Science Doesn't Work

[bhsmte]

I will.

Here's what Dr. Perisinger had to say about it all: The God Helmet - How it works.

The God Helmet is a popular name given to a laboratory apparatus originally called the "Koren Helmet", after Stanley Koren of Laurentian University's Neuroscience Department, who built it according to specifications provided by Dr. M.A. Persinger, it's director.

The attribution towards along a devil to angel continuum appears strongly related to the affect (pleasant-terror) associated with the experience. I suspect most people would call the "vague, all-around-me" sensations "God" but they are reluctant to employ the label in a laboratory. The implicit is obvious. If the equipment and the experiment produced the presence that was God, then the extrapersonal, unreachable and independent characteristics of the god definition might be challenged."

I find the part about Persinger observing, that people had an experience of God, that matched their personal belief and social upbringing. What doe that tell you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Also from that link,

The God Helmet is a misleading name. It gives the impression that it can produce the experience of God on demand. In fact, only one percent of the subjects had the experience. In contrast to the one percent who saw God, 80% of the subjects felt a presence of some kind, but did not call it God. Of course, there were probably some subjects who experienced an appearance of God, but were shy about saying they had seen God in a laboratory. That kind of thing is not only intensely personal, but can also get you ridiculed.

I find it telling that those with an "unorthodox spirituality" seem more susceptible to such experiences....

What do you think Usus? Would you call your brand of spirituality "unorthodox"?

 

[Paradoxum]

Well, I'm not talking specifically about reasoning, but making choices based on reasoning. Those are biased things, given that we exclude all other options.

Why do you think it's biased? Coming to a conclusion (or decision) isn't necessarily biased.

I think if you were lucky enough to be exposed to the guys I read, you probably would have remained a theist. Just like I would likely be an atheist if it wasn't for these guys.

Who do you read?

I've read Philosophical Fragments by Kierkegaard pseudonym... I'm not sure if that represents his true philosophy. But from the very little I know, Kierkegaard is about jumping beyond the evidence

Abraham isn't someone to look up to as a knight of faith... he's a delusional potential murderer. He represents the evil of religion... making good people bad by justifying evil by faith. I don't see the difference between Abraham and Islamic terrorists.

If there's no good reason to believe in God, I see no reason to jump to belief.

That's like saying, "because I don't know how the cosmic toaster works, it must not exist at all."

If there's no cosmic toast, why should I believe in a cosmic toaster?

And I do wonder, for sure. I can even pinpoint a few necessary variables for any metaphysical discussion. But in proportion to how much I delve into metaphysical problems on a huge scale, the more variables come into play, and I can barely walk and chew gum simultaneously.

In my opinion, the lack of God making himself know is a serious problem for Christianity. It isn't a minor issue.

You seem to care about falsifiable truth. When truth isn't falsifiable, you can't really know in a firm way if it is in fact true; you lean more and more on your intuition. And when you're at this point, truth basically becomes theoretical: whatever can tie together the most in a most consistent and neat way wins. IMO.

If you can't prove something wrong you can simply take no position on the issue. Personally, though, I think there are reasons to disbelieve at least some versions of God.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I find it telling that those with an "unorthodox spirituality" seem more susceptible to such experiences....

What do you think Usus? Would you call your brand of spirituality "unorthodox"?

Orthodox spirituality not only accepts the Church version of truth but believes to the contrary of anything else that says differently, yes? Is this not the currently used church definition of faith? "Everything is known and there is no reason to experience it to verify it for yourself."

So Orthodox "spirituality", I also call "Churchianity", is predisposed and actively set against having new experiences.


The unorthodox spiritual seeker who dares to wrestle with God, angels and men for his/herself, on the other hand, seeks out new experiences and does not stop wrestling until blessing is received.



So yes. I am unorthodox.

 

[fireof god98]

Orthodox spirituality not only accepts the Church version of truth but believes to the contrary of anything else that says differently, yes? Is this not the currently used church definition of faith? "Everything is known and there is no reason to experience it to verify it for yourself."

So Orthodox "spirituality", I also call "Churchianity", is predisposed and actively set against having new experiences.


The unorthodox spiritual seeker who dares to wrestle with God, angels and men for his/herself, on the other hand, seeks out new experiences and does not stop wrestling until blessing is received.



