The Empirical Study of Mystical Experience (1 of 2)


Image result for Ralph Hood Jr University Tennessee Chattanooga

Dr. Ralph Hood JR inventor of the M cal



Part 1: The "M" Scale



This article is a summary my book, the Trace of God by Joseph Hinman (available on Amazon). I recently posted essays showing that the true Christian concept of Supernatural is mystical experience nothing more. Now I show mystical experience is empirical, thus SN is empirical. I wrote this for an academic conference,  it was accepted. I posted it in two parts that's I'm uniting them here.



The argument from religious experience is deemed too subjective to be of any real interest to rationally minded skeptics. Yet over the last 50 years, a huge body of empirical scientific work has emerged in peer reviewed journals that strengthens the case for religious experience as a God argument. Unfortunately, this body of work is largely confined to psychology of religion and is virtually unknown to theology or even religious studies. In this paper I examine the research methods used in this body of work, particular attention to the mysticism scale developed by Ralph Hood Jr. (University of Tennessee at Chattanooga). I then apply the findings to an argument from religious experience. After demonstrating how the data supports the argument I will deal with two major issues: (1) Is an argument based upon the universal nature of these experiences appropriately Christian, or does it undermine a Christian witness by implying a unilateralist perspective? (2) Do counter causality arguments based upon brain chemistry and structure disprove the argument? Finally, I present “six tie breakers” that warrant decision in answer to the brain structure argument.


In 1948 The British Broadcasting Corporation aired a radio debate between the celebrated philosopher Bertrand Russell (atheist) and the author of a famous and voluminous History of Philosophy, Frederick Copleston S. J., (Christian), concerning the existence of God. [1] Most of the debate centered on issues such as necessary being. Copleston also advanced the moral argument but he gave passing mention to religious experience, specifically the kind of experience called “mystical.”Copleston admitted that the argument was subjective and he couched his appeal on an abductive basis, the best explanation for the feeling is God. Russell intimated that it was the lack of an objective referent that made the argument “rather private.”[2] After that the argument languished in the nether word of “not one of the five proofs.” Critics and apologists have dismissed it for the same reason. In the 1980s Caroline Franks Davis made an excellent attempt at bringing empirical data to the argument, but more and better studies have been done since her book.[3 ] William Alston Wrote a brilliant work on mystical experience as a logical basis for belief, but he did not tap into the studies that Davis used.[4] The argument continues to be on the back burner in apologetcs, but not because there is no concrete data. There is now a huge body of academic research from peer reviewed journals that makes an empirical basis for the argument possible. 


In this article I will discuss the studies and their methodologies, then construct an argument designed to warrant conclusion in favor of the reality of God using this data. The argument makes claims based upon and discuss the scientific basis for the data, answering the major objection that might be lanced against any or all of the arguments from scientific quarters. What makes these arguments ground breaking is that these studies have been largely well known in psychology of religion and are virtually unknown to those who would want to make use of them for apologetic purposes. These arguments are not specific to any particular religious tradition. This argument is not meant to prove the existence of God but to establish that belief in God is rationally warranted. Nor is it intended to prove the Christian God. It seeks only to establish that belief in some notion of God, perhaps the Christian God, is rational and backed by empirical data.  

In speaking of “mystical experience” we are not talking about visions or voices. We are not talking about miracles or God speaking to people. We are talking about “the sense of the numinous,” a sense of presence, of all pervasive and overwhelming love, and a sense of undifferentiated unity of all things. Those constitute two different kinds of experience both termed mystical.” The claim is often made that this is an unmediated experience of reality. The veil is taken back on the thing behind the facade of “reality” is experienced directly. The notion of an unmediated experience is debatable and not essential to an understanding of the experience. Mystical experiences come in two media:, introvertive and extrovertive. Intorovertive experiences are without time and space; they are not keyed to any external landmark or visual que. They seem to be beyond word, thought, or image. Extrovertive experiences are often keyed to a land mark and seem like projecting a sense onto the image of nature. [5] For example the sense that God is pervading the physical space in nature around which one views a scene in nature. Or a sense that all the natural landscape around forms some sort of whole that’s meaningful and indicative as an understanding of all reality. Introvertive mystical experience has been identified as “pure consciousness.” This kind of experience lacks content and can’t be tied to a cultural construct or personal influence. [6] While it is the case that these kinds of experiences are interpreted in various ways, and it is the case that various theological explanations tailored to a given tradition are advanced for these, as many as there are mystics to have them, the real diversity comes not from the experience but from the explanations attached to the experiences.[7]Much of the discussion about common core is tied to the texts of a given literature. There are various bodies of mystical literature, the important one for our purposes is the empirical. This is a measurement based empirical scientific corpus such as the work of Hood.


