Rehash god/proof debate

[Tiberius]

That's hardly a scientific paper. Where is the control group. Where is the statistically valid sample. Where is the replication by another group of researchers. It has the same defect you challenged me with:

The paper is available at the Science website, although you do need to register (for free) to read it. The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So how about answering my questions:

OK, then what is a "spiritual awakening" and how does it differ from your basic life lesson?

So it seems you want to examine how and why people have a crisis in life and learn some profound lesson from it?

People have basic lessons from profound experiences

In the OP it asks why can't proof of god be in one's experiences and not objective

Unless a non-believers idea of god is like the tooth fairy, I'm not sure why personal experiences can't be the cause of what believers call god (whether the source of their spiritual awakening or the experience of it).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yeah. I'm a competitive cyclist and I was on a long 100 mile training ride in August in 1993. It was overheated, dehydrated, and low on blood sugar and still had 35 miles to go. I was hallucinating which is common. Vision, hearing, and thinking is distorted. It's kinda like being high on pot a bit. My mind was wandering, and I became aware that I've never looked into philosophy. My mind was having random thoughts and I was pondering how different people perceive things in their own way. So I had an epiphany.

I made it home, I recovered. And I started buying books and reading. Theology, philosophy, science. So this began my quest ti=o understand how things are, my search for truth. I wasn't a theist but I found religion completely inadequate. the more I read the more it pointed to some sort of psychological phenomenon. That is when I decided to study psychology, especially the psychology of religion. This gave me tools ti understand why many people believe what they do. I often understand theists better then they understand themselves.

So to clarify, I did have a sort of physical and mental breakdown/crisis, and from this came a realization. Being exhausted via sport is much like a sweat lodge and opens the door to realizations about the self that isn't apparent on a day to day basis. Our day to day operation is loaded with mundane tasks and responsibilities, and we often absorbed by these. It's when we have a sort of breakdown of this "responsible task master" that we have better clarity about the self.

Me having no motivation to seek religious interpretations and meanings means I'm free to be objective and follow a path that is more consistent with reality.

Hm. It seems like you're confining spiritual awakening or realization moments to religion for them to have a profound "spiritual" value. Regardless if one attributes these experiences to belief, practice, or so have you the idea is the same. Why can't that be proof for "god's" existence?

What about god that non-believers see separate from the psychological, cultural, and experiential factors that shapes one's belief in, understanding of, and the nature of god(s) itself?

It seems there is so much focus on the tooth fairy and less focus on the "human" factors that guides people to believe as they do. Which makes me wonder if there are internal factors that lead us to a belief in god (a spiritual practice-fill in the blank) or is it something we picked up with and without indoctrination.... something that resonates. I've never had a "there is a creator" experience, so maybe there isn't, I dont know.

 

[rrobs]

Please excuse me, but I don't really have any inclination at all to get into the weeds of yet another debate over evolution. My point wasn't to start such a debate once again - rather, I wanted to lay out in front of you why it is subjectively easier for me to assume its vericity - specifically, I wanted to argue the distinction between subjective experience on one hand, and verifiable evidence on the other.

I wanted to use the theory of evolution, in this argument, to illustrate the epistemic conundrum I think you are facing here:

At least as I see it, we cannot verify the facticity of your experiences with the divine because by their very nature these experiences are highly subjective: There is no outside, physical component we could point to (as with the evolutionary fossil record), and no third party observers could verify your personal experiences; all we can go by is your account of what you think happened.

But even there, we run into the difficulty of communicating the nature of these experiences as truly divine (if they are divine at all) as we are dealing with a phenomenon that is, by definition, breaching the limits of human understanding and conceptual capacity.

So what you have here is an experience that you are completely convinced is proof of the divine, but which, by its subjective and liminal nature, cannot actually function as a means for others to verify that belief. While I never had any such experience myself, I can emphatize with how frustrating such a situation may feel.

