clearly not a rationalization. To be a valid warrant it has to be more than just an excuse. If the argument appears to be just an excuse you are free to try and demonstrate how it is, you did not do it,because you can't,



Joe: Christians can assume that God set up the natural world to function on its own. The reason is obvious, because if we know factually that God created the world it would make faith unnecessary and the quest for relationship with God would be undermined. God wants us to take a journey of faith, That seems rather obvious because the bible tells us 'we walk by faith and not by sight,"(2 Cor 5:7).

This is called presuppositional apologetics, and I can see the appeal. But it does not hold up.

No it's not, it's actually miles apart from that. But you are assserting that presuperism is somehow in error you are going to have to prove that. But first you must prove they are same thing clearly they are not:

(1)Presupperism refuses to give evidence, it doesn't make arguments. I made an argument that is chock full of evidence,


(2) Presuperosm asserts the truth of it's own convictions with no attempt to justify it this whole idea of warrant is justification pure an simple.

(3) No pesuppoer uses any of the arguments I'm making,


Science assumes methological naturalism, but every law in science supports that hypothesis.

That's circular reasoning, Naturalism is assumed by science as the basis of it's limits. It's magesteria is defined by that assumption as an assumption, So it's not something scientific law proves, it's an assertion set forth from the start.


Every time someone tests the laws of thermodynamics, or relativity, or whatever, they are testing all the assumptions of the hypothesis. If relativity is true and if naturalism is true, then what we would expect to see is this, and when we do the experiement, that is indeed what is observed. Every confirmation in science is a confirmation of naturalism.

that is bull shit. Remember I distinguished between operational assumption of naturalism and the philosophy of I accept methodological for science, that's all that's proven by scientific study,

Joe Hinman said…
That is not Naturalism Issac Newton posited physical laws that govern nature he also believed in the cabala and the occultist ideas and SN,he believed the world is thought in the mind of God.

Saying some formulation of a law being true is not the same as saying this is the only basis of reality. Just because you believe in the inverse square law doens't mean that law is all there is. Naturalism is the assumption that natural processes observed in nature are the only processes there are.




Presuppositional apologetics does not have that. Once it does, you can hold it up as equivalent to science.

then obviously they are not the same,

Joe: ... We can be aware that if God works in the world we are moving beyond science into philosophy or theology when we talk about that.

Moving beyond reality and into the fantasy world of the author, you mean? Because that is what it is without evidence. You can philosophise all day long about what the universe might be, but without evidence, it is just opinion.


more circular reasoning,

With regards to the M scale, that is merely a gauge; a way to quantify something. It gives no way to say where the experiences actually come from anymore than measuring the diameter of fruit tells us what country they came from. Sure we can say the fruit exist, and we can say mystical experiences happen. Bt a tool for quantifying them tells us nothing about their origins.

Please take note of this because it only needs answering once unless of course is arguing with Skeptie, but I expect you to get it. The point of using the scale is to create a control so you can measure the effects of the experience. you can't say X is good for you if you don't know what X is. Once we have a control we can compare with experiential group we know X is good for us. The M scale makes no claim about God's existence.

My God arguments are baed upon X being good for you, Christianity claims X is good for you, so if that proves true that's a good reason to assume it's other claims are true as well. That's also enhanced by the fact that I can beat all the counter causality arguments. So the only rational reason for X being good is That God is real.





from anymore than measuring the diameter of fruit tells us what country they came from. Sure we can say the fruit exist, and we can say mystical experiences happen. Bt a tool for quantifying them tells us nothing about their origins.


Not analogous I just explained how it works, Remember It's warrant not proof, It doesn't prove God exists it warrants belief,
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Christians can assume that God set up the natural world to function on its own. The reason is obvious, because if we know factually that God created the world it would make faith unnecessary and the quest for relationship with God would be undermined. God wants us to take a journey of faith, That seems rather obvious because the bible tells us 'we walk by faith and not by sight,"(2 Cor 5:7).


- There's something amiss here. First, you are admitting that faith overrides science. It isn't philosophy that overrides science, but faith. That's what that biblical passage is saying.

No Bible passage talks about science, science didn't exist even in rudimentary form when the bible was written. Walking = life,it's a metaphor, I specifically said I was quoting it to prove that life is about a journey of faith, you are not listening,try to focus,


Faith is your basis for believing what you do about the creation of the world. And how do you justify that? By claiming that you know what God wants, which is (if you'll pardon the expression) a leap of faith. On what basis do you presume to know what God wants? How do you even know that there is a God in the first place (because you sure don't get that knowledge from science)? It's by faith. So what we have here is circular reasoning. You choose faith over science because it's what God wants. And you know it's what God wants because that's what faith tells you.


