My Religious Experience God argumemt

Image result for debate

On Metacrock's blog I put up a post for two atheists I had challenged on You Tube,I am still awaiting their arrival. Old Skepie could not resist the urge to argue with me just one more time. He feels it's time for me to give him another debate lesson. I want the space on my blog clear for those I challenged so I'm moving the debate with Skep here.

I will summaries the two arguments.

Argument: Tier 1: co determinate
(1) The affects and effects of mystical experience are real in that they are measurably transformative in a positive sense.
(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.
(3)Since the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations and the affects are real we should assume that they are genuine experiences of something transcendent of our own minds.
(4)Since mystical experience is usually experience of something, the Holy, the sacred, or some sort of greater transcendent reality we should assume that the origin of the experience is rooted in transcendent reality. 
(5)Since mystical experience is usually about the divine we can assume a divine origin.
This fulfills the criteria for the trace: therefore, e are warranted in asserting that mystical experience is the trace of God, and this gives us warrant for belief in God. 

200 studies from peer reviewer academic journals that show religious experience  is good for you, it is transformative in that it  transforms one's life dramatically in a positive sense;  it is not mental illness it is not a trick of the mind.Given this data lief religious belief or belief in God is rationally warranted, in so far as people are exercising these results as a direct effect of their encounter with the devine. 
Tier 2: criteria for epistemic judgement
(1) we trust perceptions that work for us in navigating the world
(2) we judge by criteria RCS*
(3) Religious experience fits this criteria*
(4 )enables navigation
(5) :. we are warranted to trust RE as indicative re is regular,constant and shared thus we can trust it, to reflect reality,
The same studies discussed above  show that demonstrate RE fits this criteria of epistemic judgement.
*I am saying we habitually apply an instinctive criteria to experiences that I call RCS = regular, consistent,and shared (inter-subjective). When experiences are regular, consistent and shared (that is either others experience the same phenomena or their own experiences are similar)

*I am speaking mainly of mystical experience.

You  can see the supporting material for my argument here:
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/08/god-arguments-for-underlings-and.html

Here are the arguments Skep made in attacking:


Blogger im-skeptical said...
(1) The affects and effects of mystical experience are real in that they are measurably transformative in a positive sense.- Please cite references to these measurements of transformation. I don't believe any such measurements exist. Furthermore, even if such measurements did exist, there is still no demonstrated causal linkage, which means that any transformation that occurs may not be caused by the experience itself. As I have pointed out, most REAL psychologists believe that these transformations correlated with ME, but are actually caused by other factors.for example thye 
Meta: Most of those studies are quantitative so they make a quantitative comparison, for example the Wuthnow studies shows 21% difference in all the factors positively assessed as "transformative." For example those who score more self actualized after their experience are at least scoring 21% higher on the self actualization score. I have included many such stats in chapter 2 of my book.
(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.- Why not? Your basis for this claim seems to be the assertion "No alternate or naturalistic causality could be proven", but it is also true that no supernatural causality can be proven. So this is merely an empty claim that fails to prove your point.

Meta: Actually nothing can be proven, out side of math and formal logic. Any time anyone argues about proving thing's understood the claim is warrant rather than proof.  I have established long ago that this is what my arguments aim for. The word proof for a debater is like the word "good" for most people. 
In terms of the claim there are  no  naturalistic explanations put forward. No atheist  has shown me any, not Skepie by any means, I have not found one and I have looked. There is no natural causality that explains the effects.
(3)Since the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations and the affects are real we should assume that they are genuine experiences of something transcendent of our own minds.- Independent of other explanations? Only by a faulty process of reasoning. You have to ignore the greater scientific community, and cherry-pick your facts, and then jump to an alternative explanation (the transcendental) that is entirely unsupported by any factual data, to make such an assertion. The greater scientific community, working with a more comprehensive body of facts, makes no such conclusion.
Meta: These are all tall claims and they are based entirely upon assertion with NO data to back it up. He hopes the studies are out there to dash this mystical stuff on the head, but he hasn't seen them because if he had he would be talking about them. None of the hundreds of atheists I have argued with on this topic have produced them, not even the academic psychologists who argue with  Dr. Hood.  The closest study I've seen to this was the Borg study (that's her real name she is from Sweden). I tore that study to pieces, it's in my book. The score they used to measure mystical experience was not deigned for that but for  mental illness. They assumed religious experience was mental illness so they didn't bother to delineate. So a priori they are not measuring  religious  experience.  That finding is contradicted by a host of studies, For my  analysis of Borg see The Trace of God (309).
--You have to ignore the greater scientific community, and cherry-pick your facts,...The greater scientific community, working with a more comprehensive body of facts, makes no such conclusion.

Meta: Skeptical is clearly ignorant of the findings of he scientific community, there is no such standardized scientific coda that says "thou shalt disbelieve in God and thou shalt never appeal to God as an  explanation. You think your ideology is part of science because you worship science. That doesn't give you any special knowledge of the protocols of scientific epistemology. Scientists do not refrain from supporting arguments for the existence of God because they think some bible of science tells them not to,some scientific 10 commandments...  But because it's beyond their domain, I happen to know that Ralph Hood believes in God ye in his book he writes it's not his job as a scientist to argue for God but he does privately. The majority of scientists believe in God [1]The the body of academic studies I talk about is the consensus of the scientific community on religious experience. 
God arguments,

--then jump to an alternative explanation (the transcendental) that is entirely unsupported by any factual data,
Meta: Here we see Skeptical has an absurd notion of how scientific data is  to be used. He thinks his devotion as a science worshiper gives him  special privileges to makes metaphysical claims about the lack of a God but debars me from using scientist data to support my belief in God. That is nothing more than special pleading!

im-skeptical 


(4)Since mystical experience is usually experience of something, the Holy, the sacred, or some sort of greater transcendent reality we should assume that the origin of the experience is rooted in transcendent reality.- Actually, these experiences are the reflection of a certain type mental state. As Maslow and many others (including those you cite in your 200 studies) point out, these experiences are not necessarily interpreted as being religious. But even if they were, there is still no legitimate basis to assume that they are caused by something transcendental.

Meta: Being "a cert am type of mental state" does not disprove them. It's a mental state all people wind up in at one time or another to one degree or another. The vast majority of the experiences are understood as religious. Atheists do have them. For some those experiences are conversion experiences, The bottom line they all react the same way, they all react in the same way and find the experiences transformative  even when they don't call them religious. The identification of religious in all of these studies is self imposed, the people themselves say it not the researcher.

im-skeptical 

(5)Since mystical experience is usually about the divine we can assume a divine origin.- This is a blatant logical fallacy. It's like saying that a book about God must be written by God. You can have a mental image of something that is not caused by that thing.

Meta: It's totally different These studies only deal with people who had the experience. Anyone can write a book, you don't have to have experienced God to write a book about God but these are experiences of people who say they did encounter the divine. You have no data. you have no study that  backs your opinion,You are only asserting it because you can't accept reality, your world view is disproved.

My statement was about the content of the experience. you are implying that they are lying about results? that is not possible statistically. The studies show something happens as a result of the experience.



[1]Neil Gross and Solon Simmons,"How Religious are America’s College and University Professors?" (Published on: Feb 06, 2007 )
http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf


Neil Gross is assistant professor of sociology at Harvard University. He works on classical and contemporary sociological theory, the sociology of culture, and the sociology of intellectuals. His first book, tentatively titled Richard Rorty's Pragmatism: The Social Origins of a Philosophy, 1931-1982, is forthcoming. 
Solon Simmons is assistant professor of conflict analysis and sociology at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. His recent work has focused on values talk in congressional speeches, third party political candidates, industrial reorganization and the ongoing conservative critique of American higher education


Comments

im-skeptical said…
Well, Joe. As usual, you have done a pretty good job of diverting attention away from the issuse I raised, and utterly failing to provide any meaningful answers. Let's take another look.

