Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Copernicus]

This is why I turn to value over reality.

They are not mutually exclusive. You have spent a good deal of this thread trying to justify delusional thinking and behavior over knowledge, but you call it "value" because you think that the end justifies the means. You are like a man who considers himself rich because he has just discovered a large lode of fool's gold.

 

[Commoner]

Science is one method. You know, the SCIENTIFIC one.

Science is many methods.

No, the scientific method is not without limitations. It's concerned with the natural world, and has no means to explore beyond that, even if there is a "beyond" to explore.

Sure, but that's rather irrelevant to my point. Usefulness has no bearing on existence.

It does indeed. If god cannot or will not affect our physical world, he does not exist. If he did, we could never know it, never even think it, except as an accidental "hit" of our imagination. If there is a supernatural that does not affect the natural in any way, then it is also as good as non-existent.

 

[Willamena]

If you try to make a theist speak in absolutes and tangibles, they always regress into namecalling and hurling insults.

Do you even realize that this amounts to namecalling and throwing insults?

 

[Storm]

Science is many methods.

No, science is the scientific method.

It does indeed. If god cannot or will not affect our physical world, he does not exist.

What happened to your fondness for logic? By this reasoning, rainbows don't exist because they don't do anything to me. It's egocentric and just plain stupid.

 

[Commoner]

No, science is the scientific method.

The "scientific method" is just a term used to describe different techniques and procedures, it is not a single approach.

What happened to your fondness for logic? By this reasoning, rainbows don't exist because they don't do anything to me. It's egocentric and just plain stupid.

I didn't mean "if it doesn't affect you", I meant if it does not affect the physical world. It's not that it has to do anything for you.

 

[Storm]

I didn't mean that it doesn't affect you, I meant if it does not affect the physical world.

Same principle.

 

[Commoner]

Same principle.

What do you mean?

 

[Storm]

What do you mean?

What was unclear?

I mean, say the deists are right. Just because God doesn't micromanage the cosmos doesn't mean He ceases to exist.

 

[Commoner]

What was unclear?

I mean, say the deists are right. Just because God doesn't micromanage the cosmos doesn't mean He ceases to exist.

That's ok, let's say god exists.

How would you even come to the idea it exists, unless he at one time affected the world that we live in in some way?

 

[Storm]

That's ok, let's say god exists.

OK.

How would you even come to the idea it exists, unless he at one time affected the world that we live in in some way?

Wait, you know I don't believe in the supernatural, right? As far as that goes, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Anyway, I don't know how it would work myself. But if the supernatural exists, all bets are off. Logic doesn't apply anymore than science.

 

[Copernicus]

What happened to your fondness for logic? By this reasoning, rainbows don't exist because they don't do anything to me. It's egocentric and just plain stupid.

But rainbows do have an effect on you, and they do exist. And all gods are defined as affecting our physical reality in some way. Part of what it means for an entity to be a god is that it has full control over some aspect of reality.

 

[Commoner]

OK.


Wait, you know I don't believe in the supernatural, right? As far as that goes, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Anyway, I don't know how it would work myself. But if the supernatural exists, all bets are off. Logic doesn't apply anymore than science.

But you see what I mean?

Let's say god spoke to you in some supernatural manner (I don't exactly know what that would be, but ok) - in order to "think" his words, your brain chemistry would have to change.* So it might not be as obvious, but he would still have to affect the natural world - simply because we live in it.

* I guess the "supernatural" part would be how to change your brain chemistry without any actual physical means (sound...).

 

[Storm]

But you see what I mean?

Oh, I get it. I just think it makes unfounded assumptions. For example:

Let's say god spoke to you in some supernatural manner (I don't exactly know what that would be, but ok) - in order to "think" his words, your brain chemistry would have to change.* So it might not be an obvious, but he would still have to affect the natural world - simply because we live in it.

* I guess the "supernatural" part would be how to change your brain chemistry without any actual physical means (sound...).

It's a perfectly logical assumption, and maybe it's correct, but I don't think we can make ANY assumptions. If the laws of nature can be violated, why not the rules of logic?

This is one reason I reject the concept.

 

[Commoner]

Oh, I get it. I just think it makes unfounded assumptions. For example:


It's a perfectly logical assumption, and maybe it's correct, but I don't think we can make ANY assumptions. If the laws of nature can be violated, why not the rules of logic?

This is one reason I reject the concept.

This is also the reason to reject any supernatural concept. Why even consider it in the first place?

 

[Storm]

This is also the reason to reject any supernatural concept.

Isn't that what I just said?

Anyway, we've wandered rather far afield. My original point was that just because we don't have the means to detect God scientifically, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Maybe God is supernatural, maybe it's just too far out of our control to get a handle on. Maybe science will advance to a point where we can turn it on God, and maybe God doesn't exist.

 

[Commoner]

Isn't that what I just said?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I do not believe in the supernatural either.

Anyway, we've wandered rather far afield. My original point was that just because we don't have the means to detect God scientifically, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Maybe God is supernatural, maybe it's just too far out of our control to get a handle on. Maybe science will advance to a point where we can turn it on God, and maybe God doesn't exist.

Yes, I just think that even if there is a god and we don't have the means to detect it yet, if there is any hope of detecting it, it will be through science - that is, the excepted and reliable procedures that we will have aknowledged as the scientific method.

 

[Storm]

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I too do not believe in the supernatural.

Oh, ok.

Yes, I just think that even if there is a god and we don't have the means to detect it yet, if there is any hope of detecting it, it will be through science - that is, the excepted and reliable procedures that we will have aknowledged as the scientific method.

Meh... I actually agree with you, but I recognize it as a statement of faith, firmly grounded in my theology. Which could well be wrong.

 

[Atheologian]

Oh, ok.


Meh... I actually agree with you, but I recognize it as a statement of faith, firmly grounded in my theology. Which could well be wrong.

I think people shouldn't consider faith as a virtue, but rather a position. This is sort of what you have done here, by suggesting that faith is fallible and "could well be wrong".

What I want to know, is, in light of evidence, would your "faith" lead you to a different conclusion about scientific data than my absence of "faith"?
In other words, could you use the very evidence I use to disprove god to prove his existance?

 

[autonomous1one1]

.....Given the myriad of people who write about their experiences, and that many of these do not reach the same conclusions as you do, I have to wonder why you seem so intent on discounting those alternative conclusions. By discounting/ignoring them you are helping to validate the charge of conformational bias.

[FONT=&quot]Greetings Themadhair – If understanding serves correctly you are questioning the narrow selection of the Mystic Experience from the total myriad of experiences at the outset in order to achieve the result desired in the end. After being through these discussions with atheists many times one has learned that if one wishes to have any chance to show evidence of God using subjective experience certain criteria have to be met. At a minimum, the experience must be repeatable, lead to consistent results, and have intersubjective verifiability. No experience should be “discounted or ignored” out of hand, it is just that examination of all of the myriad against these criteria leads one to the single Mystic Experience quickly for the purposes of this thread. Let me note also a point from post #526. The real evidence here is the ‘awakened’ beings with similar extraordinary characteristics and the other points are evidence for the evidence.
[/FONT]

I can even bring another dimension that you have also ignored – former theists who have had the experiences you describe who no longer hold to theism.

[FONT=&quot]One does not wish to ignore anything that may be important to you, Themadhair. If you provide evidence for your assertion it will be examined. Let me quickly add that it is doubtful that any evidence can be provided because the term ‘theist’ is not applicable here. You see, (and this is not expected to make any sense to you) the term 'theist' has inherent dualism and the subject Experience involves a shift of perspective to a nondual one. [/FONT]

You can read the experiences from former members at these two excellent websites:
Ex-Scientology Kids
Ex Scientologist Message Board
If you want the accounts from current members you’ll have to do that face to face with them on account of the whole prohibition on verbal tech. Best bet would be to get talking to a FreeZoner. The FreeZoners are holding a conference in LA at the moment - Los Angeles Freezone Convention Oct 2009 - Ex Scientologist Message Board

My apologizes, Themadhair, but my readings at the two sites you offer surfaced no experiences that might be considered related to this thread. Such experience as mentioned in #526 with any conclusion would be of great interest to me. Perhaps you could provide more specific linkage to the accounts to which you are referring.

There is also another factor at play here. When I was still a believer and did my first few sessions as alter boy I remember having what I consider at the time to be spiritual experiences. When people I talk to in real life describe to me experiences that remind me of my own past experiences I see tremendous similarities. The bit that bugs me is that, fundamentally, there is no evidence I can produce for the experiences of myself or others – but the very same criticism applies just as much to yourself.

A very interesting comment, Themadhair, and discussion of whether or not you can produce evidence of your experience would be interesting also. It obviously made a mark on you - you still remember it. However, a different response is required to your proposition that the criticism is equally applicable to my offering in this thread. It would not seem to be so because this offering appears to be fundamentally different in that the Experience offered is repeatable, it has occurred in many different cultures, it leaves a distinctive mark of extraordinary perspective on the being, and it has been extensively documented.

Hence why I am putting the charge of conformational bias front and centre here. And I do feel that a point I raised earlier bear repeating:
” Think about what you are doing here. You are doubting the experiences of Scientologists solely because they interpreted their experiences differently than yours. It is worth noting that those experiences really did cause “dramatic transformational characteristics including a paradigm shift in one’s perspective of reality” for those Scientologists – they just reached a different conclusion than yours.

If your only reason for doubting those experiences is because of a differing conclusion, then doesn’t that lend weight to the charge of conformational bias?”

One feels that this has been answered adequately but since you feel justified in repeating your charge l[FONT=&quot]et me try to express differently why your comment and charge are not pertinent. Absolutely no evidence that Scientologists have had the Mystic Experience with differing conclusions has been provided so any doubt expressed could not possibly be based "[/FONT]solely because they interpreted their experiences differently [FONT=&quot].." My reason for expressing doubt in the prior post is not related to anything on the table from Scientologists. It is just that one has nothing to weigh and your assertion alone that there are the same experience with different conclusions, even though interesting and valuable, is not sufficient for reflection.

Regards,
a1O1
[/FONT]

 

[themadhair]

If understanding serves correctly you are questioning the narrow selection of the Mystic Experience from the total myriad of experiences at the outset in order to achieve the result desired in the end.

Actually my charge is that you are choosing experiences based on interpretation assigned to them rather than on the experiences themselves.

At a minimum, the experience must be repeatable, lead to consistent results, and have intersubjective verifiability.

If this really were your criteria then you have not succeeded due to ignoring those who reached different conclusions.

No experience should be “discounted or ignored” out of hand, it is just that examination of all of the myriad against these criteria leads one to the single Mystic Experience quickly for the purposes of this thread.

But when you ignore differing conclusions…….???

Let me quickly add that it is doubtful that any evidence can be provided because the term ‘theist’ is not applicable here. You see, (and this is not expected to make any sense to you) the term 'theist' has inherent dualism and the subject Experience involves a shift of perspective to a nondual one.

In other words you are grouping the experiences by conclusions in order to present those experiences as evidence for the conclusion. Please tell me you can see this?

My apologizes, Themadhair, but my readings at the two sites you offer surfaced no experiences that might be considered related to this thread.

Some examples
Post 8:
Exteriorization - Ex Scientologist Message Board
Post 1:
It started out so good… - Ex Scientologist Message Board

I still recommend talking to ex-members or FreeZoners in person (or current ones if you get the chance) since the jargon used is sometimes lost on the ‘wogs’ (non-Scientologists).

However, a different response is required to your proposition that the criticism is equally applicable to my offering in this thread. It would not seem to be so because this offering appears to be fundamentally different in that the Experience offered is repeatable, it has occurred in many different cultures, it leaves a distinctive mark of extraordinary perspective on the being, and it has been extensively documented.

You have this almost as a catchphrase, but given that you seem to be choosing based upon conclusion seems to be a major problem. If you go down the route of what’s documented then you are entering the field of neurotheology.

A decent introduction is here:
http://www.chem.arizona.edu/courseweb/081/CHEM4361/reading_pdfs/students/Article for Religion.pdf

Even in the linked article the question is raised of how difficult it is to differentiate/compare experiences due to language/cultural/individual difficulties. Using conclusions as a means of grouping is simply tautological when attempting to present such experiences as evidence for anything, and is the central complaint I have with them being presented as evidence for anything.

Absolutely no evidence that Scientologists have had the Mystic Experience with differing conclusions has been provided so any doubt expressed could not possibly be based "solely because they interpreted their experiences differently .." My reason for expressing doubt in the prior post is not related to anything on the table from Scientologists. It is just that one has nothing to weigh and your assertion alone that there are the same experience with different conclusions, even though interesting and valuable, is not sufficient for reflection.

But the only evidence we both have to go on is either our own personal experiences and what others have described to us. The evidence I provided isn’t inferior to yours, and the sole reason for rejection is entirely due to difference of conclusion. One of the questions I cannot resist asking ex-Scientologists is “what the hell made you join?”. Many different reasons are usually offered but, at the core, there is this realisation of being a thetan, going whole track, going exterior, etc. The thing that struck me is that, hearing these stories in person, it was the first time in my life I was reminded of experiences I had undergone. The thing is that, today, I don’t view those experiences as evidence for god but I can understand why some people do.

It may surprise you but such experiences being used as evidence has cropped up quite a lot in discussions I have had in real life. Each and every time it comes down the same problem of conformational bias. The snag that comes in here is in analysing the myriads of such experiences and trying to draw a conclusion in an objective way. The closest thing to achieving such that I have seen is neurotheology. But most people wanting to use these experiences as evidence tend to dislike playing by the rules of scientific analysis.