Once you accept the reality of Jesus the need for salvation, that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection from the basis upon winch salvation is bestowed then you are pretty much in the process of believing that Jesus shows us what God wants,


We can be aware that if Go works in the world we are moving beyond science into philosophy or theology when we talk about that.

we have to move beyond science to make spiritual progress, that doesn't mean do away with science. It just means science is not salvation. science deosn't lead us to God.


Joe Hinman said…
- First, there are reasons science works on a presumption of methodological naturalism: 1) it's what we observe, and 2) without that presumption there would be no science at all.

you really cannot follow a simple sentence, I said I support methodological naturalism.Even so that is not all we observe. WE also observe SN effects but you don't want that to be true so you privilege scientific observations and ignore the other,


If it ever came to pass that God could intervene in the world, then it would change the pattern of behavior that we see.

No it wouldn't. Because we observe Gods presence through phenomenological apprehension not through science. You are assuming that a miracle would mean it has to work all the time like it becomes a natural process that is just bonkers,


Scientific laws would not be valid. Behavior of physical things would not be predictable. But the fact of the matter is that they ARE predictable. Scientific laws are regarded as laws precisely because there are NEVER any observed violations of these patterns of behavior.

Utter rubbish, Scientific laws are inductive any way they are assumed through probability.

Second, you can assume that God works in the world in a manner that is fully consistent with naturalism, but then you have no way of showing the existence any such works, and you have no basis for making such an assumption.

Yes i do I've made that argument before,mystical experience is like that


It's like assuming that there is a race of green humanoid creatures on the planet Zebulon in the galaxy Andromeda. You can believe it, and it might just be true. But then it might not. And you have no basis whatsoever for saying, one way or the other. That's because that race, if it exists, does not have any detectable impact on our world. If it did, then we'd have scientific evidence for it. But there is no such evidence. There is no reason for us to believe it. And until there is, I'm not going to bet the farm in it. It might be a matter of faith for you, but that's not how science works.


My personal experience arguments show why that is not analogous. Because it affects our lives in the deepest and most profound way. The guys on zebulon have no effect or affect on my life at all.Knowing God is real clearly is transfomative knowledge it changes us deeply and profoundly for the better.
im-skeptical said…
I didn't say it was,I told Skepie (not you) he has a cult of science worship.
- Science is not a cult.


No Bible passage talks about science
- It is talking about empirical evidence - "we walk by faith and not by sight" - in other words, what we would call science today. It puts faith above science.


Once you accept the reality of Jesus the need for salvation, that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection from the basis upon winch salvation is bestowed then you are pretty much in the process of believing that Jesus shows us what God wants
- In your mind you believe that you know what God wants. There's still no objective basis for it.


we have to move beyond science to make spiritual progress, that doesn't mean do away with science. It just means science is not salvation. science deosn't lead us to God.
- You think you need to be saved. That's a shame. I don't.


Even so that is not all we observe. WE also observe SN effects but you don't want that to be true so you privilege scientific observations and ignore the other
- If we observe something, then it is subject to scientific investigation. There is no objective observation of SN effects.


Because we observe Gods presence through phenomenological apprehension not through science.
- What YOU observe is in your mind. It's not objective.


My personal experience arguments show why that is not analogous. Because it affects our lives in the deepest and most profound way.
- Prove it.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
I didn't say it was,I told Skepie (not you) he has a cult of science worship.

- Science is not a cult.

your science worship cult is a cult


No Bible passage talks about science

- It is talking about empirical evidence - "we walk by faith and not by sight" - in other words, what we would call science today. It puts faith above science.

no its not, ancient world had no concept of empirical proof that was from science,It's talking about what we see in reality but not in the senes of a proof,


Once you accept the reality of Jesus the need for salvation, that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection from the basis upon winch salvation is bestowed then you are pretty much in the process of believing that Jesus shows us what God wants


- In your mind you believe that you know what God wants. There's still no objective basis for it.

obviously there is, the words on the page, Jesus in real life in history those were objective facts, we don't need one because we have freedom from the need to prove since we live the reality,


we have to move beyond science to make spiritual progress, that doesn't mean do away with science. It just means science is not salvation. science deosn't lead us to God.


- You think you need to be saved. That's a shame. I don't.

that's what the fool says in his heart. I am saved you are not. you reject the salvation therein front of you.that's a lot sadder.


Even so that is not all we observe. WE also observe SN effects but you don't want that to be true so you privilege scientific observations and ignore the other


- If we observe something, then it is subject to scientific investigation. There is no objective observation of SN effects.Because we observe Gods presence through phenomenological apprehension not through science.


- What YOU observe is in your mind. It's not objective.


the 200 studies prove it;s real. it's a measurable change in people through the experience,


My personal experience arguments show why that is not analogous. Because it affects our lives in the deepest and most profound way.

- Prove it.