1). Most of those studies are quantitative so they make a quantitative comparison, for example the Wuthnow studies shows 21% difference in all the factors positively assessed as "transformative." For example those who score more self actualized after their experience are at least scoring 21% higher on the self actualization score. I have included many such stats in chapter 2 of my book.
- No. Most of them do not make any such measurements. Wuthrow might come the closest, but that does not resolve the issue. Exactly what measurements were made? I'm not tlaking about self-reported feelings of actualization. I'm talking about actual measurements that show transformation of the subject. What were the criteria, and how were they measured? Dis they actually measure before and after the experience? Who did them, and how were they done? You have answered NONE of this. Nor have you addressed the other part of the issue I raised: How do you know it was the experience itself and not some other causal factor that is responsible for producing these results? As I said, the broader community of scientists (including psychologists) generally believe that there is a physical cause for any effects that we observe.

2). Actually nothing can be proven, out side of math and formal logic. Any time anyone argues about proving thing's understood the claim is warrant rather than proof. I have established long ago that this is what my arguments aim for. The word proof for a debater is like the word "good" for most people.
- We are in complete agreement on this. But your stated reason for rejecting the naturalistic explanation is the lack of proof, yet you don't reject the "transcendental" explanation for the same reason. Why is that?

In terms of the claim there are no naturalistic explanations put forward. No atheist has shown me any, not Skepie by any means, I have not found one and I have looked. There is no natural causality that explains the effects.
- As I said, you ignore the broader scientific community, and focus only on your cherry-picked information. Of course there are naturalistic explanations. They have been studied scientifically since the beginning of the 20th century. Haven't you ever heard the claims that these experiences have electro-chemical causes? The simple fact that you reject all such explanations does not mean they don't exist. You just ignore them.
im-skeptical said…
3). These are all tall claims and they are based entirely upon assertion with NO data to back it up. He hopes the studies are out there to dash this mystical stuff on the head, but he hasn't seen them because if he had he would be talking about them. None of the hundreds of atheists I have argued with on this topic have produced them, not even the academic psychologists who argue with Dr. Hood. The closest study I've seen to this was the Borg study (that's her real name she is from Sweden). I tore that study to pieces, it's in my book. The score they used to measure mystical experience was not deigned for that but for mental illness. They assumed religious experience was mental illness so they didn't bother to delineate. So a priori they are not measuring religious experience. That finding is contradicted by a host of studies, For my analysis of Borg see The Trace of God (309). ... Skeptical is clearly ignorant of the findings of he scientific community ...
- Your claim is that "the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations". Those are your exact words. But you have presented not a scintilla of data to back up YOUR claim. How do you know what causal factors are in play? What is your basis for rejecting all natural causes? The only "tall claim" I'm making is that you haven't presented any reasonable data as the basis for YOUR claims". And my data consists of your article, which is in fact devoid of any such data. If you have it, please tell us what it is. And stop trying to divert away from your own failure to back your claims by calling me ignorant.

4). Being "a cert am type of mental state" does not disprove them. It's a mental state all people wind up in at one time or another to one degree or another. The vast majority of the experiences are understood as religious. Atheists do have them. For some those experiences are conversion experiences, The bottom line they all react the same way, they all react in the same way and find the experiences transformative even when they don't call them religious. The identification of religious in all of these studies is self imposed, the people themselves say it not the researcher.
- I didn't say the existence of these experiences is disproved. My point is that they are produced by a mental state - not by "something, the Holy, the sacred, or some sort of greater transcendent reality", that you can't even define properly. And it is not true that everybody reacts the same way to them. They are not always seen as religious. They are not always transformative. Your own studies tell you that, and you just ignore it.

5). It's totally different These studies only deal with people who had the experience. Anyone can write a book, you don't have to have experienced God to write a book about God but these are experiences of people who say they did encounter the divine. You have no data. you have no study that backs your opinion,You are only asserting it because you can't accept reality, your world view is disproved.
- This is not about data. It is not about my opinion. It is just a blatant logical fallacy that because an experience is "about" ths divine, then it must be "caused by" the divine. Once again. you are diverting from the real issue.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...?
Well, Joe. As usual, you have done a pretty good job of diverting attention away from the issuse I raised, and utterly failing to provide any meaningful answers. Let's take another look.

you live in your own little bubble.it's only about you. I made the argument i know what the issues are. you are trying to change the subject to turf you think you can win on


1). Most of those studies are quantitative so they make a quantitative comparison, for example the Wuthnow studies shows 21% difference in all the factors positively assessed as "transformative." For example those who score more self actualized after their experience are at least scoring 21% higher on the self actualization score. I have included many such stats in chapter 2 of my book.

- No. Most of them do not make any such measurements.

You've never read one. you have no way of knowing that, it;sj just another case of your pretension leading you to assert a knowledge you don';t possess,


Wuthrow might come the closest, but that does not resolve the issue. Exactly what measurements were made? I'm not talking about self-reported feelings of actualization. I'm talking about actual measurements that show transformation of the subject. What were the criteria, and how were they measured? Dis they actually measure before and after the experience?

How many times do you have to explaimn this to you? I've explained it every time you I doubt that you are eve reading this.there are standard measurements for self actualization, they are tests that one takes. Several other studies administered those measurements to subjects and the subjects who had mystical experience and scored high on M scale scored higher on the other tests than those who did not score high on M scale.

Your assertion that answering a question is self reporting and self reporting means they are lying has been disproved several times,Most social science research is conducted with self administered studies.
--[1]



Who did them, and how were they done?

I've discussed that many many times,bibliography to my article summarizes my book. [2]

a list of studies I use not done by Hood on religious a priori.--[3] --

First go read the Wuthnow study then we'll talk about the others, that study alone is enough, you have 0 studies

You have answered NONE of this.

I wrote a whole book about it dumbass!, The latter two bibs have always been available for free. I've pointed this out penurious ties,


Nor have you addressed the other part of the issue I raised: How do you know it was the experience itself and not some other causal factor that is responsible for producing these results?

You did not say that, that issue is not in the questions in this comment section,the answer is because. All the respondents attribute the changes in their lives to the mystical experience they have, There is no basic reason offered for any alternate causes. It's your burden of proof to how there's some reason to suspect another cause and to show what that cause is. Absurd to think all those different people would miss it,



As I said, the broader community of scientists (including psychologists) generally believe that there is a physical cause for any effects that we observe.


You have no actual evidence for that,You don't see it written anywhere,


2). Actually nothing can be proven, out side of math and formal logic. Any time anyone argues about proving thing's understood the claim is warrant rather than proof. I have established long ago that this is what my arguments aim for. The word proof for a debater is like the word "good" for most people.
- We are in complete agreement on this. But your stated reason for rejecting the naturalistic explanation is the lack of proof, yet you don't reject the "transcendental" explanation for the same reason. Why is that?


Joe Hinman said…
Only one theory has ever been offered to explain the actual nature of the experience itself that only explains part of it.The idea that the sense of undifferentiated unity cones from detachment of sense of self from the mechanism that senses the world qt large, might be true but that doesn't even explain sense of the numinous let alone why they produces the transformation effects.The tie breakers answer all of those,You haven't answered a single tie breaker,

In terms of the claim there are no naturalistic explanations put forward. No atheist has shown me any, not Skepie by any means, I have not found one and I have looked. There is no natural causality that explains the effects.
- As I said, you ignore the broader scientific community, and focus only on your cherry-picked information.

(1)I spend 7 years researching the the book I did research it (unlike you). (2)Dr. Hood was my consultant, he agrees there is no such evidence if there was he be hit with it,


Of course there are naturalistic explanations. They have been studied scientifically since the beginning of the 20th century.

No there are failed attempts at explaining it and theories I;e disproved and Hood has disproved,but hey it;s your burden to bring them! HINTING THAT SUCH THINGS EXIST AND DARING ME TO FIND THEM IS NOT AN ARGUMENT IT DOESN'T SAVE YOUR BACON,


Haven't you ever heard the claims that these experiences have electro-chemical causes? The simple fact that you reject all such explanations does not mean they don't exist. You just ignore them.