Good point about evolution. It has indeed been thrashed about to last several lifetimes.

Again, I'm not saying the experiences of people are in and of themselves empirical evidence for the existence of God. All I'm saying is that billions of people have experienced something enough for them to have concluded God exists. I further suggested it might be wise to consider what they have seen for themselves. After all, such consideration has led to the conversion of those billions of people from all walks of life. To consider that many people to be superstitious and that their belief are fairy tails may in itself be an emotional response. Each does choose their own route. But consider that people quite often change the route they're on. Like I said, pretty much all of those billions of believers once thought like yourself. At least I can speak for myself in saying I wasn't born with a Bible in my hands. At an earlier time of my life you and I would be absolutely on the same page. I changed, you didn't, and hence our polemic discussion.

I would guess you feel as though you'll never get on board with Jesus. I know the feeling. It's exactly how I felt until I did. All my objections disappeared and I changed my thinking. In your case (as it is with anybody), maybe you will and maybe you won't. Sorry to present you with the idea that some day you may believe in the Bible, but there's no way you can say you positively won't. Only time will tell.

 

[rrobs]

Billions of people mimicking the cultural beliefs and behaviors of their fellow citizens.

If billions were independently arriving at some belief THAT would be amazing.

You are averring that all those billions mimic cultural beliefs. I think it much more probable that they mimic the scriptures. I know I didn't convert because of culture. I did so because the scriptures convinced me to convert. I think it fair to say that is the norm.

Perhaps it is amazing that so many read the same book and came to the same conclusion, but there it is nonetheless. In any case, it's the book not culture that convinced the vast majority.

 

[F1fan]

People have basic lessons from profound experiences

Not a remarkable or surprising thing, is it?

In the OP it asks why can't proof of god be in one's experiences and not objective

The problem is most people have adopted a religious framework from their cultural experiences and it becomes a sort of operating system for the mind. This isn't a reasoned process, this is attitudes, assumptions, beliefs adopted from society because others believe it. It's asocial learning. So when one such person has an experience they might link or attribute it to the God they learned about. This is a way the brain takes certain irrational ideas and tries to validate them since there is alack of evidence that suits the logical brain. This is how people trick their own brain so they can enjoy the effects of the beliefs they have. This is all subconscious, not conscious or deliberate.

If one of these folks presents their experiences in an open forum then their thinking process is subject to questions the self does not ask. This is why we see members wondering if this forum is for them. This sort of exposure to critique the self won't do can be painful to those reliant on the beliefs they hold. This is one reason why I think many fervent believers need to be careful with what, and how, they believe because the self can be essentially trapped by ideology and there is little freedom from it.

Unless a non-believers idea of god is like the tooth fairy, I'm not sure why personal experiences can't be the cause of what believers call god (whether the source of their spiritual awakening or the experience of it).

Because it takes away the achievement the self makes, the authority the self has, and the ability to make executive choices without having to conform to some ideology that defines the God. People can do whatever they want within their own minds. The question is do they want to be in an ideological prison of illusion, or having the power and freedom to understand the reality of what they experience?

To my mind that a person prefers the veil of an illusions suggests they have a lot of work to do. They haven't found truth, and don't have freedom.

 

[F1fan]

You are averring that all those billions mimic cultural beliefs. I think it much more probable that they mimic the scriptures.

Social behavior doesn't work that way. People conform to norms. This is why if you are born in the Middle east you are most likely Muslim. In some parts you'll be Sunni, is others you'l be Shiite. If you're born in the USA you're likely Christian. In the South you're likely Baptist. Around Boston you're likely Catholic. In India you're likely Hindu. In Pakistan you're likely Muslim. In Japan you might be Shinto. Religion and culture is geographical. The norms of these social groups continue on because new generations adopt what parents believe. Scriptures is largely irrelevant to this pattern.

I know I didn't convert because of culture. I did so because the scriptures convinced me to convert. I think it fair to say that is the norm.