I just did dumb shit, first through the TS argument that flattened you and your partner, then the 200 studies that prove the experience is trnsformative
The Pixie said…
I am going to pass on the science as religion thing. It obviously is not, and it is equally obvious you accused im-skeptical of being part of such a religion.

Joe: No a warrant is clearly not a rationalization. To be a valid warrant it has to be more than just an excuse. If the argument appears to be just an excuse you are free to try and demonstrate how it is, you did not do it,because you can't,

It is a rtationalisation. You have decided in advance what conclusion you want to reach, and then cherry-pick the evidence, declaring that gives you warrant to maintain your belief. And as part of that process, you insist alternative hypotheses must be proven or discarded.

We saw exactly this with the consciousness issue. There are some things that offer support to your pet theory of universal mind, but there is just as much, if not more, supporting naturalistic emergence. You claim warrant for the former because that is what you had already decided was true. The argument, the warrant, was just rationalising that position.

Joe: No it's not, it's actually miles apart from that. But you are assserting that presuperism is somehow in error you are going to have to prove that. But first you must prove they are same thing clearly they are not:

...


Presuppositional apologetics is founded on the assumption that the Christian God exists, that that is a brute fact that does not need to be proven. That is exactly what you are doing, when you say; "Christians can assume that God set up the natural world to function on its own.". Sure, the arguments they make are quite different, but the basis, the reason they are called "presuppositional apologetics" is the same.

I am saying "presuppositional apologetics" is wrong because that assumption is unsupported.

Joe: That's circular reasoning, Naturalism is assumed by science as the basis of it's limits. It's magesteria is defined by that assumption as an assumption, So it's not something scientific law proves, it's an assertion set forth from the start.

No it is not, it is science. The scientific method invokes assuming a hypothesis is true, and on that basis making predictions, and then testing how those predictions match reality. Naturalism is just the same. And because every prediction in science assumes naturalism, every confirmed prediction supports naturalism (but see below).

Joe: that is bull shit. Remember I distinguished between operational assumption of naturalism and the philosophy of I accept methodological for science, that's all that's proven by scientific study,

How is it "bull shit" Joe? Because you assert it is?

Joe: Saying some formulation of a law being true is not the same as saying this is the only basis of reality. Just because you believe in the inverse square law doens't mean that law is all there is. Naturalism is the assumption that natural processes observed in nature are the only processes there are.

Fair comment. To be clear, when science confirms naturalism, all it is confirming - but not proving - is that that there is nothing supernatural involved in those processes it has properly studied.
The Pixie said…
Joe: My God arguments are baed upon X being good for you, Christianity claims X is good for you, so if that proves true that's a good reason to assume it's other claims are true as well. That's also enhanced by the fact that I can beat all the counter causality arguments. So the only rational reason for X being good is That God is real.

So you are saying Christianity claims mystical experiences are good for you, given they are good for you, then it follows that Jesus is the son of God was was resurrected? That is quite a reach.

Firstly, what counts as a mystical experience is filtered to only include those experiences that are good and life-affirming. Therefore it necessarily follows that all mystical experiences are good and life-affirming.

Secondly all religions claim them. Therefore mystical experiences support Hinduism just as much as Christianity.

Thirdly the fact that certain drugs give similar effects is pretty good evidence mystical experiences are caused by chemicals in the brain.

Joe: the 200 studies prove it;s real. it's a measurable change in people through the experience,

200 studies prove people have mystical experiences, but none of them prove they come from God.
im-skeptical said…
your science worship cult is a cult
- I was always puzzled by claims like this. You seem to be saying that having some object of worship is a bad thing, so I must be just as bad as you are. But I'm not. I don't worship anything. That's what you do. If you want to be fair, you should criticize your fellow Christians for their participation in a cult.


no its not, ancient world had no concept of empirical proof that was from science,It's talking about what we see in reality but not in the senes of a proof
- Once again, you ignore the point I make. (So what else is new?) Put on your thinking cap and pay attention for once. The point is not whether science was developed at that time. It is the idea that faith takes precedence over what is empirically observed. And it holds true to this day, when we do have science.


obviously there is, the words on the page, Jesus in real life in history those were objective facts, we don't need one because we have freedom from the need to prove since we live the reality
- After all this talk about mystical experience - now you're telling me that you believe this stuff because the bible tells you. Which is it, Joe?


that's what the fool says in his heart. I am saved you are not. you reject the salvation therein front of you.that's a lot sadder
- It's sad to you that people can think for themselves. Why don't you take your bible's advice and rejoice in my eternal damnation?


the 200 studies prove it;s real. it's a measurable change in people through the experience
- No, Joe. We've been through all this. What the M-scale measures is the experience itself. It does not measure any change in people who have the experience. And your 200 studies do little more than make an association between spiritual mindset and various beneficial lifestyles. They certainly do not establish any causal linkage between mystical experience and these lifestyles.