How many many times do I have to hit you over the head with this? I've answered it in the article which is there on religious a priori waiting for you? You refuse to read it. [4]

Secondly it is the whole of chapter seen in the book,


(3) the eight tie breakers are designed to around it,








[1] Defending the M scale

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/08/defense-of-m-scale.html

see answers 1-6


[2] Bibliography: "The Empirical Study of Mystical Experience" Religiious A priori no date liksted. iblishedin two parts, eachhas bibliogrophy.



part one


Part two


[3] List if studies (100+) not Hood. Hood has done 50 they are on his CV. In addition to them I complied a lost of over than 100 other studies,


[4]the article on Religious a priori

see the links in [2] read the article
Joe Hinman said…
Meta:3). These are all tall claims and they are based entirely upon assertion with NO data to back it up. He hopes the studies are out there to dash this mystical stuff on the head, but he hasn't seen them because if he had he would be talking about them. None of the hundreds of atheists I have argued with on this topic have produced them, not even the academic psychologists who argue with Dr. Hood. The closest study I've seen to this was the Borg study (that's her real name she is from Sweden). I tore that study to pieces, it's in my book. The score they used to measure mystical experience was not deigned for that but for mental illness. They assumed religious experience was mental illness so they didn't bother to delineate. So a priori they are not measuring religious experience. That finding is contradicted by a host of studies, For my analysis of Borg see The Trace of God (309). ... Skeptical is clearly ignorant of the findings of he scientific community ...

Skep
- Your claim is that "the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations". Those are your exact words. But you have presented not a scintilla of data to back up YOUR claim. How do you know what causal factors are in play?

Still can't understand the way argument works. you can't make a claim then allege the other guy has a burden to prove it's not true. If you make a claim you must prove it.


What is your basis for rejecting all natural causes?

That is an excitedly foolish statement as I never denied all natural causes! I deny that nature alone unaided can produce the effects we see in the religious experience. I've demonstrated ample reason to think so. The 8 tie breakers for one thing. The fact that there are NO studies offering explanations for any of the life transforming effects,

The only "tall claim" I'm making is that you haven't presented any reasonable data as the basis for YOUR claims". And my data consists of your article, which is in fact devoid of any such data. If you have it, please tell us what it is. And stop trying to divert away from your own failure to back your claims by calling me ignorant.

do you think I don't see what you are doing? you are incompetent and lazy and you can't force yourself to read the article so you thin you can goad me into quoting the stats so you can make little knit pick testaments about it and lie about it's value as research,

4). Being "a cert am type of mental state" does not disprove them. It's a mental state all people wind up in at one time or another to one degree or another. The vast majority of the experiences are understood as religious. Atheists do have them. For some those experiences are conversion experiences. The bottom line they all react the same way, they all react in the same way and find the experiences transformative even when they don't call them religious. The identification of religious in all of these studies is self imposed, the people themselves say it not the researcher.
Joe Hinman said…


- I didn't say the existence of these experiences is disproved. My point is that they are produced by a mental state - not by "something, the Holy, the sacred, or some sort of greater transcendent reality",


(1) You don't know what a mental state is,you are trying to imply that that makes it some kind of internal condition (mental illness? that's ruled out by over 25 studies). ()(2) You are makimng a faith based statement, you have no data, study,or expert opinion to back it up. You have never met a prima acie burden for any argument,
(3)I discussed in the article Hood;s argument for an external cause, for which you have no answer. the universal nature of the experience rules out culture or inventor, there is no data to support a genetic solution's,the tie breakers rule out brain chemistry,



that you can't even define properly. And it is not true that everybody reacts the same way to them. They are not always seen as religious. They are not always transformative. Your own studies tell you that, and you just ignore it.

you are basing that on your prejudices nothing more. That is exotically what Hood's studies prove they do all react the same way, they have essentially the same experience, they try to explain them different but the experience is the same.

The fact that I have given you this answer over and over again snows me you can't learn,




5).Neta It's totally different These studies only deal with people who had the experience. Anyone can write a book, you don't have to have experienced God to write a book about God but these are experiences of people who say they did encounter the divine. You have no data. you have no study that backs your opinion,You are only asserting it because you can't accept reality, your world view is disproved.

Skep- This is not about data. It is not about my opinion. It is just a blatant logical fallacy that because an experience is "about" ths divine, then it must be "caused by" the divine. Once again. you are diverting from the real issue.


If an experience has real effects it;s an experience of something real.This experience has real quantifiable effects,the content of the experience is the divine, therefore, we a reason to assume the real cause is the divine. You have to deny a\t all cost due to fear of hell(?) but you have no data of any kind to back up your denies, You resort to logic. Logic says if the experience is real then it's caused by a real cause. The people who actually have the experience overwhelmingly say they experienced God. Your only reason for denying it is a sleigh illogical and unrehearsed personal need to deny God.
im-skeptical said…
(1)I spend 7 years researching the the book I did research it (unlike you). (2)Dr. Hood was my consultant, he agrees there is no such evidence if there was he be hit with it
- Now ask the broader scientific community. They will tell you in no uncertain termd that Hood is WRONG. The fact is that both yoi and Hood choose to ignore the science that points to naturalistic explanations.

No there are failed attempts at explaining it and theories I;e disproved and Hood has disproved,but hey it;s your burden to bring them! HINTING THAT SUCH THINGS EXIST AND DARING ME TO FIND THEM IS NOT AN ARGUMENT IT DOESN'T SAVE YOUR BACON
- My bacon doesn't need any saving, thank you. But if you make claims that ignore the majority of scientists, it's YOU who needs to prove your point.

How many many times do I have to hit you over the head with this? I've answered it in the article which is there on religious a priori waiting for you? You refuse to read it. [4]
- The mere fact that you write an article does not negate the truth that you are ignoring a wealth scientific information in favor of one guy in particular who has a religious agenda, and says what you want to hear. And please don't try to tell me that Hood has no religious agenda.

(3) the eight tie breakers are designed to around it
- In the real world of science, naturalism is the clear winner - because that's where the evidence points. The idea that there is a "tie" to be broken is pure bullshit.

Still can't understand the way argument works. you can't make a claim then allege the other guy has a burden to prove it's not true. If you make a claim you must prove it.
- The claim I made is that you didn't present the data to back up YOUR claim. And you didn't. Let me tell YOU how argumentatiion works. You make a claim, and it's up to you to substantiate that claim. If you don't, then I can call you out on your lack of substantaition.

That is an excitedly foolish statement as I never denied all natural causes! I deny that nature alone unaided can produce the effects we see in the religious experience. I've demonstrated ample reason to think so. The 8 tie breakers for one thing. The fact that there are NO studies offering explanations for any of the life transforming effects
- You simply REJECT all natural causes, in favor of something that can never be demonstrated, because there is no actual evidence for it. Why don't you get outside your little religious bubble, and read some actual scientific work in the field of psychology that investigates peak experiences and related behavioral phenomena? There's plenty of it, and I suspect you have looked at very little, if any of it.

You don't know what a mental state is,you are trying to imply that that makes it some kind of internal condition (mental illness? that's ruled out by over 25 studies). ()(2) You are makimng a faith based statement, you have no data, study,or expert opinion to back it up. You have never met a prima acie burden for any argument
- Joe, I have actually studied science for many years (unlike you), and worked professionally in the scientific arena my entire career (unlike you). Your personal insults regarding my level of knowledge are laughable.
im-skeptical said…
I discussed in the article Hood;s argument for an external cause, for which you have no answer. the universal nature of the experience rules out culture or inventor, there is no data to support a genetic solution's,the tie breakers rule out brain chemistry.
- Hood and you both ignore the science in favor of your religious agenda. Get out of your little religious bubble and look at the greater body of scientific literature that, on the whole, tells a different story.

The fact that I have given you this answer over and over again snows me you can't learn
- The fact that you don't listen to the objections of someone who is in a position to criticize your approach to scientific investigation shows that you don't want to hear the truth.