So yes. I am unorthodox.

i always thought the definition of faith for orthodox churches was Hebrews 11:1. i think the church simply knows that the truth does not change for our own purposes going alone the lines of Hebrews 13:8

 

[Ana the Ist]

Orthodox spirituality not only accepts the Church version of truth but believes to the contrary of anything else that says differently, yes? Is this not the currently used church definition of faith? "Everything is known and there is no reason to experience it to verify it for yourself."

So Orthodox "spirituality", I also call "Churchianity", is predisposed and actively set against having new experiences.


The unorthodox spiritual seeker who dares to wrestle with God, angels and men for his/herself, on the other hand, seeks out new experiences and does not stop wrestling until blessing is received.



So yes. I am unorthodox.

It was really a rhetorical question...I knew the answer. Considering another thread about getting high on truth...when you typed that last reply did you feel a slight...relief? Don't answer, let me imagine. You've made enough here clear already.

 

[VProud]

This entire thing is getting a bit...much, isn't it?
He's got a fairly good point:

The fact that you do not get the results you'd expect or are looking for from God does not disprove the existence of such a being.

 

[variant]

This entire thing is getting a bit...much, isn't it?
He's got a fairly good point:

The fact that you do not get the results you'd expect or are looking for from God does not disprove the existence of such a being.

I also seriously doubt this is his point at all because he said we could differentiate good theologies from bad ones based upon how they fulfill their promises

Nor would any specific observation.

So, what makes this point fairly good?

 

[VProud]

Nor would any specific observation.

So, what makes this point fairly good?

I also seriously doubt this is his point at all because he said we could differentiate good theologies from bad ones based upon how they fulfill their promises.

Indeed, no specific observation would.
By fairly good I simply meant true.
I don't think a point has to have any qualities other than truth for it to be good.

Good, bad and even 'fulfill' are subjective here, I'm not getting into that. Just thought this whole thing was getting a bit exhausted.

 

[variant]

Indeed, no specific observation would.
By fairly good I simply meant true.
I don't think a point has to have any qualities other than truth for it to be good.

True but useless is not a good point.

We all know that God is a unfalsifiable hypothesis.

That doesn't support his goal of promoting theology.

Once you admit that you can't tell God from not God all observations are useless and you are just toying with ideas.

 

[GforPerplexed]

Really? I thought I fit like a glove!

What specifically do you take issue with?

I just dont subscribe to the whole, love peace and happiness rhetoric. Especially rhetoric that has added religious connotations, thats all.

But cheers for the links, pretty interesting read. Always good to have a bit more information.

 

[Received]

Why do you think it's biased? Coming to a conclusion (or decision) isn't necessarily biased.

Coming to a conclusion is within the sphere of rationality, and I would agree this doesn't mean being biased. But I'm talking about choosing, which is transrational or arational; you have rationality and you have volition, which has the possibility of being rational, and oftentimes can't help but be arational given that rationality doesn't always apply to choices (and God help us if it always did, given that we'd be much more machinelike than we are on our worst days).

Who do you read?

I've read Philosophical Fragments by Kierkegaard pseudonym... I'm not sure if that represents his true philosophy. But from the very little I know, Kierkegaard is about jumping beyond the evidence

Abraham isn't someone to look up to as a knight of faith... he's a delusional potential murderer. He represents the evil of religion... making good people bad by justifying evil by faith. I don't see the difference between Abraham and Islamic terrorists.

If there's no good reason to believe in God, I see no reason to jump to belief.

Philosophy itself is by definition a jumping above or beyond evidence (if you mean this in a scientific sense), so there's nothing anti-Kierkegaardian here.

Never read PF, but I have read Fear and Trembling. His argument is that the teleological suspension of the ethical means that religious callings are incommensurate with the ethical. So this means that Abraham isn't a murderer, given that his calling suspends what would otherwise be a conclusion of his being unethical, a murderer. Of course, K chose this as the most extreme example of the life of faith. Remember that the Biblical story involved a "test", and God saved the situation at the last second. And yes, it's a hell of a test, and the twist of it all is that the moment you say Abraham is unethical, you're missing the point of the teleological suspension of the ethical. The only qualm I have with that book (which I adore) is it says pretty much nothing of the life of faith in less extreme examples (that's best left to his other works, probably best with Sickness Unto Death and the Edifying Discourses), and runs the risk of equating faith with extremist Abrahamic actions.

But I'm not going to rattle off a list like a didactic person. What I'll say, though, is you need to question your philosophical presuppositions which are contradictory with theism in order for the real good stuff to take root. I'd recommend Moreland and Craig's (the latter is actually a great philosopher, just gets critiqued a lot for a few lukewarm arguments) Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, and/or Kreeft and Tacelli's Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Once you have a good idea of how theism's metaphysics are fine and dandy, then go for Willard's Divine Conspiracy and Divine Conspiracy Continued, also possibly his Knowing Christ Today (on religious knowledge as a serious subject). For K I'd add Sickness Unto Death (a monstrously hard but incredibly rewarding read) and Either/Or. The Brothers Karamazov is the best fictionalized read for Christianity and its problems. Here's my crem de la crem bookshelf on goodreads for other general reads if you're interested: https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1865006?shelf=crem-de-la-crem.

Looks like I flaked out on my promise not to rattle off a book list.

If there's no cosmic toast, why should I believe in a cosmic toaster?

Sounded like you were saying there can't be cosmic toast (mmmmm) because you can't understand the cosmic toaster. That's different than this statement.

In my opinion, the lack of God making himself know is a serious problem for Christianity. It isn't a minor issue.

Only on its face. That's the problem of "divine hiddenness", and I think Paul K. Moser has some interesting writings on the subject.

If you can't prove something wrong you can simply take no position on the issue. Personally, though, I think there are reasons to disbelieve at least some versions of God.

Oh, falsifiability is totally different than being able to prove something untrue. I'm not saying that at all. I think any position should be capable of being proven untrue, or at least invalid. And I think theism fits that essential criterion.

 

[Received]

Made a thread with an example of Kierkegaard's theology as what I'm talking about as really relevant, theism-becomes-worthy stuff.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7836306/#post66130699

 

[Received]

You're welcome to be the first person in history to actually provide one. Outline the means and methodology by which theological truth is gleaned and demonstrate its effectiveness.

Complete your analogy. What are the theological analogs to hypotheses, theoretical models, experimentation, falsifiability, data corroboration, peer review, etc., and what information have they gleaned?

Jesus, do I get extra credit on this non-multiple choice exam at least?

 

[KCfromNC]

That's because at scientific conferences you tend to have people who are simultaneously scientific geniuses and philosophical idiots.

I guess name calling is just as effective a dodge as trying to change the subject from theology to religion to philosophy.

Of course the question of how to tell good versus bad theological (or philosophical) ideas remains.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Jesus, do I get extra credit on this non-multiple choice exam at least?

It's quite a task, I know. I'm sure glad it's your problem and not mine.

If you can't demonstrate the implicit assertion in your analogy, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

 

[Received]

I guess fact calling is just as effective a dodge as trying to change the subject from theology to religion to philosophy.

Of course the question of how to tell good versus bad theological (or philosophical) ideas remains.

fify

 

[Received]

It's quite a task, I know. I'm sure glad it's your problem and not mine.

If you can't demonstrate the implicit assertion in your analogy, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

Oh, hush. I can assert what I want, and you have the freedom to accuse dogs of being in the wrong (i.e., you can accuse anyone of anything).

I sure would like to get to your final exam. Too bad it was given with such disdain and I'm not getting any younger...

(Yep, this means I sure have no response at all. None. Oh, my poor, poor theist non-soul.)

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I can assert what I want

You sure can. If you actually care about the truth, though, the next step is to substantiate your assertions.

I sure would like to get to your final exam. Too bad it was given with such disdain and I'm not getting any younger...

You regard challenges to your vacuous assertions as 'disdain'.

And people dare wonder why religion is dying.

 

[variant]

You sure can. If you actually care about the truth, though, the next step is to substantiate your assertions.

He seems to have a tendency to curl up into a dodgy little ball of glib when his implicit assertions are questioned vigorously.

You regard challenges to your vacuous assertions as 'disdain'.

And people dare wonder why religion is dying.

Technically yes, if you are calling what he is doing a vacuous assertion that is 'unworthy of consideration or respect'.