I just did dumb shit, first through the TS argument that flattened you and your partner, then the 200 studies that prove the experience is trnsformative
- No. That isn't proven, or even claimed by those studies. That is strictly your own unscientific interpretation. There is no objective basis for your claims.
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger im-skeptical said...
your science worship cult is a cult

- I was always puzzled by claims like this. You seem to be saying that having some object of worship is a bad thing, so I must be just as bad as you are. But I'm not. I don't worship anything. That's what you do. If you want to be fair, you should criticize your fellow Christians for their participation in a cult.

There is only one fit object of worship: God. worshiping something other than God is called idolatry.


no its not, ancient world had no concept of empirical proof that was from science,It's talking about what we see in reality but not in the senes of a proof

- Once again, you ignore the point I make. (So what else is new?) Put on your thinking cap and pay attention for once. The point is not whether science was developed at that time. It is the idea that faith takes precedence over what is empirically observed. And it holds true to this day, when we do have science.

I guess this is idea is just beyond your intellectual capacity it;s probably useless trying to explain it to you but, we walk by faith and not by sight is about risk taking and trusting God. We don't base risk upon mere appearance but we trust God's ability to help. that's very different than merely denying scientific facts, science can be away of avoiding reality,


obviously there is, the words on the page, Jesus in real life in history those were objective facts, we don't need one because we have freedom from the need to prove since we live the reality

- After all this talk about mystical experience - now you're telling me that you believe this stuff because the bible tells you. Which is it, Joe?

you are so stupid, it;s just not worth my time


Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
the 200 studies prove it;s real. it's a measurable change in people through the experience

Here is a link to an Clarice I wrote for an academic journal showing what the M scale is, who those 200 studies were done why that matters and what they show. This is far more than the uninformed uneducated doufus will make about them,


link here

- No, Joe. We've been through all this.


we have been through your ignorant little lies about studies you know nothing about and have never read.You still refuse to learn. You are going to continue making those idiotic uniformed statements because that;all you are capable of doing

What the M-scale measures is the experience itself.


that's what i already said Trump.Stop premeditate like you have some original insight, you know nothing, nothing at all.

It does not measure any change in people who have the experience.

Obviously it does since you can;t establish that one has had an experience without establishing a difference. But even so it would still be necessary to know what you are measuring, there are studies that also administer other measures for self actualization.

And your 200 studies do little more than make an association between spiritual mindset and various beneficial lifestyl es.

show me any document that talks about:life style in relation to Mscale.

what the hell is a 'spiritual mindset"? show the study that establishes that the m scale has anything to do with that,I know for fact that is just some nonsense you confuted, or probably read it in an Austin Cline article.



They certainly do not establish any causal linkage between mystical experience and these lifestyles.

which one of those 200 studies is about life styles? show me the study name it,who is the author?


I just did dumb shit, first through the TS argument that flattened you and your partner, then the 200 studies that prove the experience is trnsformative


- No. That isn't proven, or even claimed by those studies. That is strictly your own unscientific interpretation. There is no objective basis for your claims.

you don;t even know what the phrase means, that is exactly what the studies show,

you make yourself look stupid every time


he just said beige trnsfomrative is not even claimed in the studies,I;ve Showen him these lists over and over again,lists by to of the studies showing the trnsformative nature of the experience,

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)

(2)Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

he can;t document a dman thing.

7th Stooge said…
- Science is not a cult.

No one ever said that science itself is a cult. There is a cult OF science, created by people who hold science as the object of cult-like reverence. If there is an Elvis cult, that doesn't mean that Elvis himself was a cult. Hope this helps.
7th Stooge said…
Secondly all religions claim them. Therefore mystical experiences support Hinduism just as much as Christianity.

Thirdly the fact that certain drugs give similar effects is pretty good evidence mystical experiences are caused by chemicals in the brain.

I think Joe's arguing ecumenically, ie that the same beneficial effects are there regardless of the religious tradition. That we see the same effects in all cultures can be used in an abductive way to say that there is something real there that's universal to humans, some sort of predisposition. This predsposition can be explained in various ways. Joe thinks this universality of positive effects points to God as the best inference. I'm not so sure.

Of course positive mental states have to be realized through or by means of chemicals in the brain. If I feel elated because I just won a million dollars, there are chemicals that are causing this feeling, but that chemical profile is caused by my winning the money.
Joe Hinman said…
excellent points 7. I will answer the chemical argument in the post on Monday, but your answers are essentially in line with mine.

As for mystical experiences ad other faiths, I devote a whole chapter to this in the book ,the last chapter. That is like saying the fine running argument can;t tell us about God because it cloud be true equally for all belief in God. Same universe is fine turnned for Hindus as sell as Christians.

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?