If an experience has real effects it;s an experience of something real.This experience has real quantifiable effects,the content of the experience is the divine, therefore, we a reason to assume the real cause is the divine. You have to deny a\t all cost due to fear of hell(?) but you have no data of any kind to back up your denies, You resort to logic. Logic says if the experience is real then it's caused by a real cause. The people who actually have the experience overwhelmingly say they experienced God. Your only reason for denying it is a sleigh illogical and unrehearsed personal need to deny God.
- This is faulty logic. Yes, an experience can produce real effects. The question is exactly what are those effects, how do we distinguish them from something that may be correlated but not caused by the experience? Then, there is the question of what the experience consists of. People interpret it in one way or another. They may think they are feeling the presence of God, but that does not imply that God is really there. The content of the experience is a perception, and perceptions don't necessarily track with reality. Finally, given that someone perceives the presence of God, it is still entirely possible that this perception is caused by something other than God. The argument you make here is simply not logically valid.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe
(1)I spend 7 years researching the the book I did research it (unlike you). (2)Dr. Hood was my consultant, he agrees there is no such evidence if there was he be hit with it

Skep
- Now ask the broader scientific community. They will tell you in no uncertain termd that Hood is WRONG. The fact is that both yoi and Hood choose to ignore the science that points to naturalistic explanations.



the so called scientific community is not qualified to comment upon the existence of God. I'm the one with. My studies are peer reviewed and published in academic journals. You have no studies. Most scientists have not studied consciousness or religious experience, Or God talk. know nothing since is not the tool for dealing with God.

You are also a bigoted troll because the scientific community recognizes the scientific validity of Hood's work, Just as it recognizes Maslow over Dawkins. They value Gould over Dawkins


No there are failed attempts at explaining it and theories I;e disproved and Hood has disproved,but hey it;s your burden to bring them! HINTING THAT SUCH THINGS EXIST AND DARING ME TO FIND THEM IS NOT AN ARGUMENT IT DOESN'T SAVE YOUR BACON

Skep
- My bacon doesn't need any saving, thank you. But if you make claims that ignore the majority of scientists, it's YOU who needs to prove your point.

Joe face reality Skepie, you have no consensus on your side! you have not one single source saying that the majority of scientists disagree with Hood. You are also not distinguishing between scientists who study it and those who don't. I already documented that the majority of scientists believe in God you have nothing on your side.scientists who study Hood's field think he's great. He is accepted as one of the major researchers in the field.


How many many times do I have to hit you over the head with this? I've answered it in the article which is there on religious a priori waiting for you? You refuse to read it.[4]

Skep
- The mere fact that you write an article does not negate the truth that you are ignoring a wealth scientific information in favor of one guy in particular who has a religious agenda, and says what you want to hear. And please don't try to tell me that Hood has no religious agenda.

Let's look again at how debate works. you don't win by saying You are right,you have to prove it. You prove it with facts and studies and evidence. you don't have any of that,I do. I put it in the article. It's not just that I wrote an article. it's the the fact that I document all that stuff in the article, because it answers all your bull shit,



Joe Hinman said…
(3) the eight tie breakers are designed to get around it

Skep
- In the real world of science, naturalism is the clear winner

Is that why the majority of scientists believe in God?only 3% of world pop is atheist. Is that being a winner?

Skep
- because that's where the evidence points.

You have no evidence, You don't have one single study, I have 200 studies that show that there are a couple of very good reasons to believe in God you don't have one sinle fact to dispute it


Skep
The idea that there is a "tie" to be broken is pure bullshit.

you are so bad at reasoning you are not capable of listening so you don't even know where the tie is found. If you did listen you would know it is absolutely a tie and no thinking person would disagree. you are too ignorant and arrogant to listen.

for the audience: there is an absolute epistemological problem in determining if the brain chemistry that is innovated in mystical experience is set up by God to be that way or is just an accident,but that I have tie breakers ms means there are ways around it.



Joe
Still can't understand the way argument works. you can't make a claim then allege the other guy has a burden to prove it's not true. If you make a claim you must prove it.

Skep
- The claim I made is that you didn't present the data to back up YOUR claim. And you didn't. Let me tell YOU how argumentatiion works. You make a claim, and it's up to you to substantiate that claim. If you don't, then I can call you out on your lack of substantaition.


You have no evidence of any kind,you have not quoted a single source,I wrote a whole paper that was accepted by an academic conference, you have nothing.Your like that I haven;t not substantiated it is just obviously disproved by the OP,I quoted from several studies on that Opening page, you have no direct criticism, so that's just empty bull shit,like most things you say.


Joe
That is an excitedly foolish statement as I never denied all natural causes! I deny that nature alone unaided can produce the effects we see in the religious experience. I've demonstrated ample reason to think so. The 8 tie breakers for one thing. The fact that there are NO studies offering explanations for any of the life transforming effects

Skep
- You simply REJECT all natural causes, in favor of something that can never be demonstrated, because there is no actual evidence for it.

That is obviously irresponsible.I talk about God setting up brain chemistry so clearway I'm not denying natural caucuses I'm denying naturalistic metaphysics.On my blog two weeks ago Ryan M. chewed me out for using the word demonstrate even though I was using it in a scientific sense with studies and all. Demonstrate is a big word.I don;t have to demonstrate God to justify belief in God. You keep missing the point: you lost the debate because you have no proof of any of your claims,

Joe Hinman said…
You don't know what a mental state is,you are trying to imply that that makes it some kind of internal condition (mental illness? that's ruled out by over 25 studies). ()(2) You are makimng a faith based statement, you have no data, study,or expert opinion to back it up. You have never met a prima acie burden for any argument



- Joe, I have actually studied science for many years (unlike you), and worked professionally in the scientific arena my entire career (unlike you). Your personal insults regarding my level of knowledge are laughable.

sorry that just does not make you worthy to win a debate. That sort of puerile posturing has no place in debate. It not based upon being worthy through knowledge it's based upon dealing with arguments and you are not ready for that, arguing with you is a waste of time,



im-skeptical said…
the so called scientific community is not qualified to comment upon the existence of God.
- Wow. Your whole thesis is about using the tools of science to support your beleif in God. Either it can be done or it can't. And if you can do it, why do you think the scientific community can't? The fact is that science can study anything that is observable. Science can and does study consciousness, "mystical experience", religious behavior and beliefs, and many other things that you would like to claim as being exclusively in the realm of religionists. And you can't tell them what they are or aren't allowed to investigate.


the scientific community recognizes the scientific validity of Hood's work
- They recognize the scientific part of what he has done, but they also recognize the contributions of many others that you completely ignore because it doesn't help you. And Hood's peer-reviewed work does not come close to making the same conclusions that you do. I have told you many times, that you are drawing conclusions that are not justified by the scientific data. Your work is NOT recognized by the scientific community.


Joe face reality Skepie, you have no consensus on your side!
- Face reality, Joe. Science supports naturalism, not supernatural beliefs.


Let's look again at how debate works. you don't win by saying You are right,you have to prove it. You prove it with facts and studies and evidence.
- So present the evidence I asked you to. You made this claim (for one): "the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations". You say that all naturalistic explanations have been disproved. Now go ahead and show your evidence. Show us the scientific studies that disprove naturalism. You continue to say that I'm the one making claims without evidence, but I'm just responding to your claims. And you are not providing the evidence to support what you claim.

im-skeptical said…
Is that why the majority of scientists believe in God?only 3% of world pop is atheist. Is that being a winner?
- Argumentum ad populum. Doesn't prove anything, and your "facts" not true, either.


You have no evidence, You don't have one single study, I have 200 studies that show that there are a couple of very good reasons to believe in God you don't have one sinle fact to dispute it
- How about this fact: science does not support supernatural belief, which is why you put "scientific community" in scare quotes. You keep touting your "200 studies" Now tell us which of them disproves naturalism.


for the audience: there is an absolute epistemological problem in determining if the brain chemistry that is innovated in mystical experience is set up by God to be that way or is just an accident,but that I have tie breakers ms means there are ways around it.
- For the record, your "tie-breakers" are just arguments foe what you believe. They don't actually break any tie. There are arguments against what you believe, too. So should I call them tie-breakers, and declare that I won? No, that's not how arguments are won. You actually have to demonstrate the truth of your claims.


