Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dark Matter]

Please link one study demonstrating existence of actual experience ( as opposed to the behavior of reporting ) ... ?

there is a large body of empirical scientific studies demonstrating the validity of religious experience as an actual experience of something

Please link one study.

I wonder what's so difficult with doing one's own research upon hearing about something new? I mean, geez, I'm almost computer illiterate, but even I know how to do a search.

[Chili]

(buzzer) sorry, there is no study demonstrating the objective existence of subjective experience.

[Eduk]

Seriously dark matter if you can't provide a link so I don't have to guess what studies you are talking about then at least use 'let me Google that for you' to demonstrate how lazy I am being. I have tried to Google using your terminology and have found no clear hits.

[Belindi]

Yeah but if I say we need six chairs because we are having a dinner party then you can go get four clearly chairs and then two other things which can be used as chairs.
Whereas if I say I need you to go get god where would you even start?

Some people have gods that are portable idols.

And in the Old Testament there are stories about people walking and talking with the one and only personal God in physical form like a chair might be present in physical form. Some people in this day and age and in modern countries still believe that they will meet the Creator of the Universe in person after they die .

Some people believe that there are three separate substances, e.g. 1. chairs 2. thoughts about chairs 3. God

Example: 1. Ikea 2. thoughts about Ikea 3. God


Example: 1. Self 2. Thoughts about self 3. God

In each example 1. can be measured 2. cannot be measured spatially but can be measured by timing it. 3. cannot be measured in any way as it is incomparable.

[Dark Matter]

(buzzer) sorry, there is no study demonstrating the objective existence of subjective experience.

Geez. It took me all of three minutes to find the link below, a book yet to be published, books on neurotheology, and YouTube videos.

MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE AS PREDICTOR OF DOMAINS OF RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL SELF IDENTIFICATION: EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The M scale (mysticism scale) is a method for determining whether or not one has had a personified mystical experience. It was invented by Dr. Ralph Hood Jr. of University of Tennessee Chattanooga. That's a secular university and Hood is a psychologist, not a Christian and not a minister. The M scales gives us validity for religious experience because it enables us to know if one has really had one or is just "wool gathering." This means we now have a control for the experience so we can study its effects. The M scale was developed in the early 70s and was re-developed in the 80s with what is called "the three-part solution. " It's been used since that time and has become one of the standard procedures.

[Belindi]

Dark Matter, why not post it again on April 1

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter, why not post it again on April 1

I think this comes under the title of "willful ignorance," which is very common among skeptics.

[Belindi]

Dark Matter, the authors have chosen a hard nut to crack which is what struck me as funny haha.
However I like the following extract because it implies a use for that elusive term 'spirituality', and also shows that religion is a social enterprise.

Although the “swinging sixties” is generally agreed upon as the apex of the shift in self
identification from religious to spiritual, it is reasonable to assume the trend towards the
privatization of religion in terms of spirituality began generations before it was explicitly
expressed in the milieu of the post 1950’s counter cultural movement (Stevens, 1988).

[Eduk]

Dark matter what is your opinion of the science behind 'created kinds' as presented by creation science?
Now to me it's not scientific at all as it has no mechanism, makes no predictions and has no empirical evidence to back it up. Of course that's just my potentially biased opinion as I am personally no biologist or even a scientist.
So I further consider that it is also only the belief of creationists. The scientific consensus amongst biologists is that creationist science is pseudo science.
I also think about what it replaces, namely evolution. A concept which underpins much of modern biology and medicine. For me the results speak for themselves.
So now all we have left is that either the main stream scientific community the world over are all working together or all as similarly biased as me.
So if I was a betting man it is clear which side I would bet on.
Now I don't know if you support creation science. And I don't know if you have beef with evolution. But my question, either way, is how would you separate the science of creationists from the science behind the mysticism scale?

[Dark Matter]

Dark Matter, the authors have chosen a hard nut to crack which is what struck me as funny haha.

It is a tough nut to crack. But studies indicate that "atheism is the default position" is wrong.

However I like the following extract because it implies a use for that elusive term 'spirituality', and also shows that religion is a social enterprise.

It's both -- each aspect affects the other.

[Spectrum]

The theoretical solution to the above is easy, i.e. explained away the idea of God and there will be no more theistic-based-evil.

Ok let me try to make my point more concisely. I believe that people should not believe unreasonable beliefs. This includes, but is not limited, to religious beliefs. Removing all religious beliefs from the world wouldn't change the world at all (in my opinion) because there would be still be many unreasonable beliefs left over to slip into.

My reference is to theistic-religious-beliefs which exclude religions like Buddhism, Jainism, and others.

My definition of Philosophy [proper] is a fundamental drive - using tools - for net-good - for well being of individual[s] and humanity.

Using Philosophy-proper, humans must address ALL unreasonable beliefs that promote evils, violence and are an existential threat to humanity to resolve, eliminate or prevented them. As such even if we had removed all theistic beliefs, we will definitely continue to address all other unresolved critical unreasonable beliefs.

I believe the composition of ALL unreasonable beliefs that is contributing to the existing and potential problem in the world are as follows;

• 1. Theistic based [incl politics] = 40%
  2. Politics [secular only] = 30%
  3. Economic = 10%
  4. Social = 10%
  5. Others = 10%

Agree? otherwise?

From the above when we remove theism [grounded on illusion and impossibility] we will remove a very significant % of the problem of evil and violence. Then what is left to resolve will be;

• 1. Theistic based [incl politics] = 0%
  2. Politics [secular only] = 50%
  3. Economic = 20%
  4. Social = 20%
  5. Others = 10%

The above is very rational, at least in theory.

[Dark Matter]

Dark matter what is your opinion of the science behind 'created kinds' as presented by creation science?
Now to me it's not scientific at all as it has no mechanism, makes no predictions and has no empirical evidence to back it up. Of course that's just my potentially biased opinion as I am personally no biologist or even a scientist.
So I further consider that it is also only the belief of creationists. The scientific consensus amongst biologists is that creationist science is pseudo science.
I also think about what it replaces, namely evolution. A concept which underpins much of modern biology and medicine. For me the results speak for themselves.
So now all we have left is that either the main stream scientific community the world over are all working together or all as similarly biased as me.
So if I was a betting man it is clear which side I would bet on.
Now I don't know if you support creation science. And I don't know if you have beef with evolution. But my question, either way, is how would you separate the science of creationists from the science behind the mysticism scale?

"There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that the whole of life is but a dream, in which we ourselves create all the objects that come before us. But although this is not logically impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of accounting for the fact of our own life, than the common-sense hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations." -- Bertrand Russell

[Spectrum]

But you do believe in something. If your own belief is not 'illusory' and exists 'in the empirical-rational reality' you never spell out how you know this.

Why not?

My belief 'God is an Impossibility' is not within the empirical-rational reality, it is purely rational only, i.e. based on 'refined' reasoning. What I have done is to prove the theses 'God is possible' and God is possible within empirical rational reality' are false. In this case, I have shown the thesis 'God is possible' is moot and a non-starter. How I "know" is based on the Framework and System of logic and rationality.

The point here, the thesis 'God is possible' cannot even pass abductively as a thesis to be considered for empirical-rational testing.
If one jump to made an empirical claim, God exists, then bring the empirical evidences to justify it.

My belief that the idea of God arose from psychological factors is based on empirical evidences. I have not proven it conclusively but the evidences do give us a clue and doubts whether God is ever possible within the empirical-rational reality.

There is always this odd mixture; ' a very strong personal conviction' and 'justified true knowledge'. A personal conviction is a state of mind, to say somebody has a conviction is to make an observation about them, not their opinion. We can note a theist has a very strong personal conviction' without implying they can also present a compelling argument.

But 'justified true knowledge' is a claim that something is true as a matter of fact. It is the claim that nobody rational could possibly disagree with us. So, if I believe X is true as a fact, it is superfluous to add 'I have a conviction about x' since that the two must go together. It would be rather self-contradictory to say 'X is true but I am not convinced of this'. We would respond; 'What you mean is you are not sure X is true'.

'Justified true knowledge' is always conditioned upon 'personal conviction', i.e.

• 1. Personal conviction - based on one's own internal Framework and System.
  2. Justified true knowledge - based on the intersubjective consensus of collective personal convictions with a specific Framework and System

Example: Einstein surely had a personal conviction his E=MC2 is true but it was not a scientific speculative theory until there was sufficient intersubjective consensus of collective personal convictions among his peers. It was only scientific knowledge when his accepted speculated theory was proven with empirical evidence and rationalized within the specific scientific Framework and System based on intersubjective consensus of collective personal convictions among his peers.

The above applies to the truths that are conditioned to various Framework and System. e.g. legal, mathematics, economics, etc.

For Philosophy sake, we need to be mindful how Justified True Beliefs are linked to an intersubjective consensus of personal convictions within a specified system.

So it does come across very much like the 'faith' of the theist. A peculiar mixture of a choice to commit oneself to a view, while accepting that it isn't a choice that would compel agreement from others.

And then you are very like some theists in that you love to preach! Honestly, it is just like attending church, with the same old formulas copy/pasted again and again. On any topic, it is only a matter of time before the Muslims come round!

Nope I am not relying on the personal conviction based on pure faith and very strong primal psychological impulses like the theist.
My basis is using refined reason [prefrontal cortical] to counter the pseudo-reason of the theists.

So let us take something very basic. From your criticisms of others, you seem to believe that right and wrong (in the moral sense) are meaningful judgments. Why do you think this? Is there something 'in the empirical-rational reality' that makes such judgments meaningful? Or are your opinions based on 'personal conviction'? That they simply feel that way to you, and that you find it hard to believe that everyone else would not feel the same way.

I am not sure of your point above.
My belief is, an efficient Moral and Ethical Framework and System must be guided [not enforced] by absolute moral laws.

My belief is based on personal conviction, if not what else.
However my belief has an "intersubjective consensus" with Kant and others [not many].
I don't see this as an issue as what I have presented here is merely for discussion and open to the discretion to others to read or ignore it.

OTOH, there is a big difference with theism. Theists insist their theistic beliefs are absolutely true and God is absolutely real. If anyone who do not agree with theism, SOME evil prone theists will kill the non-believer[s] and commit all sorts of evils and violence on non-believers because they disbelieve. This is so evident [yes it is the ideology Islam, not the unfortunate Muslims]

[Spectrum]

I think the thing which can be exploited must come before the exploiting of that thing. So I'd say tradition came before religion.

I also agree with dark matter that man murderous nature cannot be blamed in religion. If that wasn't obvious from what I've already written.

Not all religions influence their believers to commit evils and violence but some do in various degrees, and Islam being the worst.

I wrote the following in the earlier post, you did not address and counter it.

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 07#p301807
Re 1, I have spent almost 3 years on a full time basis researching the Quran and linking the evils acts of SOME Muslims directly to the commands of their God in the Quran.
I have cross-checked the various claims of terrorists who quote from the Quran and verify it is true they are interpreting the texts correctly. We have to go into deep details on this issue.

My thesis is this;

• 1. ALL humans has the potential to commit evil
  2. Appx 20% [conservatively] are born with an active evil tendency.
  3. The Quran contains loads of evil laden elements.
  4. These evil laden elements trigger those in 2 to commit terrible evils and violence as a divine duty.

We cannot blame religions for the murderous nature of humans. The murderous potential in inherent in all humans and active in a percentile of humans.
It is the loads of evil laden elements within certain religious texts delivered from a God that triggers SOME evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence.

Another point is the evil laden religions also trigger those with inactive evil tendencies with an active evil tendencies and impulses. This evident from the reports of so many 'goody-two-shoes' [Muslims] who turned evil out of the blue which shocked their family members. When the existential crisis is activated in theists, they will do anything to alleviate the dissonance to the extent of willing to kill their own son [note Abraham], kins or friends.

Another point is, in Islam there is no central authority to decide what is right or wrong, only Allah can do that, but Allah [an impossibility] can never be present to give the true meanings of the verses. So there is nothing to stop Muslims from interpreting the verses literally to kill and commit other evils upon non-believers in the belief it is their divine duty to do so, else they could end up in HELL.

So I disagree with your,
" .. man murderous nature cannot be blamed in religion."

[Dark Matter]

An interesting video that explains why true religion is not just about beliefs.