You're 1 in 7 billion. That's doesn't generalize well.

I'm not sure which scriptures you're referring to, but I wonder why you think they are valuable. Would you find the texts of an extinct religion valuable? How about the Urantia Book?

Perhaps it is amazing that so many read the same book and came to the same conclusion, but there it is nonetheless. In any case, it's the book not culture that convinced the vast majority.

It's funny how few Christians actually read the Bible. They will be quick to condemn gays because there is a phrase somewhere in it they've heard about on Christian radio. I think you are giving way too much credit to the average believer.

 

[sun rise]

The paper is available at the Science website, although you do need to register (for free) to read it. The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences

I read the paper. My objections stand but now restating/expanding:

• A small sample
  
• Not double-blind
• Not replicated
• Does not falsify true OBE - just shows an illusion is possible
• Only one confounder is even noted and addressed
• Were the subjects lying down? https://www.epfl.ch/labs/lnco/wp-co..._leaving-body-and-life-behind-obe-and-nde.pdf https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...ado-Cardena-OBEs-body-activity-JNMD-20102.pdf
• Was there a reduction in fear of death? A Virtual Out-of-Body Experience Reduces Fear of Death

Even further, the definition of OBE presented is incorrect An out-of-body experience (OBE) is defined as the experience in which a person who is awake sees his or her own body from a location outside the physical body.

That's not correct. There are different subjective reports of what happens during an OBE
You've had an out-of-body experience, but what kind?

Also FYI, it's been looked at using fMRI Voluntary Out-of-Body Experience: An fMRI Study

 

[F1fan]

Hm. It seems like you're confining spiritual awakening or realization moments to religion for them to have a profound "spiritual" value.

I'm not even sure what you think "spiritual" means. It has broad meanings.

Regardless if one attributes these experiences to belief, practice, or so have you the idea is the same. Why can't that be proof for "god's" existence?

Because it's not accurate.

What about god that non-believers see separate from the psychological, cultural, and experiential factors that shapes one's belief in, understanding of, and the nature of god(s) itself?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Non-believers don't think any gods have any nature.

It seems there is so much focus on the tooth fairy and less focus on the "human" factors that guides people to believe as they do.

The TF is one thing humans believe in, of many. And there is quite a bit of research on the nature of belief.

Which makes me wonder if there are internal factors that lead us to a belief in god (a spiritual practice-fill in the blank) or is it something we picked up with and without indoctrination.... something that resonates. I've never had a "there is a creator" experience, so maybe there isn't, I dont know.

There is a strong biological component to why we believe in irrational ideas. The human brain evolved in such a way that lends itself to irrational belief. We still have a very primitive fight/flight fear response mechanism and also the capacity for reason. The book Emotional Intelligence goes into some detail about all this.

 

[Tiberius]

I read the paper. My objections stand but now restating/expanding:

• A small sample
  
• Not double-blind
• Not replicated
• Does not falsify true OBE - just shows an illusion is possible
• Only one confounder is even noted and addressed
• Were the subjects lying down? https://www.epfl.ch/labs/lnco/wp-co..._leaving-body-and-life-behind-obe-and-nde.pdf https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual...ado-Cardena-OBEs-body-activity-JNMD-20102.pdf
• Was there a reduction in fear of death? A Virtual Out-of-Body Experience Reduces Fear of Death

Even further, the definition of OBE presented is incorrect An out-of-body experience (OBE) is defined as the experience in which a person who is awake sees his or her own body from a location outside the physical body.

Given that you yourself have linked to other studies about artificial OBEs, I think your first few objections aren't the devastating claims you seem to think they are.

As for your fourth claim that it does not show a true OBE, just an illusion, you have failed to show that there is any difference.

Would you care to explain how the body position of the subject makes a difference?

And why do you think a reduction in fear of death is required?