You keep missing the point: you lost the debate because you have no proof of any of your claims
- Joe, you miss MY point. YOU don't have any proof for YOUR claims. And your "200 studies" do not show what you say they do.


sorry that just does not make you worthy to win a debate. That sort of puerile posturing has no place in debate. It not based upon being worthy through knowledge it's based upon dealing with arguments and you are not ready for that, arguing with you is a waste of time
- Then why do you say this: "I spend 7 years researching the the book I did research it (unlike you)." Sounds like the same kind of "puerile posturing" to me. Not to mention all your invective and ad hominem attacks. Do you think they help you make your case?
Joe Hinman said…




Joe
the so called scientific community is not qualified to comment upon the existence of God.

Skep
- Wow. Your whole thesis is about using the tools of science to support your beleif in God. Either it can be done or it can't. And if you can do it, why do you think the scientific community can't?

I am not speaking as a scientist. i',speak as a theologian who is informed by science. none of the studies claim to make comments about the existence of God. I don't use them that way.


Skep
The fact is that science can study anything that is observable. Science can and does study consciousness, "mystical experience", religious behavior and beliefs, and many other things that you would like to claim as being exclusively in the realm of religionists. And you can't tell them what they are or aren't allowed to investigate.

I sure as hell can.they have a domain and they just better abide by it



God is not directly observable because not given in sense data. That's why we have to deduce from arguments

Joe
the scientific community recognizes the scientific validity of Hood's work

Skep
- They recognize the scientific part of what he has done, but they also recognize the contributions of many others that you completely ignore because it doesn't help you.

Name one, you are still trying to imply that scientific data exists when it doesn't, there is no counter data,you have no one in mind,


And Hood's peer-reviewed work does not come close to making the same conclusions that you do.




I have told you many times, that you are drawing conclusions that are not justified by the scientific data. Your work is NOT recognized by the scientific community.

Joe
face reality Skepie, you have no consensus on your side!

Skep
- Face reality, Joe. Science supports naturalism, not supernatural beliefs.

No it doesn't see you don't even understand the basics. naturalism is not science it's not something that sickness proved it;s a metaphysical assumption that they choose to make. they chose that in the enlightenment to descry the Catholic crunch of french monarchy,


Joe
Let's look again at how debate works. you don't win by saying You are right,you have to prove it. You prove it with facts and studies and evidence.


Skep
- So present the evidence I asked you to.

refute the answer I gave to it Don, stop making up stupid fantasies about illegal aliens,

Skep
You made this claim (for one): "the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explanations". You say that all naturalistic explanations have been disproved. Now go ahead and show your evidence.

no dumb ass that was in response to your argument it's your burden to prove that is the case you have not. I've disproved all teh counter causes you brought up


Show us the scientific studies that disprove naturalism. You continue to say that I'm the one making claims without evidence, but I'm just responding to your claims. And you are not providing the evidence to support what you claim.

One more tie, Naturalism is a metaphysical assumption it is not fact it is an assumption, you can't prove it,


You can't even answer my arguments about it,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe
Is that why the majority of scientists believe in God?only 3% of world pop is atheist. Is that being a winner?

skep
- Argumentum ad populum. Doesn't prove anything, and your "facts" not true, either.

since you have offered no evidence as to what the scientific community would think of Hood's work. I assume you conjecture they would agree with you because you are assuming science = atheism, but it dose not. Most scientists are believers in God. that means they have worked our for them selves some notion of how naturalism and SN fit together in the same world. We cannot assume at all they would ditch Hood


Joe
You have no evidence, You don't have one single study, I have 200 studies that show that there are a couple of very good reasons to believe in God you don't have one single fact to dispute it


- How about this fact: science does not support supernatural belief, which is why you put "scientific community" in scare quotes. You keep touting your "200 studies" Now tell us which of them disproves naturalism.

Science rejects a counterfeit concept of SN invented by enlightenment thinkers that is not part of Christian doctrine. I argue for a view of the world based upon the original historical idea of SN that sickness has never discussed.

stop making conjecture about my use of scare quotes,

Joe
for the audience: there is an absolute epistemological problem in determining if the brain chemistry that is innovated in mystical experience is set up by God to be that way or is just an accident,but that I have tie breakers ms means there are ways around it.


skep
- For the record, your "tie-breakers" are just arguments foe what you believe. They don't actually break any tie.

I really feel sorry for your inanity to reason, since the tie is the question about cause of brain chemistry which can't be answered directly by data they are tie breakers. because they show reasons to assume that the brain chemistry has to be made to support the experience of God conciseness,so obviously they break they break they tie.

If you had arguments about why brain chemistry must be naturalistic it woudl be a tie breaker for you but you have no arguments and no data,



There are arguments against what you believe, too. So should I call them tie-breakers, and declare that I won? No, that's not how arguments are won. You actually have to demonstrate the truth of your claims.

go for it dude. why don't you make one? you need something going for you here

Joe
You keep missing the point: you lost the debate because you have no proof of any of your claims


Joe Hinman said…
- Joe, you miss MY point. YOU don't have any proof for YOUR claims. And your "200 studies" do not show what you say they do.

U said that Wuthnow proves 20% increase in all forms of self authentication and other advantages over non experiences, so why don't you tell me how that fails to prove my claim because that is direct evidence supporting one of my major claims,I have shown many other,s,you have no answer for them.

stop pretending I didn't do what i did, go back and read it again liar,,


Joe
sorry that just does not make you worthy to win a debate. That sort of puerile posturing has no place in debate. It not based upon being worthy through knowledge it's based upon dealing with arguments and you are not ready for that, arguing with you is a waste of time




- Then why do you say this: "I spend 7 years researching the the book I did research it (unlike you)." Sounds like the same kind of "puerile posturing" to me. Not to mention all your invective and ad hominem attacks. Do you think they help you make your case?

are you insane> that is totally different fro saying:science disproves you:not giving evidence, or saying:you can;'t beat naturalism?:then not having an argument or even a quote,


I linked to the Clarice where i documented the evidence, are you stupid>? you can't work a link? you don;t know what foot notes are for?
Joe Hinman said…
I linked to the Clarice where i documented the evidence, are you stupid>? you can't work a link? you don;t know what foot notes are for?

to the article. why my computer changed that word i don;t know
im-skeptical said…
I am not speaking as a scientist. i',speak as a theologian who is informed by science. none of the studies claim to make comments about the existence of God. I don't use them that way.
- But you aren't informrd by science, which is what I've been trying to tell you. You ignore the vast body of scientific information, and focus on one little group in the areal of Psychology of Religion, dominated by religionists like Hood. They are definitely not representative of the scientific community in general. But even they are smart enough not to draw conclusions that make supernatural inferences.


God is not directly observable because not given in sense data. That's why we have to deduce from arguments
- I've explained this to you before. There are many things that are not directly observable, but science still infers them. Why? Because of the evidence that IS observable. However, supernatural phenomena have never been inferred by modern science. Why? Because the evidence does not support any such inference.


Name one, you are still trying to imply that scientific data exists when it doesn't, there is no counter data,you have no one in mind
- How about Scott Atran, who had done considerable scientific research in cognitive and evolutionary psychology of religion?


No it doesn't see you don't even understand the basics. naturalism is not science it's not something that sickness proved it;s a metaphysical assumption that they choose to make.
- You are wrong. Metaphysical naturalism is NOT a basic assumption is science. It is a conclusion that any reasonable person would make AFTER examining all the available evidence. Methodological naturalism is not the same as metaphysical naturalism, nor does it preclude it.


refute the answer I gave to it Don, stop making up stupid fantasies about illegal aliens
- I have no idea what you're talking about. I asked you to show evidence for a claim you made, and I still haven't seen it.


One more tie, Naturalism is a metaphysical assumption it is not fact it is an assumption, you can't prove it,
- I don't claim it's a fact. I only said that science supports it. You claim there is empirical evidence that refutes it, but that's based on bad methodology and faulty logic.


You can't even answer my arguments about it
- I refer you to my original statement. I dismantled your argument point by point.

since you have offered no evidence as to what the scientific community would think of Hood's work. I assume you conjecture they would agree with you because you are assuming science = atheism, but it dose not. Most scientists are believers in God. that means they have worked our for them selves some notion of how naturalism and SN fit together in the same world. We cannot assume at all they would ditch Hood
- Most scientists in the small field of Psychology of Religion are religionists. Outside that field, religionism does not dominate, and Hood is practically unknown.

im-skeptical said…
Science rejects a counterfeit concept of SN invented by enlightenment thinkers that is not part of Christian doctrine. I argue for a view of the world based upon the original historical idea of SN that sickness has never discussed.
- Science does not support the modern concept of supernatural, because the evidence all points to naturalism.


I really feel sorry for your inanity to reason, since the tie is the question about cause of brain chemistry which can't be answered directly by data they are tie breakers.
- I am equally sorry for your lack of logic and reason, as well as your denial of the vast body of scientific data. You really need to expand your research to include something outside that one little field that bounds everything you have examined.


U said that Wuthnow proves 20% increase in all forms of self authentication and other advantages over non experiences, so why don't you tell me how that fails to prove my claim because that is direct evidence supporting one of my major claims
- What I said is that this is NOT a measurement of positive transformation, which was your claim. If anything, Wuthrow is measuring perceptions of change - not actual change. There's a big difference, but this point is crucial yo your argument, which is based on real transformation caused by mystical experience - not just feelings about it.



are you insane> that is totally different fro saying:science disproves you:not giving evidence, or saying:you can;'t beat naturalism?:then not having an argument or even a quote
- Diverting from the issue again. Let me recap the context of this point:
First, you said: "I spend 7 years researching the the book I did research it (unlike you)."
Then, I said: " I have actually studied science for many years (unlike you), and worked professionally in the scientific arena my entire career (unlike you)."
Your resonse was: "sorry that just does not make you worthy to win a debate. That sort of puerile posturing has no place in debate."
So you think that it's OK to puff your chest and tell us how much time you spent researching your book, but if I try to tell you how much time I have spent learning and doing real science, that just "puerile posturing". This is sheer hypocrisy, and now you are trying to divert attention from it.




Joe Hinman said…

Joe
I am not speaking as a scientist. i',speak as a theologian who is informed by science. none of the studies claim to make comments about the existence of God. I don't use them that way.

Skep
- But you aren't informrd by science, which is what I've been trying to tell you. You ignore the vast body of scientific information, and focus on one little group in the areal of Psychology of Religion, dominated by religionists like Hood.

You really need to pit an end to your confusion now.You are confusing ideology with science. Obviously I am informed by science because I acutely studied the field that has produced the scientific info on religious experience. You refuse to even read one page of anything on it, you are just assert what fans of science tell you about their prejudices and God hatred you think is science because it's held by worshipers of science.

Skep
They are definitely not representative of the scientific community in general. But even they are smart enough not to draw conclusions that make supernatural inferences.

Joe
None of the researches I draw upon draw conclusions from SN inferences, they draw conclusions from their study designs and their data.All they do is show the effects having certain kinds of experiences;you are so afraid of God being real that yo are scared to death that the data from those studies proves something, You have to pretend they are bad.

Joe
God is not directly observable because not given in sense data. That's why we have to deduce from arguments


Skep
- I've explained this to you before. There are many things that are not directly observable, but science still infers them. Why? Because of the evidence that IS observable. However, supernatural phenomena have never been inferred by modern science. Why? Because the evidence does not support any such inference.

Joe: You just contradicted your self doufus.you said "There are many things that are not directly observable, but science still infers them. Why? Because of the evidence that IS observable." That is just what is going on with my studies,we can infer God from the data from the results of the experinces of God's presence, ah but then you say "However, supernatural phenomena have never been inferred by modern science. Why? Because the evidence does not support any such inference."

a Look you are asserting you reject SN because the data doesn't support it but it does! that's the whole point, the studies supp pt it! You have no no counter studies,

what you are really saying is no scientific study is allowed to support religion it's the forbidden conclusion. that's ideology not science.

You just contradicted your whole argument Einstein!




Joe Hinman said…
Joe
Name one, you are still trying to imply that scientific data exists when it doesn't, there is no counter data,you have no one in mind

Skep
- How about Scott Atran, who had done considerable scientific research in cognitive and evolutionary psychology of religion?

Joe: If he had data that is specific to religious experience you are going to have to prevent that data and show why it's relevant,just because one studied a subject doesn't tell us anything. Nothing about evolutionary psychology disproves God, or anything else for that matter.

Joe
No it doesn't see you don't even understand the basics. naturalism is not science it's not something that science proved it;s a metaphysical assumption that they choose to make.



Skep
- You are wrong. Metaphysical naturalism is NOT a basic assumption is science. It is a conclusion that any reasonable person would make AFTER examining all the available evidence.

JOE: obviously NOT SINCE ONLY 3% of world pop are atheists and the majority of scientists believe in God there goes that bunk. Most rational people believe in God.

I said naturalism is not science doufus but that doesn't mean it's not an assumption scientists make. It was made in the early days. You claim to have read Burtt but you clearly don't understand him.



Methodological naturalism is not the same as metaphysical naturalism, nor does it preclude it.

Obviously, but the studies I use in my argument obey the former but you are using thee latter to rule out their findings. Get it together man.

Joe
refute the answer I gave to it Don, stop making up stupid fantasies about illegal aliens



- I have no idea what you're talking about. I asked you to show evidence for a claim you made, and I still haven't seen it.

Primarily because you refuse to read the evidence I linked to. The only evidence I remember you asking for was the results of the studies showing RE benefits the experience and that's in the op

Joe Hinman said…
Joe
One more time, Naturalism is a metaphysical assumption it is not fact it is an assumption, you can't prove it,

Skep
- I don't claim it's a fact. I only said that science supports it. You claim there is empirical evidence that refutes it, but that's based on bad methodology and faulty logic.

Here we go back to the circular reasoning: You are arguing in a circle because we already established and you agreed the studies are good.
(1) I quote people saying Hood's studies are ground breaking,No stuidy is ground breaking if it had bad methodology.
(2) 200 studies over 50 years back each other up so you heave a hell of a job showing bad methodology.
(3) You have no counter studies,these are the only studies so we have to take them.

(4) You have not made a single methodological argument you can't even name a single study,
(5) the scale is the most validated mechanism of it;s kind.
(6) Hood's studies were validated around the world: England, US Europe,Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India.

Joe
You can't even answer my arguments about it

Skep
- I refer you to my original statement. I dismantled your argument point by point.

At this point it;s just the ravings of a clown who is attempting to save face. Home the congruent you are pretending you won, i have kicked your ass up one side and down the other

Joe
since you have offered no evidence as to what the scientific community would think of Hood's work. I assume you conjecture they would agree with you because you are assuming science = atheism, but it dose not. Most scientists are believers in God. that means they have worked our for them selves some notion of how naturalism and SN fit together in the same world. We cannot assume at all they would ditch Hood

Skep
- Most scientists in the small field of Psychology of Religion are religionists. Outside that field, religionism does not dominate, and Hood is practically unknown.

You is almost hate speak. It's a groundless grasping at straws.Of all the researchers I know about not one of them is an evangelical, in fact I can't think off one hand who is a Christian.,Hood is a unitarin and sort of a pantheist,Wuthnow is an atheist, Maslow was an atheist, One is Hindu you are just grasping at straws.


\
Joe Hinman said…

Science rejects a counterfeit concept of SN invented by enlightenment thinkers that is not part of Christian doctrine. I argue for a view of the world based upon the original historical idea of SN that science has never discussed.


- Science does not support the modern concept of supernatural, because the evidence all points to naturalism.

Joe: Scientists who talk about rejecting the SN have hold of the wrong concept, Einstein!




I really feel sorry for your inanity to reason, since the tie is the question about cause of brain chemistry which can't be answered directly by data they are tie breakers.

Skep
- I am equally sorry for your lack of logic and reason, as well as your denial of the vast body of scientific data. You really need to expand your research to include something outside that one little field that bounds everything you have examined.

You have no data, you have nothing, talk about logic, you already gave away the story with your circular resonating (see above), you dare to criticize my logic but you have no idea what begging the question is and I explain it to you every time we argue because you keep doing it, that has to be a sign of inability to learn.

Joe
I said that Wuthnow proves 20% increase in all forms of self authentication and other advantages over non experiences, so why don't you tell me how that fails to prove my claim because that is direct evidence supporting one of my major claims

Joe Hinman said…
Skep
- What I said is that this is NOT a measurement of positive transformation, which was your claim. If anything, Wuthrow is measuring perceptions of change - not actual change.

No they that's nonsense because they used other measures of self actualization so that is an objective measurement, the assumption you make here is wrong,you think people can't know their won state,but 90% of social science research assumes they can.


There's a big difference, but this point is crucial yo your argument, which is based on real transformation caused by mystical experience - not just feelings about it.

That's just one study but you are not right about it either, there are other measures used which already established in social science,s


are you insane> that is totally different fro saying:science disproves you:not giving evidence, or saying:you can;'t beat naturalism?:then not having an argument or even a quote
- Diverting from the issue again. Let me recap the context of this point:
First, you said: "I spend 7 years researching the the book I did research it (unlike you)."
Then, I said: " I have actually studied science for many years (unlike you),


I spent that time studying everything else,that's why I'm erudite and you are an idiot idiot who knows a little science,


Skep
and worked professionally in the scientific arena my entire career (unlike you)."

you are doing that to yourself skizix. I never said you are not a valid person. You want to have an intellectual discussion you need to be capable of chandelier end of it.If you need a place to have an emotional trinwreck ths is not it.

Skep
Your resonse was: "sorry that just does not make you worthy to win a debate. That sort of puerile posturing has no place in debate."

So you think that it's OK to puff your chest and tell us how much time you spent researching your book, but if I try to tell you how much time I have spent learning and doing real science, that just "puerile posturing". This is sheer hypocrisy, and now you are trying to divert attention from it.

Those are two totally different things,I don;t expect my research to win me cart Blanche as all purpose always right expert genius who can speak with authority on any subject you think your slight bit of science does that for you.
I never said my arguments are right because I put time in on them. I said they are right because the data is good and the logic is cogent and there are no counter arguments, you have yet to give me one,
im-skeptical said…
You really need to pit an end to your confusion now.You are confusing ideology with science. Obviously I am informed by science because I acutely studied the field that has produced the scientific info on religious experience. You refuse to even read one page of anything on it, you are just assert what fans of science tell you about their prejudices and God hatred you think is science because it's held by worshipers of science.
- My reading in science is far broader than yours. I am willing to read things that ,may challenge my beliefs. You limit yourself to one small group where you can find fellow believers. It is you who confuses science with ideology.


None of the researches I draw upon draw conclusions from SN inferences, they draw conclusions from their study designs and their data.All they do is show the effects having certain kinds of experiences
- As I said, you draw the wrong conclusions from their work. For example, Wuthnow didn't measure the effects of religious experience, as you have claimed. He surveyed people about the changes in their their attitudes and beliefs. You then combine that with other studies that show a correlation between well-being and spirituality, and make the false conclusion that mystical experiences causes the well-being. But that conclusion is not justified by the data, which is precisely why none of those peer-reviewed studies make the same conclusion.

You just contradicted your self doufus.you said "There are many things that are not directly observable, but science still infers them. Why? Because of the evidence that IS observable." That is just what is going on with my studies,we can infer God from the data from the results of the experinces of God's presence
- Let me remind you what YOU said: "God is not directly observable because not given in sense data. That's why we have to deduce from arguments." So you are contradicting what you just said. You claimed that God cannot be inferred from empirical data, but must be inferred from arguments. And now you tell me that these empirical studies give us the data needed to infer God. Make up your mind. Which one is it? My own position is consistent. Science can and does infer things based on empirical evidence. I never said otherwise.


Look you are asserting you reject SN because the data doesn't support it but it does! that's the whole point, the studies supp pt it! You have no no counter studies
- Correct. I reject the supernatural based on the evidence. And I assert that your 200 studies DO NOT provide empirical evidence sufficient to infer God, nor does ANY other scientific information we have. If they did, then the scientific community would agree, based on the evidence. But they don't, because the evidence DOES NOT support it.


what you are really saying is no scientific study is allowed to support religion it's the forbidden conclusion. that's ideology not science.
- I am saying that the scientific community MUST follow where the evidence leads, regardless of any ideology. Contrast that with your own position, which is to try to find some way to justify your belief, to which you were firmly committed long before you ever thought of looking at evidence. That's ideology, Joe.

im-skeptical said…
If he had data that is specific to religious experience you are going to have to prevent that data and show why it's relevant,just because one studied a subject doesn't tell us anything. Nothing about evolutionary psychology disproves God, or anything else for that matter.
- You said give me one example, and I gave you one. There are many, many more. In fact, there is the whole scientific community, which you continue to ignore. You are cherry=picking from a small group that is not really representative of the broader community. And it is not my responsibility to edufcate you on what science says. You wouldn't listen anyway.


I said naturalism is not science doufus but that doesn't mean it's not an assumption scientists make. It was made in the early days. You claim to have read Burtt but you clearly don't understand him.
- I have read Burtt. His book makes it quite clear that metaphysics follows science. You should read it.


Obviously, but the studies I use in my argument obey the former [methodological naturalism] but you are using thee latter [metaphysical naturalism] to rule out their findings. Get it together man.
- I don't rule out anything, Joe. The evidence leads us to conclude that there are no supernatural things. We simply don't see them, and we don't see anything that must be caused by them. This is not based on any metaphysical position. It's just following the evidence.


You are arguing in a circle because we already established and you agreed the studies are good.
- Those studies stick to science. YOU don't. You draw conclusions from them that are not justified.


I quote people saying Hood's studies are ground breaking,No stuidy is ground breaking if it had bad methodology.
- Now find a real scientist from outside his little bubble that agrees with that.


200 studies over 50 years back each other up so you heave a hell of a job showing bad methodology..
- It isn't the studies that use bad methodology. It's YOU.


You have no counter studies,these are the only studies so we have to take them.
- I have all of science. You should shut up and learn something about it.

im-skeptical said…
the [M-]scale is the most validated mechanism of it;s kind
- If you do a little research, you will see that there are other similar measures that are much more broadly used. Hood's is limited to the little bubble community where he dominates. Not so much outside that little bubble


Hood's studies were validated around the world: England, US Europe,Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India.
- By fellow religionists. Not by the broader scientific community.


At this point it;s just the ravings of a clown who is attempting to save face. Home the congruent you are pretending you won, i have kicked your ass up one side and down the other
- That's the opinion of an idology-driven zealot who refused to listen to evidence and reason. Furthermore, if one cares to examine the thread of the arguments carefully, he will notice that when you have no good answer to a point I make, you just quietly drop that issue, apparently in the hopes that it will be forgotten. But I don't forget.


You is almost hate speak. It's a groundless grasping at straws.Of all the researchers I know about not one of them is an evangelical, in fact I can't think off one hand who is a Christian.,Hood is a unitarin and sort of a pantheist,Wuthnow is an atheist, Maslow was an atheist, One is Hindu you are just grasping at straws.
- Diverting again. I didn't mention evangelicals, or even Christians. I was talking about religionists. And most in that field are. You did mention two atheists. So let me tell you what THEY think abour your take on their scientific work. Wuthnow: "Many theological claims about God, heaven, prayer, and so forth run against the grain of common sense, let alone science and some versions of rationality." And Maslow (regarding spirituality): "To spell out only one implication here, these propositions affirm the existence of the highest values within human nature itself, to be discovered there. This is in sharp contradiction to the older and more customary beliefs that the highest values can come only from a supernatural God, or from some other source outside human nature itself."


Scientists who talk about rejecting the SN have hold of the wrong concept, Einstein!
- The concept they hold is EVIDENCE. That's what you consider to be wrong.


You have no data, you have nothing, talk about logic, you already gave away the story with your circular resonating (see above), you dare to criticize my logic but you have no idea what begging the question is and I explain it to you every time we argue because you keep doing it, that has to be a sign of inability to learn.
- Bakc to ad hominem again. You just can't help yourself, Joe.


No they that's nonsense because they used other measures of self actualization so that is an objective measurement, the assumption you make here is wrong,you think people can't know their won state,but 90% of social science research assumes they can.
- I asked you to show me these "quantitative measurements" of positive transformational change. You haven't done that. They don't exist.


That's just one study but you are not right about it either, there are other measures used which already established in social science,s
- So show us the data.


I spent that time studying everything else,that's why I'm erudite and you are an idiot idiot who knows a little science
- Yes, and you prove just how "erudite" you are every time you speak.


I never said my arguments are right because I put time in on them. I said they are right because the data is good and the logic is cogent and there are no counter arguments, you have yet to give me one
- Then what was the purpose of that comment? And why is it OK for you, but not for me?


Joe Hinman said…

ME
If he had data that is specific to religious experience you are going to have to prevent that data and show why it's relevant,just because one studied a subject doesn't tell us anything. Nothing about evolutionary psychology disproves God, or anything else for that matter.

Skep
- You said give me one example, and I gave you one.

No I meant one that's relevant

There are many, many more. In fact, there is the whole scientific community, which you continue to ignore. You are cherry=picking from a small group that is not really representative of the broader community. And it is not my responsibility to edufcate you on what science says. You wouldn't listen anyway.

Screw your head on stupid I've shown every time the Majority oF the scientific commodity believe in God. THE FACT FACT OF A SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY EXISTING IN NO WAY DISPROVES GOD OR RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. You do not have an argument


ME
I said naturalism is not science doufus but that doesn't mean it's not an assumption scientists make. It was made in the early days. You claim to have read Burtt but you clearly don't understand him.


- I have read Burtt. His book makes it quite clear that metaphysics follows science. You should read it.

The TITLE OF THE BLEEDING BOOK IS "METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATIONS OF EARLY MODERN SCIENCE. SCREW IT ON STRAIGHT. Metaphysics is the foundation of sickness. read the title tthen read the book

Obviously, but the studies I use in my argument obey the former [methodological naturalism] but you are using thee latter [metaphysical naturalism] to rule out their findings. Get it together man.

- I don't rule out anything, Joe. The evidence leads us to conclude that there are no supernatural things. We simply don't see them, and we don't see anything that must be caused by them. This is not based on any metaphysical position. It's just following the evidence.

Me
You are arguing in a circle because we already established and you agreed the studies are good.

- Those studies stick to science. YOU don't. You draw conclusions from them that are not justified.

Of course i am genius I AM DOMING THEOLOGY!!!!!!! You have this idiotic ideological stupid idea that for some dumb reason we have to just stick to science and nothing more science is not the only way to know things


I quote people saying Hood's studies are ground breaking,No stuidy is ground breaking if it had bad methodology.


- Now find a real scientist from outside his little bubble that agrees with that.


You are scared to death to venture bond your little world of ideological cronies like and Dawckamemtalkists and God hater club.I am drawing un sources from atheists and social sciences Maslow and Wuthnow to major philosophers lifelike Whitehead all of that is totally over your head,


200 studies over 50 years back each other up so you heave a hell of a job showing bad methodology..


- It isn't the studies that use bad methodology. It's YOU.


you clearly don;t know shit from shinola, so far you have made no argument,you only you are trying illicit the scientific community on your behalf but can;t understand that most of them don;t agree with you, they find ways to get around naturalism and beleievein God you are arid to use use your brain.



You have no counter studies,these are the only studies so we have to take them.


- I have all of science. You should shut up and learn something about it.


the majority of them believe in god that destroys your only argument, yioi have no defense,you have nothing to back your God hatred,

Most scientists disagree with you,



sconce says you are wrong,



8/09/2018 11:22:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…

me
he [M-]scale is the most validated mechanism of it;s kind

Skep
- If you do a little research, you will see that there are other similar measures that are much more broadly used. Hood's is limited to the little bubble community where he dominates. Not so much outside that little bubble

see readers this is the kind of slanderous lying that new atheists do they think it's cleaver to just make stuff up. I've quoted major people saying Hood is ground breaking he's regarded as the major searcher in his field,

He points out there are other measures,I've already said M scale is better validated than the others, If you read my book, Skepie wont do because he doesn't read books--I researched those other measurements they all agree with Hood.

Skepie brings them up but he doesn't know what they said He thinking mentining them disproves the M scale.


me
Hood's studies were validated around the world: England, US Europe,Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India.

Skepie
- By fellow religionists. Not by the broader scientific community.

the God hater pronounces his little words of contempt, the village atheist, little Dawkamentalkst. Little Dawkie I;ve already told hood's views om religion, rabily hyterical God hater,

the little signorinas really an insult war, I outgrew that in 5th grade. I'm reallt convinced that he's an adult professional when he just wants to sink into name calling or contest,

OK so the Dawkie lost because he had no arguments. Pasthetic,

this is a waste of time I'm closing the comment section, any new posts will be taken down




Joe Hinman said…
Hood's awards and recent publications.



Awards and commendations
University: Teaching and research
Distinguished Psychology Professor, 1980
SGA Ten Outstanding Professors 1986
SGA Outstanding Professor 1989
Teaching Excellence Seminar, 1991
Distinguished Teaching Professorship -1991-1993
Faculty of Scholars (founding committee and member since inception)
UTC Alumni Outstanding University Professor, 2006
National and international
Fellow, American Psychological Association, Division 36, 1980
William James Award, American Psychological Association, 1985 - (for sustained and distinguished research in the psychology of religion)
Nominated outstanding article SSSR, 1991
Mentor Award, American Psychological Association, Division 36, 1996
Fellow, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1994
Distinguished Service Award, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2000[15]






Recent Publications
Hood, R. W. Jr. (2013). Methodological diversity in the psychology of Religion. In K. I.Pargament (Editor-inchief). Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality: Vol.1, Context, Theory, & Research (pp. 79-102). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hood, R. W. Jr. & Francis, L. J. (2013). Mystical experience: Conceptualizations, measurement, and correlates. . In K. I. Pargament (Ed). Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality: Vol. 1 Context, Theory, & Research (pp. 391-405). Washington, D: American Psychological Association.

Hood, R. W. Jr. & Chen, Z. (2013). The Social Sciences and Christian Mysticism. In J. Laman (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Mysticism (pp. 577-591). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hood, R. W. Jr. (in press). Psychology and religion. In Vilayanur, Ramachandray (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of human behavior. Elsevier.

Hood, R. W. Jr. (in press). Methodology in psychology. In Anzari (ed.). Encyclopedia of sciences and religions. Springer

Hood, R. W., Jr. (in press). Differential triggering of mystical experience as a function of self-actualization. In J. Barrett (Ed.). Psychology of religion: Critical concepts in religious studies. Routdledge. (Reprinted from, Review of Religious Research, 18, 264-270).

Hood, R. W. Jr. (in press). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure `of reported religious experience. In J. Barrett (Ed.). Psychology of religion: Critical concepts n religious studies. Routdledge. (Reprinted from, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 29-41).

Hood, R. W. Jr. & Chen, Zhuo (in press). Mystical, spiritual and religious experiences. In Paloutzian,R. F. & Parks, C. L. (Eds.). Handbook of Religion and Spirituality 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.

Hood, R. W. Jr. (in press) Authoritarianism. In Vocabulary for Psychology

Keller, B., Klein, C., Hood, R. W. & Streib, H. (2013). Deconversion and religious or spiritual transformation. In H. Westernick (Ed). Constructs of meaning and religious transformation: Current issues in the Psychology of religion (pp. 119-139). Vienna: University of Vienna Press.University of Vienna Press.

Hood, R. W. Jr. (2014). Gordon W. Allport. In D.A. Leming (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Psychology and Religion, DOI 10,1007/978-146146086-2. New York: Springer Science+Business.

Hood, R. W. Jr. & Belzen, J. A. (2013). Research methods in the psychology of religion and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2nd. Ed, pp. 75-93. New York: Guilford.

Hood, R. W. Jr. & Chen, Z. (2013). Mystical, spiritual, and religious experiences. In . In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2nd. Ed, pp. 422-440. New York: Guilford.

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?"

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger