tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post8364626721887510827..comments2023-03-28T03:18:53.318+13:00Comments on akakiwibear: It's not about the scienceakakiwibearhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-26508154942043128532008-10-10T01:07:00.000+13:002008-10-10T01:07:00.000+13:00Hi Akakiwibear,It seems that I've completely misun...Hi Akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>It seems that I've completely misunderstood you. I was thinking that your insight was validated because it came from a spiritual realm, but that appears not to be the case. Forgive me if this seems like a stupid question, but what does validate your insight?<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-9200563136878730352008-09-10T16:26:00.000+12:002008-09-10T16:26:00.000+12:00"How would that be different from a realization wh...<I>"How would that be different from a realization where you think "Ah-ha! That's how things fit together"."</I> no different, my qualifier was that I doubt that I would have got there on my own. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps I under estimate my ability. In truth I could have 'put it together' myself. Would that change the "insight"? No, does it make the insight less valid? No. <BR/><BR/>It seems (perhaps because of my focus) that we keep returning the topic of religious experience. BUT it is one element that provides evidence of a spiritual realm and my theist position rests of necessity on the existence of that realm. So anything pertaining to attracts my attention.<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahleakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-75771781976956795462008-07-29T00:29:00.000+12:002008-07-29T00:29:00.000+12:00Hi Akakiwibear,I'm not sure all this talk about DM...Hi Akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure all this talk about DMT and tripping is all that relevant to this discussion. The experiences you describe in your original post don't sound like a trip. They sound like someone reading the Bible and making a connection with an existing belief. Clearly you're in a better position to say whether it was like that or not. You say that you can only describe the experience as a revelation. How would that be different from a realization where you think "Ah-ha! That's how things fit together".<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-52803879814302510252007-12-12T12:40:00.000+13:002007-12-12T12:40:00.000+13:00Yes, but I would not concede that it was different...<I>Yes, but I would not concede that it was different than the effects of DMT, or DMT+adrenaline, or DMT+seratonin.</I> <BR/><BR/>mmmm interesting. You concede that the events are actually different, but the brain chemistry may be the same – at that concession I should rest my case.<BR/><BR/>I expect you want me to answer your last question and will notice that I excluded mental illness from your quote above. Schizophrenia = the “what” the front part of your statement was the “how”. They are fundamentally different aspects. I can use a car to commute, to race or to sight see – same “how” different “what”.<BR/><BR/>I thought you would bring schizophrenia up. Mental illness is the usual atheist explanation for religious experiences – Paul had an epileptic seizure on the road to Damascus etc. The research you cite may now establish that both involve similar brain chemistry (the how) BUT there are clear differences in the “what”. <BR/><BR/>Certainly the research would imply that it is possible to confuse mental illness with a psychedelic experience or a religious one – they may well share the same “how” - until the research can sort it out we should acknowledge that there is a gap in the science and that the differences in the “what” exist.<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-88548480251759330892007-12-12T09:00:00.000+13:002007-12-12T09:00:00.000+13:00If I were to produce a list of 50 credible account...<I>If I were to produce a list of 50 credible accounts of people who had life changing or conversion like religious experiences would you concede that they had experiences different from tripping</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but I would not concede that it was different than the effects of DMT, or DMT+adrenaline, or DMT+seratonin, or schizophrenia.<BR/><BR/><I>- equally I would interested to read of life altering tripping experiences outside of drug OD which tends to be an irreversible life change to a seriously non communicative state</I><BR/><BR/>How about schizophrenia?Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-17790371969201106052007-12-11T12:11:00.000+13:002007-12-11T12:11:00.000+13:00No, clearly there are differences in base level or...No, clearly there are differences in base level or gland activity between people - this may or may not make them more susceptible to mystical experiences.<BR/><BR/>My point is that where information is transmitted by means of the changed chemical levels that provides a key distinction between tripping and a genuine religious experience - we can argue the appellation of the source of the information later.<BR/><BR/>If I were to produce a list of 50 credible accounts of people who had life changing or conversion like religious experiences would you concede that they had experiences different from tripping <BR/>- equally I would interested to read of life altering tripping experiences outside of drug OD which tends to be an irreversible life change to a seriously non communicative state.