The “M” Scale

....Many names loom large in that body of literature; Greeley, Maslow, Wuthnow, Nobel, Lukoff and Lu, all major researchers whose studies form the bulwark of the corpus in the field. But perhaps the major researcher in researcher is Ralph Hood Jr., since his Mysticism Scale (or “M scale”) has become the standard control mechanism for determining the genuineness as truly mystical experience for a given subject. There two other scales such as a specific question by Greeley (1974) and the State of Consciousness Inventory by Alexander (1982; Alexander, Boyer, & Alexander, 1987) [8] This is a 32 item questionnaire that is scored in a particular way. Hood's M. Scale is designed to test the veracity of the theories of Philosopher W.T Stace, who advanced the “common core” theory of mystical experience[9] That theory argued for the universal nature of such experiences.. In other words, if actual modern mystics around the world experience the things Stace thought they do, in the way Stace thought they experienced them (see the five point list above) they would answer certain questions in a certain way [10] Hood’s work in the M scale is becoming the standard operating procedure for study of mystical and religious experiences. It hasn’t yet been understood by everyone so we find that people evoking religious experience by manipulating stimulation of the brain don’t use any sort of control, such as the M scale, for establishing a valid mystical experience. Thus they can’t prove they are evoking real mystical experiences.[11] Dale Caird said that “research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated” [12] by Hood’s M scale. Caird did one of the studies that validated the M scale. Burris (1999) has shown that the M scale is the most commonly used measurement for the study of mysticism. [13]


The M scale enables us to determine the validity of a mystical experience among contemporary people. In other words, did someone have a “real mystical experience” or are they just carried away by the idea of having one? [14] There are two major versions of the M scale, what is called “two factor” solution and a “three factor solution.” The two factors are items assessing an experience of unity (questions such as “have you had an experience of unity?”) and items refereeing to religious and knowledge claims. In other words questions such as “did you experience God’s presence?” Or did you experience God’s love?” In each section there are two positively worded and two negatively worded items. [15] The problem with the two factor analysis is that it tried to be neutral with Language, according to Hood himself. It spoke of “experience of ultimate reality” but with no indication that ultimate reality means reality of God. As Hood puts it, “no language is neutral"[16] One group might want ultimate reality defined as “Christ” while others who are not in a Christian tradition might eschew such a move. In response to this problem Hood and Williamson, around 2000, developed what they termed “the three factor solution.” They made two additional versions of the scale one made reference where appropriate to “God” or “Christ.” They had a “God” version and a “Christ” version and both were given to Christian relevant samples. The scales were “factor analyzed,” they weighed each difference as a factor such as it’s mention of God or mention of Christ. In this factor analysis, where the scale referred to “God,” “Christ” or simply “reality” the “factor structures were identical.” That is the respondents saw “God,” “Christ” and “ultimate reality” as coterminou. That means Christians who have mystical experience understand God, Christ, and Reality as referring to the same things. [17]


All three versions matched Stace’s phenomenologically derived theory. “For all three intervertive, extrovertive and interpirative factors emerged.” [18] Respondents were answering in ways indicative of having both types of mystical experience and deriving interpretive experiences from it, they understood their experiences in light of theological understanding. The only exception was that the introvertive factors contained the emergence of ineffability because there was no content to analyze. Of course where the scale has been validated the same technique was used and tailored to the tradition of the respondent. Buddhists got a version applicable to Buddhists and Muslims got one appropriate to Islam, and so on. The same kinds of factors emerged. This demonstrates that mystical experiences are the same minus the details of the tradition, such as specific references to names. In other words Buddhists recognize Buddha mind as ultimate reality, while Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christians recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality, Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality, but all say they experience ultimate reality. This is a good indication that the same basic reality stands behind this experience, or to say it another way they are all experiences of the same reality.


Hood wrote a Text book with Bernard Spilka. [19] They point three major assumptions of the common core theory that flow out of Stace’s work: 


(1) Mystical experience is universal and identical in phenomenological terms.

(2) Core Categories are not always essential in every experience, there are borderline cases.

(3) Interovertive and extrovertive are distinct forms, the former is an experience of unity devoid of content, the latter is unity in diversity with content.


The M scale reflects these observations and in so doing validates Stace’s findings. Hood and Spilka (et al) then go on to argue that empirical research supports a common core/perennialist conceptualization of mysticism and it’s interpretation.

The three factor solution, stated above, allows a greater range of interpretation of experience, either religious or not religious. This greater range supports Stace’s finding that a single experience may be interpreted in different ways. [20] The three factor solution thus fit Stace’s common core theory. One of the persistent problems of the M scale is the neutrality of language, especially with respect to religious language. For example the scale asks about union with “ultimate reality” not “union with God.” Thus there’s a problem in understanding that ultimate reality really means God, or unify two different descriptions one about God and one about reality. [21] There is really no such thing as “neutral” language. In the attempt to be neutral non neutral people will be offended. On the one had the common core idea will be seen as “new age” on the other identification with a particular tradition will be off putting for secularists and people of other traditions. Measurement scales must sort out the distinctions. Individuals demand interpretation of experiences, so the issue will be forced despite the best attempts to avoid it. In dealing with William James and his interpreters it seems clear that some form of transformation will be reflected in the discussion of experiences. In other words the experiences have to be filtered through cultural constructs and human assumptions of religious and other kinds of thought traditions in order to communicate them to people. Nevertheless experiences may share the same functionality in description. Christians may want the experiences they have that would otherwise be termed “ultimate reality” to be identified with Christ, while Muslims identify with Allah and atheist with “void.” The expressed is important as the “social construction of experience” but differently expressed experiences can have similar structures. Hood and Williamson designed the three factor analysis to avoid these problems of language. [22]This is a passage from my own work, The Trace of God :[23]


In a series of empirical measurement based studies employing the Mysticism scale introvertive mysticism emerges both as a distinct factor in exploratory analytic studies [24] and also as a confirming factor analysis in cultures as diverse as the United States and Iran; not only in exploratory factor analytic studies (Hood & Williamson, 2000) but also in confirmatory factor analyses in such diverse cultures as the United States and Iran (Hood, Ghornbani, Watson, Ghramaleki, Bing, Davison, Morris, & Williamson. (2001).[25] In other words, the form of mysticism that is usually said to be beyond description and beyond images, as opposed to that found in connection with images of the natural world, is seen through reflection of data derived form the M scale and as supporting factors in other relations. Scholars supporting the unity thesis (the mystical sense of undifferentiated unity—everything is “one”) have conducted interviews with mystics in other traditions about the nature of their introvertive mystical experiences. These discussions reveal that differences in expression that might be taken as linguistics culturally constructed are essentially indicative of the same experiences. The mystics recognize their experiences even in the expression of other traditions and other cultures. These parishioners represent different forms of Zen and Yoga.[26] Scholars conducting literature searches independently of other studies, who sought common experience between different traditions, have found commonalities. Brainaid, found commonality between cultures as diverse as Advanita-Vendanta Hinduism, and Madhmika Buddhism, and Nicene Christianity; Brainaid’s work supports conclusions by Loy with respect to the types of Hinduism and Buddhism.[27]

The upshot of this work by Hood is two fold: on the one had it means there is a pragmatic way to control for the understanding of what is a mystical experience and what is not. Using Stace as a guide we find that modern “mystics” around the world are having Stace-like experiences. Thus Stace’s view makes a good indication of what is and what is not a mystical experience. That means we can study the effects of having it. Of course Stace drew conclusions from his own survey vof literature of the great mystics. Now other scales have been attempted and none of them had the kind of verification that the M scale does, but taken together the whole body of work for the last fifty years or so (since Abraham Maslow) shows that religious experience of the “mystical” sort is very good for us. People who have such experiences tend to find positive, dramatic, transformation in terms of outlook, mental health and even physical health.