That's not correct. There are different subjective reports of what happens during an OBE
You've had an out-of-body experience, but what kind?

it's a bit rich that you criticise my source for being a small sample size and not replicated when this source that you have provided says that OBEs have been produced artificially. Do you think that it's all talking about the one small group? And it's also rich that you criticise the study that I provided for not being a "true" OBE, and yet your source says there are different kinds.

Also FYI, it's been looked at using fMRI Voluntary Out-of-Body Experience: An fMRI Study

Oh look, another example of an OBE produced at will. Those objections you leveled at my source suddenly seem to be falling apart, don't they?

 

[firedragon]

Meanwhile, we have a lot of physical, independently verifiable evidence that suggests a supergenerational process of genetic change within species. The Archaeopteryx fossile has been around for ages at this point, for example, whereas I just recently heard of polar-brown bear hybridization from a friend of mine who was doing a paper on that phenomenon.

Maybe this question is not relevant to what you are trying to say and if you like you could accommodate it.

How do you think evolution or any kind of evidence for evolution can be used against the existence of God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. Here's the question: "What bearing do any of those billion Christians' testimony have on the existence of God?"

Scientifically, none. However I find it interesting that their testimony can be summarily discounted.

Scientifically or not, all I care about is that it's rational.

I might also point out that many in prison are there because of witness testimony. Apparently the law gives weight to witness testimony.

The law gives no weight whatsoever to witness testimony of magic and miracles. Spectral evidence is inadmissible.

There's my answer for better or for worse. So here's the question I asked if you want to comment:

"A better question might be what did all of those people experience that caused them to go from unbelief to belief?"​

Again, I think it short sighted to dismiss the real life experiences of billions of people. That's a lot of evidence (real, actual experiences) to ignore.

What makes you think there were "billions" of people who went from being atheists to theists? The vast majority of the time, kids are raised from birth to believe in a god, and they end up staying theists (usually in the religion they were raised in) for their entire lives.

I'm not sure that there have been billions of people with a faithless upbringing, period, to say nothing about there being "billions" who had a faithless upbringing and then converted to some sort of theism.

While they don't empirically prove God exists, I don't think all those accounts have no meaning whatsoever. They would certainly lead to inferential conclusions at the very least.

How about you show that the "billions" you describe even exist at all, and then we worry about what to infer from them.

When God healed me from melanoma. It was there one day and gone the next. Is that rational? By normal standards, no. And yet, there it was. I experienced getting healed by God and not the doctors. I know because I was there.

How do you know it was God?

 

[F1fan]

That's hardly a scientific paper. Where is the control group. Where is the statistically valid sample. Where is the replication by another group of researchers. It has the same defect you challenged me with:

The thing is we can apply Occam's Razor here, and what is most likely? Based on what we do know about how brains function, including awareness and consciousness, there is no way for a brain's conscious awareness to exit a body and perceive the environment as if it is working brain with properly functioning sensory organs. There's no way to explain how this is even plausible.

What is plausible is that brains create an experience while under stress. We do have a lot of data about brains dreaming and creating hallucinations. So I would suggest any study that helps support a natural explanation is just more icing on the cake. The experiments trying to sow that NDE are exactly as claimed have not been successful.

 

[sun rise]

As for your fourth claim that it does not show a true OBE, just an illusion, you have failed to show that there is any difference.

Would you care to explain how the body position of the subject makes a difference?

And why do you think a reduction in fear of death is required?

Your first sentence is contradicted by your second two sentences. Given how often one study fails to be reproduced, close adherence to the research protocol is warranted.

If studies contradict each other in a finding, that indicates a flaw in the experimental setup (assuming correct sample size).

Oh look, another example of an OBE produced at will. Those objections you leveled at my source suddenly seem to be falling apart, don't they?

My objections are to the quality of that one study. One basis for my objections are from my time as a graduate student in chemistry. There was a furor about "polywater" with several studies confirming the finding and others refuting the finding. It was not until many studies were done was the true basis for the initial. finding discovered and the original conclusion refuted.

Even though there was only one subject and as the authors noted replication is needed, fMRI to me is a fruitful direction to go. If patterns of brain activation are consistent with people reporting OOB experiences, then any papers such as the one that started this discussion need to be done again with fMRI data as a necessary adjunct.

 

[sun rise]

Based on what we do know about how brains function, including awareness and consciousness, there is no way for a brain's conscious awareness to exit a body and perceive the environment as if it is working brain with properly functioning sensory organs. There's no way to explain how this is even plausible.

I agree with the first sentence. I'd change the second one to state there's no way currently known. And this is from my interest in "far out physics" such as quantum consciousness Physicists explain how the brain might connect to the quantum realm

A very far out and admittedly unlikely conjecture is that OOB experiences might be explainable by quantum physics.There is of course no reason to take this seriously right now, but I'm not going to 100% reject the possibility.

 

[F1fan]

I agree with the first sentence. I'd change the second one to state there's no way currently known.

Actually we pretty much know that there's no factual basis to think a mortal brain's consciousness can somehow function outside of the body it's part of. It's an outlandish idea. Everything we know about how brains function does not support the concept of NDE.

Again the NDE proposal is NOT consistent with facts and what we understand of consciousness, so there is nothing to hang that hat on. It's not only a problem of not having something to hang your hat on, you have no hat.

I understand it's a fun idea, but there's just no facts to even think it probable.

And this is from my interest in "far out physics" such as quantum consciousness Physicists explain how the brain might connect to the quantum realm

This doesn't help the NDE case. It just explains how the physical brain (including other animals, not just human) operates and processes in what it is. This doesn't suggest anything special or contrary to what is understood about consciousness.

A very far out and admittedly unlikely conjecture is that OOB experiences might be explainable by quantum physics.There is of course no reason to take this seriously right now, but I'm not going to 100% reject the possibility.

It's funny you reject solid science on evolution but accept this?

The dilemma with speculative physics is that it is taking factual frameworks of physics and building on possible models beyond what is verifiable at the moment.

 

[Tiberius]

Your first sentence is contradicted by your second two sentences. Given how often one study fails to be reproduced, close adherence to the research protocol is warranted.

If studies contradict each other in a finding, that indicates a flaw in the experimental setup (assuming correct sample size).

Yeah, this doesn't actually answer the questions I asked.

Would you care to explain how the body position of the subject makes a difference?

And why do you think a reduction in fear of death is required?

My objections are to the quality of that one study. One basis for my objections are from my time as a graduate student in chemistry. There was a furor about "polywater" with several studies confirming the finding and others refuting the finding. It was not until many studies were done was the true basis for the initial. finding discovered and the original conclusion refuted.

Even though there was only one subject and as the authors noted replication is needed, fMRI to me is a fruitful direction to go. If patterns of brain activation are consistent with people reporting OOB experiences, then any papers such as the one that started this discussion need to be done again with fMRI data as a necessary adjunct.

However, all these studies show the OBEs can be produced pretty much at will.

You seem to be saying that since there are differences between the studies, the best explanation is something supernatural.

 

[Brian2]

No, I can't verify it for myself.

I may experience something that I attribute to a deity. But how do I know I wasn't hallucinating? With a sample size of one, that's impossible.

Yes I say that to myself every time I think it might be raining.
You could go with it and see where it leads.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I say that to myself every time I think it might be raining.
You could go with it and see where it leads.

I don't understand your post. Could you unpack it?

 

[Brian2]

Yes.
If it can't be measured and studied, ie: perceived, why should anyone believe in it?

Because some things are just there and were believed in for millennia without measurements and still are for many things and by people who do not read the scientific journals.
I guess scientific thinking is some sort of justification for being a materialist but it should not be.
I believe in God because He does not need science to justify His existence.