<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahleakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-68525388611354084142007-12-11T11:07:00.000+13:002007-12-11T11:07:00.000+13:00I think we are at a place where neither of us has ...I think we are at a place where neither of us has enough information to continue this discussion.<BR/><BR/>What we need are 50 people who have had strong religious or near death experiences. Then they need to take DMT and describe similarities and differences. Becuase as I understand it, its not like an acid trip. It feels as real as if you are there.<BR/><BR/>But I have neither had a religious experience nor have I taken DMT. All I can do is read studies around it.<BR/><BR/>Just a note of hormone levels<BR/><BR/>Diabetes is an abnormal level of insulin. In fact <A HREF="http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec13.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> is a list of various hormonal disorders. All caused by abnormal levels of hormones (too much or too littles). To think that its unlikely that people may naturally get too much DMT, seems.... unlikely :)<BR/><BR/>So, if I understood you correctly, you were suggesting that the DMT release is a mechanism by which god may impart an experience. Does god also impart diabetes? hyperthyroidism?<BR/><BR/>Or is it more likely the there is variation in the output of every gland we have from person to person. Further there is variation in the output in response to external stimulae, be it intense, or chronic.<BR/><BR/>Nothing seems mystical to me.Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-31040461148053370082007-12-11T10:05:00.000+13:002007-12-11T10:05:00.000+13:00Tech, let's assume the brain chemistry is as you s...Tech, let's assume the brain chemistry is as you say, then to have a religious experience the chemical levels change is either a random event or is triggered. <BR/>The experimental work you refer to relates to abnormally high levels of chemical. So we have to ask what is actually being simulated – something that is likely to occur in the normal course of events or something that requires specific stimulation – again a random or triggered?<BR/><BR/>An analogy, I can subject you to white noise to prove that you can hear, but not that you can ‘listen’ or interpret sound. <BR/>If I play you music I can deduce some discernment on your part depending on how you react to Clapton. <BR/>If I read to you I have imparted information. <BR/><BR/>Now the experiments you refer to are akin to white noise – it’s a psychedelic experience, its just tripping out. In the context of music it modifies the experience of listening to the music but <B>does not create the music </B>. BUT tripping is not the same as a mystical or metaphysical religious experience – kids of the 60’s know this. <BR/><BR/>In terms of my analogy, Paul’s conversion experience relates to being read to. There is information being conveyed, it has a purpose and a source.<BR/><BR/>It looks to me like we have the ability to simulate what has been referred to as a "religious experience" but may not be one at all - it may use similar brain chemistry – it may help explain what happens during a religious experience and that is really interesting.<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-68031827194945059622007-12-10T14:22:00.000+13:002007-12-10T14:22:00.000+13:00BUT as a starting position it requires you to be o...<B>BUT as a starting position it requires you to be open to the possibility that religious experiences could be true.</B><BR/><BR/>I have no doubt at all that religious experiences are true and that people have them. I just don't think a space daddy has anything to do with it. I even put up an explanation for it, one that is measurable, repeatable and naturally available to all people. It has nothing to do with the supernatural.<BR/><BR/>I would even go so far as to say that each person regulated this chemical differently, and that to survive those who felt they had the protection of a sjy daddy fared better when we were nothing but a bunch of tribal communities.<BR/><BR/>And like some people who have thyroids that are not regulating hormones properly, or pancreases that tend toward resulting in diabetes, I dont see why its hard to believe that the pineal gland excretes DMT differently to different people, some who literally hear god talking to them, and some, like me, who hear nor experience anything at all.<BR/><BR/>Sure the God-Hearers think its real, of course they do, just like when their ears tell them a car is coming. They literally can't help it. It doesnt make it real.<BR/><BR/>so which is a simpler answer? The pineal gland drips DMT differently into different people..or.. there is an all powerful sky daddy, who cant bee measured in any single way, but who can and does control every single electron in the universe?Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-24438877256777503882007-12-10T14:13:00.000+13:002007-12-10T14:13:00.000+13:00This comment has been removed by the author.Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-20550335005226506612007-12-10T09:53:00.000+13:002007-12-10T09:53:00.000+13:00Tech I think you chose to miss JLH’s point when he...Tech I think you chose to miss JLH’s point when he drew the parallel between thought being a chemical process like a religious experience – it is the same thing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>On should apply one standard to all. Tech presented as a test for consciousness <I>just ask someone if they are there. Have other people in the room to hear the answer to confirm it.</I> to test for God Tech says <I>what experiment, or method of measurement would you propose to show to everyone that god exists? Ask people?</I> In fact we rely on first hand personal accounts in a number of areas to gain understanding of events – it is an acknowledged part of the scientific method you value so highly. <BR/><BR/>What really interests me is your comment <I> “ONLY if you presume he exists first. Then you can just say that everything we measure is due to God. Its a silly circular argument, something that always happens when you start with your conclusion” </I>. Certainly a preconception that God does not exist restricts ones thinking. <BR/><BR/>A starting position <B> there may or may not be a God </B> is the only valid one. BUT as a starting position it requires you to be open to the possibility that religious experiences could be true. <BR/><BR/>It requires you evaluate the evidence available – personal accounts.<BR/><BR/>It requires you to look at the people and the circumstance objectively and to judge accordingly.<BR/><BR/>Yes it requires you consider other possibilities, to look at patterns and similarities etc – but it requires you to <B>weigh all the evidence </B> – not just the evidence that passes an atheist filter.<BR/><BR/>Yes it requires you to acknowledge that while there is strong evidence of religious experiences they are not proof that God exists, only that there is a metaphysical realm.<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-57938003530895909722007-12-10T06:29:00.000+13:002007-12-10T06:29:00.000+13:00you are concluding dogmatically that it isn't real...<B>you are concluding dogmatically that it isn't real because its not tangible.t hats' so childish. look at how many things in the universe are not tangable but you assume they are real all the time, like consciousness. neutrinos and smells.</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, you got it! If we can not measure it, have no evidence of it, then we have no reason to beleive it exists.<BR/><BR/>Every single on of your examples are measurable:<BR/><BR/>Consciousness: just ask someone if they are there. Have other people in the room to hear the answer to confirm it. Can you do that with God?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v64/i5/e053008" REL="nofollow"> Neutrinos</A><BR/><BR/>Smells: Ever hear of a Gas Chromatagraph or Fouriour Transform Infrared spectrometry (FTIR). Smells are easily measured.<BR/><BR/>Even things that are not measurable, we consider to be hypotheses. For example the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson" REL="nofollow"> Higgs Boson</A> (the God particle). We have a hypothesis that they exist becuase it answers other observations we have made. We have proposed methods of measuring them, and have not been successful yet. <BR/><BR/>does that mean it doesnt exist? It might, we have not performed enough experiments quite yet to rule it out. We (humans, not americans, the swiss in fact) just built a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider" REL="nofollow"> machine</A> that, if they exist, should be able to find them. If we don't and we are sure of our calculations and LHC capabilities, then we have some evidence that we are wrong. Time to move on. New hypothesis, new equipment, whatever.<BR/><BR/>Now, what experiment, or method of measurement would you propose to show to everyone that god exists? Ask people? LOL, shall we ask if they saw ghosts also (a huge majority of people have). Shall we ask them which god they heard? Cause the mulsims and hindus will have you outnumbered. Lets also ask a buch of americans if atlantis exists, becuase a huge proportion thinks that is true also.<BR/><BR/>surveys are a crap way to prove the existence of something. Measurement is the only tool.<BR/><BR/>In the end, your answer will be no better than "Just trust me".<BR/><BR/><B>Obviously that's not analogous because I just demonstrated that God has measurable effects, or at least we have good reason to view them as such.</B><BR/><BR/>ONLY if you presume he exists first. Then you can just say that everything we measure is due to God. Its a silly circular argument, something that always happens when you start with your conclusion. Acupuncture, homeopathy, The Secret, and water dowsing are other examples of the same circular, presumptuous silliness.<BR/><BR/>10,000 years or more of God responsibility, with him being responsible for less and less as we gain more and more knowledge, the conclusion to this is obvious. you say God of the Gaps is not what you are thinking and then you say:<BR/><BR/><B>2) no alternate causality can be demonstrated to cause long term positive effects. and long term positive is very important. they aren't empty words.</B><BR/><BR/>Ahh, god of the gaps has returned.<BR/><BR/>Here is a causality that can bring in long term positive effects. Humanity working to promote humanity by realizing we do best by reducing suffering, increasing happiness while maintaining or increasing free will.<BR/><BR/>An unsubstantiated, antiquated, hypothesis may make you feel better, but it is currently causing immense suffering around the world. My only sadness is that I wont be around when we rise up out of our superstitions.Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-56420290089195498322007-12-07T18:04:00.000+13:002007-12-07T18:04:00.000+13:00But ideas are internal. I dont sense your ideas. y...But ideas are internal. I dont sense your ideas. you don't sense mine. Your model is trying to equate the reality of internal experiences with an external one.<BR/><BR/><B>No I wouldn't say I'm trying to equate them. But we can take internal states seriously if we have some reason to believe that it is a common experiences. We stduies on mystical experince show that it is. These experiences have similar characteristics.</B><BR/><BR/>Once I have an idea I can show the reality of that idea. I can communicate it, i can explain it to other people, I can write it down and prove that I had the idea, and even prove, perhaps, that I had it first.<BR/><BR/>You can't do that with external things that dont have any evidence of their existence (like gods, qi, water memory etc). <BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Do you mean internal things? That's why I do all that about the co-determinate. The experiences can be studies, they have similarities and can be tested and shown that people experiences very similar experiences. The effects can be measured. So while we can't get direct experince of God, we can measure the effects of God. These experiences can be viewed in that way.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I can't write down that I have an imaginary friend, and expect that imaginary friend to come into existence (if so I would have produced a number of girlfriends in my college years that I had no chance of getting otherwise).<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Obviously that's not analogous because I just demonstrated that God has measurable effects, or at least we have good reason to view them as such.</B><BR/><BR/>Maybe I am wrong.... I have this idea of a giant purple aardvark who sings the opera. I just wrote it down and.....<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>those are all contingent qualities. being giant, being purple being an aardvark are just contingencies. God is not just a big guy he's necessary being, being itself. the basis of all being. So that's is not comparable at all.</B><BR/><BR/>hmmm. nothing. It isn't real. Too bad, that would have been fun. Maybe he appeared near you, can you check?<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>you are concluding dogmatically that it isn't real because its not tangible.t hats' so childish. look at how many things in the universe are not tangeable but you assume they are real all the time, like consciousness. neutrinos and smells.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-78750658435071176632007-12-07T05:19:00.000+13:002007-12-07T05:19:00.000+13:00Hmmm that is interesting...But ideas are internal....Hmmm that is interesting...<BR/><BR/>But ideas are internal. I dont sense your ideas. you don't sense mine. Your model is trying to equate the reality of internal experiences with an external one.<BR/><BR/>Once I have an idea I can show the reality of that idea. I can communicate it, i can explain it to other people, I can write it down and prove that I had the idea, and even prove, perhaps, that I had it first.<BR/><BR/>You can't do that with external things that dont have any evidence of their existence (like gods, qi, water memory etc). I can't write down that I have an imaginary friend, and expect that imaginary friend to come into existence (if so I would have produced a number of girlfriends in my college years that I had no chance of getting otherwise).<BR/><BR/>Maybe I am wrong.... I have this idea of a giant purple aardvark who sings the opera. I just wrote it down and.....<BR/><BR/>hmmm. nothing. It isn't real. Too bad, that would have been fun. Maybe he appeared near you, can you check?Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-5378644162353079182007-12-07T05:15:00.000+13:002007-12-07T05:15:00.000+13:00This comment has been removed by the author.Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-89434368720249528722007-12-06T16:04:00.000+13:002007-12-06T16:04:00.000+13:00The mistaken assumption you are making, which is n...The mistaken assumption you are making, which is not at all uncommon to make, is in thinking that experince itself is so amazing it must be a miracle and that that's what is convening about it. that is not it at all. It's something totally different.<BR/><BR/>makes no difference whatsoever if it can be explained. That's like saying we know chemicals in the head transmit ideas, therefore, all ideas are false because they are only chemicals in the head. The experiences are experiences of the divine because they are long term and life trans formative. the transformational properties cannot be explained. just knowing the physical way the experince happens says nothing about its origin.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-26084907134413449532007-12-05T05:43:00.000+13:002007-12-05T05:43:00.000+13:00drugs are used to induce states of increased aware...<I>drugs are used to induce states of increased awareness ... and so ?</I><BR/><BR/>and soooo... there is nothing <I>at all</I> to indicate anything supernatural is present during a spiritual experience.<BR/><BR/>Did maslow know about this function of the pituitary before he started assigning his experience to something supernatural. Don't forget, the release of this chemical creates a spiritual sensation that is as real as anyone has described it, the <I>only</I> way you can infer it is associated with the chemical is if you know, a priori, that you took the drug. Release of the chemical due to pituitary stimulation or extreme shock does not directly tell you that DMT is in your brain. You will have no choice but to assign the experience to something external. When you literally experience a spirit, or light at the end of a tunnel or speaking with dead relatives, and this looks are real as anything else you have experience, unless you know you took the drug, how would you be able to assign it to anything internal.<BR/><BR/>Schizophrenics also think that the entities that they see are as real as you and me. They talk to them, yell at them, but they are not there. How is someone who talks with god, or has any distinct experience like that any different than a benign schizophrenic, one who has been able to manage their problem (of which there are tens of thousands, John Nash being a famous one)Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-61076236973031646322007-12-04T15:40:00.000+13:002007-12-04T15:40:00.000+13:00"The problem of a preconception that there are no ..."The problem of a preconception that there are no such things genuine religious experiences among most atheists is clearly a barrier to objectively evaluating this research."<BR/><BR/>not quite sure what you are saying here kiwi. But Maslow was an atheist and he both had and mystical experince. He concluded that it was valid and life transforming and supernatural. Yes as an atheist he developed a belief in supernatural based upon his experiences!<BR/><BR/>atheists can and do have them. you can explain it two ways. you can say they are counter fit, or resolve it as Maslow did and say that the are religious and don't know it. and that religious mystics are transcending religion and don't know it. Both are talking about the same thing but have different attitudes toward it. There is a reality there they both encounter but they see it differently.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-47337137391683668482007-12-04T02:59:00.000+13:002007-12-04T02:59:00.000+13:00Hi akakiwibear,There's one big difference between ...Hi akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>There's one big difference between the operation of smell and what appears to be happening with religious experiences. Smell can never be reduced to just the firing of neurons. Smell is based on air-borne molecules interacting with sensitive nerve cells in the nose. The resulting experience is that there is an odor in the air which is a good description of the stimulus. Religious experiences appear to be triggered by DMT passing from the blood to the brain but the resulting experience is of a divine presence which is nothing like the stimulus.<BR/><BR/>We might be able to provoke either experience by stimulating the brain, but what really matters is which receptors are involved when the normal experience occurs.<BR/><BR/>"<EM>but wait that is what is being simulated, can you simulate something that does not exist?</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I don't think it is a simulation. Giving people DMT is giving them a real religious experience. As real as any other religious experience. As real as a drug trip. As real as a dream. As real as a fantasy. What makes you think it's a simulation?<BR/><BR/>"<EM>The problem of a preconception that there are no such things genuine religious experiences among most atheists is clearly a barrier to objectively evaluating this research.</EM>"<BR/><BR/>I have no such preconception. That's my conclusion based on the evidence which I've seen. If I'm wrong then it's either because I have incomplete evidence or because I've used faulty logic.<BR/><BR/>Peace, Neil.Neil Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08773413663739584282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-28413987463941210852007-12-03T14:46:00.000+13:002007-12-03T14:46:00.000+13:00Joe, thanks for the comment.Tech, I was referring ...Joe, thanks for the comment.<BR/><BR/>Tech, I was referring to the research that appeared to simulate religious experiences by electrically stimulating part of the brain - your link is interesting and confirms what has been observed for generations that in certain religions drugs are used to induce states of increased awareness ... and so ?<BR/><BR/>As far as the religious experience simulation research is concerned, all it can demonstrate is where in the brain the experiences appear to occur and what seems to happen. <BR/><BR/>Like smell - we can simulate it by stimulating the brain - the ability to "fake" a smell does not prove that there are no smells - on the contrary I think it proves it. <BR/><BR/>The simulation of what people have previously described as religious experiences does sort of lead to the conclusion that those having such experiences spontaneously may have actually had a religious experiences. But to believe that you first have to admit that there are such things as religious experiences - but wait that is what is being simulated, can you simulate something that does not exist?<BR/><BR/>The problem of a preconception that there are no such things genuine religious experiences among most atheists is clearly a barrier to objectively evaluating this research. <BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-48986649515135535752007-12-01T06:49:00.000+13:002007-12-01T06:49:00.000+13:00the main misapprehension is that the experience ar...the main misapprehension is that the experience argument is some kind of miracle argument. Athesits are always assuming every reason to believe boils down to "there no other way to explain things. they think the argument about experience is saying "we just don't know what makes people experience this so it must be God."<BR/><BR/>No, nothing is further from my thinking. so explaining how the brain works or how experiences work by brain funcitn is not an issue. although they have not done that all the atheist palaver on brain/mind is basically fundamentalist bait and switch.<BR/><BR/>the argument is<BR/><BR/>(1) co determinate: meaning it's the trace of God just as fingerprints are the trace of the one who left them. The reason is not because we can't explain how the mind works, but <BR/><BR/>(a) the content of the experince specifically<BR/><BR/>(b) that's the kind of thing God would do--affect human psyche.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>(2) no alternate causality can be demonstrated to cause long term positive effects. and long term positive is very important. they aren't empty words.<BR/><BR/>(3) Trans formative effects. you can explain how mind works, maybe, someday, but that wont explain why this stuff is transformational and other things are not.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-31633643554720720162007-12-01T06:41:00.000+13:002007-12-01T06:41:00.000+13:00You mean like this? We produce chemicals in our b...You mean like this? We produce chemicals in our brains that produce the exact same spiritual experiences that religious people keep talking about.<BR/><BR/>There is also some discussion of genetic predispositions to god belief, but as far as I can tell, this has not yielded definitive answers yet.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>that doesn't cut it as any kind of refutation for religious experience.<BR/><BR/>see my page</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.doxa.ws/experience/Mystical3-2.htmlJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-30121501097752671652007-11-29T04:59:00.000+13:002007-11-29T04:59:00.000+13:00Neil,Suppose, for example, that science came to un...Neil,<BR/><BR/><B>Suppose, for example, that science came to understand the way that the brain works and was able to show that all the spiritual experiences people have could be accounted for in terms of purely physical phenomena and involved no interactions with any spiritual realm</B><BR/><BR/>You mean like <A HREF="http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/dmt_spirit.html" REL="nofollow"> this</A>? We produce chemicals in our brains that produce the exact same spiritual experiences that religious people keep talking about.<BR/><BR/>There is also some discussion of genetic predispositions to god belief, but as far as I can tell, this has not yielded definitive answers yet.Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-76749543003498581402007-11-26T15:12:00.000+13:002007-11-26T15:12:00.000+13:00Mitchell, welcome. Thanks for your comments. There...Mitchell, welcome. Thanks for your comments. <BR/><BR/>There is perhaps an iterative process that my post did not elaborate on. In ‘God first’ one does of course have to read and hence one often end s up exploring the religions before finding God. I see the relationship with God as personal and to a large extent unique.<BR/>Which gets me your comment <B>Neil</B> where you say <I>” different people come to different opinions about the spiritual realm. They can't all be right.”</I>. Why not?<BR/><BR/>While I headed this post as <B>It’s not about the science</B> the heading <B>It’s not about the religion</B> would have been just as appropriate.<BR/><BR/>IF there is a universal God I would surmise that a full and complete understanding of such a being may be beyond our capabilities – it may involve concepts that are outside of our knowledge base. An example could be Christ’s reply to the Sadducee (Luke 20:27-40) “but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage”.<BR/><BR/>Back to your point why should there only be one common revelation? Each culture and each era would be more able to understand different aspects or have different questions. Why should the answer to be matched the questioner? <BR/><BR/>Also if there were but one single revelation would we interpret and express that revelation in a way that befitted our time and culture. If so would you not see it as a different revelation?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Science and religion – “theism has nothing to fear from science”. I would regard theism as a searching for the truth. Science and religion have roles to play, but we should never fear the truth – what we should fear is that which is presented as truth but is not.<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6198916604300317242.post-39777637552131278842007-11-26T14:43:00.000+13:002007-11-26T14:43:00.000+13:00Interesting, if there are a few main points that I...Interesting, if there are a few main points that I would like to take away from this they are your point about God as Word and your inference that one must seek for their existential definition of God prior to joining a religion, and not vice versa.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work, and thanks once more for your comments on my blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com