Over the years numerous claims have been made about the nature of spiritual/mystical and Maslow's “peak experiences”, and about their consequences. Wuthnow (1978) set out to explore findings regarding peak experiences from a systematic random sample of 1000 persons and found that peak experiences are common to a wide cross-section of people, and that one in two has experienced contact with the holy or sacred, more than eight in ten have been moved deeply by the beauty of nature and four in ten have experienced being in harmony with the universe. Of these, more than half in each have had peak experiences which have had deep and lasting effects on their lives. Peakers are more likely also, to say they value working for social change, helping to solve social problems, and helping people in need. Wuthnow stressed the therapeutic value of these experiences and also the need to study the social significance of these experiences in bringing about a world in which problems such as social disintegration, prejudice and poverty can be eradicated. Savage et al., (1995) provided clinical evidence to suggest that peakers produce greater feelings of self-confidence and a deeper sense of meaning and purpose. Mogar's (1965) research also tended to confirm these findings.[ 28]


The body of work to which I refer consists of about 200 studies (one could say 300 but let’s be conservative). [29]A huge part of that (about 50) is taken up with the prolific work of Ralph Hood. Not all of these studies use the M scale but it has become standard since the 90s. The body of work here discussed stretches back to the 1960s and the studies of Abraham Maslow. The study of mental health aspects has grown by leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades. Since the deployment of the three part solution of the M scale the studies have been more empirical and better controlled. The effects and their transformative qualities could be understood as rational warrant for belief in God, I have so argued in The Trace of God. [30] 





sources


part 1


[1] Broadcast in 1948 on the Third Program of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Published in Humanitas (Manchester) and reprinted in Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957). chapter 13.




[2] Ibid.




[3] Caroline Franks Davis, The Evidential Force of Religious experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 no page indicated.




[4] William P. Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1991.



[5] Walter T.Stace, The Teachings of the Mystics, (New York:The New American Library, 1960).15-18



[6] Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.” In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. Patrick Mcnamara ed. West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235., 127.


[7] Ibid.




[8] Jayne Gackenback, “Pure Cobciousness. Mystical Experiences.” Childhood Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration, Spirit Watch, online resource, URL: 

http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/ipure.htm accessed 3/32016.




[9] Walter T. Stace, Mysticism and Philosophy, New York: Macmillan,1961,44.


[10] Ibid, 128



.

[11] John Hick, The New Frontier Of Religion and Science: Religious Experiejhce, Neuroscience, and The Transcendent. UK: Palgrave: Macmillan, 2006, 66.



He does not mention the M scasle per se but shows that they do not use a standard and some use slip shod criteria for evaluation.



[12] Dale Caird, “The structure of Hood's Mysticism Scale: A factor analytic study.”journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126

\

[13] Burris (1999) quoted in Hood, op, cit., 128


[14] Hood, ibid, 128


[15] bid. 


[16] Ibid, 129


[17] Ibid.


[18] Ibid, 129


[19] Bernard Spilka, Ralph Hood Jr., Bruce Hunsberger, Richard Gorwuch. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. New York, London: the Guildford Press, 2003.


[20] Ibid, 323


[21] Ibid\


[22] Ibid, Hood in McNamara. 


[23] Hinman, Trace ...op. Cit., 168 fn72-75.


[24] Ralph Hood Jr., W.P. Williamson. “An empirical test of the unity thesis: The structure of mystical descriptors in various faith samples.” Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 19, (2000) 222-244.


[25] R.W. Hood, Jr., N.Ghorbani, P.J. Waston, et al “Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three Factor Structure in the United States and Iran.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40 (2001) 691-705.


[26] R.K.C. Forman, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness. Albany: State University of New York Press, (1999) 20-30. 


[27] F.S. Brainard, Reality and Mystical Experience, Unvisited Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (2000). See also D.Loy, Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Humanities Press.


[28] Krishna K. Mohan, “Spirituality and Wellbeing: an Overview.” An Article based upon a Presentation made during the Second International Conference on Integral Psychology, held at Pondicherry India 4-7 January 2001, published in hard copy, Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) (2001) Consciousness and Its Transformation. Pondicherry: SAICE.On line copy website of the India Psychology Institute. Site visited 9/3/12. URL:http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php Accessed 2/7/2016


[29]Bibliogrophies from which I took the studies include Voyle. LL, Mohan, Franks. gackenback


[30] Hinman, Trace...op. Cit., this is the gist of all of chapter 2, 61-135,especially 92-107.




Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: The M scale enables us to determine the validity of a mystical experience among contemporary people. In other words, did someone have a “real mystical experience” or are they just carried away by the idea of having one?

If you define "real" as merely being an actual experience without any suggestion that it came from God, as you seem to do here, then sure mystical experiences are real.

It is when you make the leap from that to the existence of God that you venture into wonderland. And you do so one your own; Hood is certainly not with you on that journey.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

It is when you make the leap from that to the existence of God that you venture into wonderland. And you do so one your own; Hood is certainly not with you on that journey.

you re begging the question and arguing in a circle. these experiences are indicative of God's reality. To then argue that I have to prove God exists indolently of the experiences before the experiences can be used as evidence of God, that is just insane. God must be proven with other arguments before these arguments can be heeded, That's insane,and illogical.

I have listed several reasons why these experiences are indicative of God. Remember they don;'t have to prove God exists only to point to good reasons to believe he does.

(1)The entire book itself sketches out why the experiences are indicative of God.You really need to read the book. It lists eight tie breakers, that put it over against defeaters

(2) I argue for the codeterinate(the trace) which is empirical. We can;t prove God empirically but we can prove the trace empirically. the sign the finer print which is the experience itself Because it is about the presence of God, most people who have such penances come out with that impression.

(3)the experiences conforms to yr criteria we use for epistemic judgement, I put that aruent up the other day you said nothing about it,

(4) The experiences produce the effects one would expect according to the claims of religion,so religion works no reason not to trust


here is why I renoved thatcomnent"

Lin here
The Pixie said…
Joe: you re begging the question and arguing in a circle. these experiences are indicative of God's reality. To then argue that I have to prove God exists indolently of the experiences before the experiences can be used as evidence of God, that is just insane. God must be proven with other arguments before these arguments can be heeded, That's insane,and illogical.

Nothing circular on my side. All I am pointing out is that you lack a reason as to why mystical experiences should be considered evidence for the existence of God.

Your argument is

1. Mystical experiences are "real" in the sense that these are actual experiences people really do have.
2. Therefore they come from God.

But 2. does not follow from 1. These experiences could be due to chemical imbalances or indeed demons trying to fool you.

Joe: I have listed several reasons why these experiences are indicative of God. Remember they don;'t have to prove God exists only to point to good reasons to believe he does.

Where did you do that? Certainly not in this post, which is purely about how they can be quantified. Measuring a mystical experiences gives no indication of where they came from.

Joe: (2) I argue for the codeterinate(the trace) which is empirical. We can;t prove God empirically but we can prove the trace empirically. the sign the finer print which is the experience itself Because it is about the presence of God, most people who have such penances come out with that impression.

You cannot prove Bigfoot empirically, but you can prove the footprints. Should we conclude Bigfoot exists? No, because there are other explanations (and I would say more likely explanations) for the footprints besides Bigfoot actually existing.

Sure you can prove mystical experiences empirically, but that does not warrant belief in God, because there are other explanations (and I would say more likely explanations) for mystical experiences.

So yes, you can prove mystical experiences empirically, but the leap to God existing is still fantasy.

Joe: (4) The experiences produce the effects one would expect according to the claims of religion,so religion works no reason not to trust

You are assuming the causal link because you want it to be true. It is just as reasonable to suppose the claims of religion have been contrived from mystical experiences.



Certainly not in this post, which is purely about how they can be quantified. Measuring a mystical experiences gives no indication of where they came from.

I see you want to know where in the article i say it, in part 2, in paart 1 I said:

"In this article I will discuss the studies and their methodologies,
[part 1,then:]

then construct an argument designed to warrant conclusion in favor of the reality of God using this data. The argument makes claims based upon and discuss the scientific basis for the data, answering the major objection that might be lanced against any or all of the arguments from scientific quarters. [in part2]
im-skeptical said…
As I recall, your argument (which you have presented before) includes the claim the if the experience is about the divine, then it must actually be divine in nature. This is indeed a leap of logic.
Jesse said…
LOL! You deleted a comment. SPAM SPAM SPAM
m-skeptical said...
As I recall, your argument (which you have presented before) includes the claim the if the experience is about the divine, then it must actually be divine in nature. This is indeed a leap of logic.

Not exactly. I never put it in such stark terms. I have several points that taken together indicate it is of God, that's one of them.
The Pixie said...
Joe: you re begging the question and arguing in a circle. these experiences are indicative of God's reality. To then argue that I have to prove God exists indolently of the experiences before the experiences can be used as evidence of God, that is just insane. God must be proven with other arguments before these arguments can be heeded, That's insane,and illogical.

Nothing circular on my side. All I am pointing out is that you lack a reason as to why mystical experiences should be considered evidence for the existence of God.

Hope, I just gave you four reasons and wrote a whole book you know you have not answered those four reasons

Your argument is

1. Mystical experiences are "real" in the sense that these are actual experiences people really do have.
2. Therefore they come from God.

Nope I never made such an argent. you are taking bits of arguments and leaving out all kinds of connections


But 2. does not follow from 1. These experiences could be due to chemical imbalances or indeed demons trying to fool you.

It does actually if you leave in the links that those who have experiences conclude they are from God. If the experiences are real and other causal factors are eliminated then the thing experienced must also be real or at least one is justified in assimilating so.



Joe: I have listed several reasons why these experiences are indicative of God. Remember they don;'t have to prove God exists only to point to good reasons to believe he does.

Where did you do that? Certainly not in this post, which is purely about how they can be quantified. Measuring a mystical experiences gives no indication of where they came from.

above where I said: (1)The entire book itself sketches out why the experiences are indicative of God.You really need to read the book. It lists eight tie breakers, that put it over against defeaters

(2) I argue for the codeterinate(the trace) which is empirical. We can;t prove God empirically but we can prove the trace empirically. the sign the finer print which is the experience itself Because it is about the presence of God, most people who have such penances come out with that impression.

(3)the experiences conforms to yr criteria we use for epistemic judgement, I put that aruent up the other day you said nothing about it,

(4) The experiences produce the effects one would expect according to the claims of religion,so religion works no reason not to trust.

I also told you in this article it;s in part 2 so its not time yet to discuss it.




Joe: (2) I argue for the codeterinate(the trace) which is empirical. We can;t prove God empirically but we can prove the trace empirically. the sign the finer print which is the experience itself Because it is about the presence of God, most people who have such penances come out with that impression.

You cannot prove Bigfoot empirically, but you can prove the footprints. Should we conclude Bigfoot exists? No, because there are other explanations (and I would say more likely explanations) for the footprints besides Bigfoot actually existing.

begging the question again, because you buy the conventional hogwash on Bigfoot you assume the false assumptions about BF disprove God. Utter crap!

Sure you can prove mystical experiences empirically, but that does not warrant belief in God, because there are other explanations (and I would say more likely explanations) for mystical experiences.

No there are not, there are no studies that offer other explanations. There are anti religious science types who assume but no data backs them up.

So yes, you can prove mystical experiences empirically, but the leap to God existing is still fantasy.

It's the only logical explanation and it fits the criteria by which we judge the truth of experiences.

Joe: (4) The experiences produce the effects one would expect according to the claims of religion,so religion works no reason not to trust

You are assuming the causal link because you want it to be true. It is just as reasonable to suppose the claims of religion have been contrived from mystical experiences.

That does not answer the argument,the experiences are what we should expect if God was real,based upon promises made in scripture,that's the same as any casual regression argument you have not answered it,
im-skeptical said…
Not exactly. I never put it in such stark terms. I have several points that taken together indicate it is of God, that's one of them.

- Please see statements 5 and 6 in Hinman's Argument From God Corrolate:

(1) Real effects come from real causes
(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real
(3) the effects of mystical experience are real
(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME
Joe: Not exactly. I never put it in such stark terms. I have several points that taken together indicate it is of God, that's one of them.

- Please see statements 5 and 6 in Hinman's Argument From God Corrolate:

(1) Real effects come from real causes
(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real
(3) the effects of mystical experience are real
(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME


Of course these are your words not mine. While they are all things I have said they leave out a out other stuff that is both in the book and in the arguments online.

One such thing (major) is the elimination of counter causes. I have a whole chapter on that in the book.


Order The Trace of God on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714
im-skeptical said…
Of course these are your words not mine.
- Copied directly from your own post. Follow the link I provided.

https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/10/argument-from-god-corrolate.html
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
im-skeptical said...
Of course these are your words not mine.
- Copied directly from your own post. Follow the link I provided.

https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/10/argument-from-god-corrolate.html


what did I say?I said you are not dealing with the full argument
the argument that I have antennae down alternative causes is argued operationally and it always adheres.
im-skeptical said…
you are not dealing with the full argument
- There was nothing in that argument that made a valid logical linkage from ME being about the divine to ME actually being divine in origin. You simply dismiss all all evidence indicating that the experience may be natural. I look forward to Part 2, where you presumably provide this logical linkage.
Me: you are not dealing with the full argument

Him:- There was nothing in that argument that made a valid logical linkage from ME being about the divine to ME actually being divine in origin.

bull shit. there is absolutely why the argument doesn't convey that pima facie everything said in that argument suggests that assassin divine origin is a valid inference give the data. We would draw the same conclusions for anything.
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME


You simply dismiss all all evidence indicating that the experience may be natural.


sorry I already answered that, It is your burden of proof to show specific alternate causes and prove that I don't cover them adequately..Just asserting them is not an argument,


I look forward to Part 2, where you presumably provide this logical linkage.
1/08/2020 06:07:00 PM

then why are you expecting me to do it now.?



(1) Real effects come from real causes
(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real

you made no reputation on this point


(3) the effects of mystical experience are real
(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.

from 1-2 which you did not refute

(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine

all you did here was to say I didn't prove it but it's a logical inference s from the imperviously unchallenged propositions,


(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME

you didn't challenge that either, So you have accepted every infrequence so we can accept the argument. the only thing you did to really challenge is to assert other causes which I have stipulated are answered in part 2.
im-skeptical said…
you made no reputation on this point
- I agree with that. Actually if the effect is real, the cause definitely real. The question is "what is the cause?"

from 1-2 which you did not refute
- Again, I agree with that.

all you did here was to say I didn't prove it but it's a logical inference s from the imperviously unchallenged propositions
- Wrong. I pointed out the error you made here in claiming "the content of ME is divine". This is not a conclusion made from the premises that lead up to this point in the argument. The content of the ME (in certain cases) is ABOUT the divine. That does not mean it IS devine. This is a false conclusion - a non sequitur. If I have a mental experience about something (like a unicorn), that does not mean that that thing is real. What is real is simply the fact that I have had an experience, and the experience has some real cause. The content of the experience can still be purely imaginary.

you didn't challenge that either, So you have accepted every infrequence so we can accept the argument.
- No need to go beyond the first logical error. I have not accepted every inference. The argument is not logically valid.


Wrong. I pointed out the error you made here in claiming "the content of ME is divine". This is not a conclusion made from the premises that lead up to this point in the argument. The content of the ME (in certain cases) is ABOUT the divine. That does not mean it IS devine. This is a false conclusion - a non sequitur. If I have a mental experience about something (like a unicorn), that does not mean that that thing is real. What is real is simply the fact that I have had an experience, and the experience has some real cause. The content of the experience can still be purely imaginary.

you didn't challenge that either, So you have accepted every infrequence so we can accept the argument.
- No need to go beyond the first logical error. I have not accepted every inference. The argument is not logically valid.


your trick here is to just isolate that one point and act like that itself is the basis of my argument.Then you change the meaning of the phrase, It meant feeling God's presence is a reason to assume one has experienced the reality of the divine. you change it to mean;it is divine," That is of course a shorthand for:" it is rooted in the divine as its origin"

the actual argument insoles these 8 points, ?


(1) Real effects come from real causes
(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real
(3) the effects of mystical experience are real
(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME




This kind of BS is why you were banned,i wont tolerate it at all.




Wrong. I pointed out the error you made here in claiming "the content of ME is divine". This is not a conclusion made from the premises that lead up to this point in the argument.

yes it follows obviously from those eight points, you have no argument,you are merely asserting your stupid opinion, it's not a logical flaw on my part it;s your stupid unsupported opinion.


The content of the ME (in certain cases)


98%

is ABOUT the divine. That does not mean it IS devine.

of divine origin,yes it does, in conjunction with the other seven points,

This is a false conclusion - a non sequitur.

your assertion is yes


If I have a mental experience about something (like a unicorn), that does not mean that that thing is real.

It might Cecily if it is something that is given in that sort of impression such as presence.


What is real is simply the fact that I have had an experience, and the experience has some real cause. The content of the experience can still be purely imaginary.

since have no other cause to suggest mine will have to do
im-skeptical said…
since have no other cause to suggest mine will have to do

- Aside from various electro-chemical inducements, there are many kinds of psychological inducements. Religious rituals can have this effect. I have seen a person talked into having a ME by a skilled manipulator.
- Aside from various electro-chemical inducements,

that is answered in part 2, published tomorrow. There are no studies to back it up


there are many kinds of psychological inducements.

document one, give me a study.there are none, there is no basis for that claim,


Religious rituals can have this effect.

no rituals do not cause the experience, they can trigger. There's a difference, That does not count as a counter cause, its not a naturalistic cause,



I have seen a person talked into having a ME by a skilled manipulator.

I bet you refer to that stupid Brown guy's thing that is easily disproved. I bet your assertion that it was ME has no verification that it was. It's only based upon a vegly religious idea. That's not mystical. Did it have the M scale to verify it? I bet not.
im-skeptical said…
As I said, you simply dismiss all all evidence indicating that the experience may be natural. You studiously ignore the vast body of scientific research, in favor of the work produced in one tiny corner of the broader field of psychology. Use the Google machine. You can easily find plenty of scientific material that backs up what I say. Even Hood talked about different phenomena (including psychological) that cause people to have mystical experiences.
As I said, you simply dismiss all all evidence indicating that the experience may be natural. You studiously ignore the vast body of scientific research, in favor of the work produced in one tiny corner of the broader field of psychology.

Which evidence is that? you have never presented any, the whole book is about that. it's stupid to try to isolate one section when the hole thing is about that issue. Clearly you have never read either, book or Clarice. You should focus on chapter 7 in the book deals with chemical and genetic issues. The part 2 of this article which I posted just now.I told you before that issue was covered in part 2 you don't even read my answers,



Use the Google machine. You can easily find plenty of scientific material that backs up what I say.

No you cant. you didn/t say anything, you have not made an argent. You are just asserting that I could be proven wrong if you took the time to do it. That's worthless/ stop wasting our time.


Even Hood talked about different phenomena (including psychological) that cause people to have mystical experiences.

No he didn't, he talked about triggers not causes big difference. you don' even know what they are.Hood does not think he never said that rules out God.

btw part 2 is now up
im-skeptical said…
I didn't say anything about ruling out God. I am talking about looking at the evidence. Use the Google machine.
im-skeptical said…
And by the way, the psychological inducement of a "mystical experience" is more than just triggering. It involves priming the subject - in other words, creating the appropriate frame of mind and psychological conditions to induce the experience. This is definitely a causal mechanism at work.
m-skeptical said...
And by the way, the psychological inducement of a "mystical experience" is more than just triggering. It involves priming the subject - in other words, creating the appropriate frame of mind and psychological conditions to induce the experience. This is definitely a causal mechanism at work.

that is BS No research that supports it. You are tapping into a body of research that is invalid, they do not use control mechanisms to determine what a mystical experiences is. U deal with this in the book.,
im-skeptical said…
I didn't say anything about ruling out God. I am talking about looking at the evidence. Use the Google machine.

you are not looking at evidence you are just dogmatically denying that it is evidence,

Popular posts from this blog

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

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

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

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

The Meaning of the Manger

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Bread and Butter apologetics

Do God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict?