Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[bahman]

I believe I have a very secure argument against the impossibility of God as real.

However, I agree there is also room to argue God must be conditioned to time and space with the need to connect with its creations, thus contradict its absolutely independent claim.
However the exception is it is not applicable to the Spinoza's God which is indifferent to all.

And what is your argument?

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Why God should be absolute? Why absolute is unreachable?

[FlashDangerpants]

13. Soon to be announced...

Well surely that's this...

While I was a theist I have had 'extraordinary' spiritual experience and thought I was VERY special for a long time. But fortunately being very rational and analytical, and the more research I did, the more I understood those experiences were psychological derivatives.

Yeah, that's pretty good, but we need to par it down into something a little more succinct and "snappy" sounding by extracting the essence of what he's implying about himself.

How about this:

• 13. My infallible wisdom derived from my extensive research has allowed me to unequivocally conclude that because my own "extraordinary spiritual experience" (ESE) turned out to be a dud (DUD), it therefore means that all spiritual experiences are duds.

Whaddya think? Still too long?
_______

• 13. I thought I was VERY special (to god) for a long time. Then I found out I was VERY special to analytic logic instead

[Iwannaplato]

14 I am an expert in selectively appealing to authority. I can find and link to articles/websites/philosophers that seem on quick browsing to support my positions and ignore without anxiety portions of those articles/websites/philosophers that counter my positions, even when the bulk of those authorities disagree with me.

[seeds]

Please describe for me an example of a specific "demonstration" of whatever it might take to convince you that a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of this universe.

Okay, let's go back to the example that IC ever and always wiggles out of responding to.

The difference between demonstrable proof that the Pope resides in the Vatican and demonstrable proof that "a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of this universe."

And let's pin this down.

Do you believe this higher intelligence is attribable to a God, the God, your God?...

Okay, first of all, I don't like using the word "God" to describe what I believe is the living intelligence responsible for the creation of this universe.

And that's because, to me, the word "God" comes with far too much negative baggage, usually in the form of immediately evoking visions of the silly anthropomorphic nonsense on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Nevertheless, I am forced to use it because I'm not sure of what other word we can use in these types of discussions. So, I guess we're kind of stuck with it.

...And, if so, does your own understanding of this God include omniscience and omnipotence? Just in case the discussion comes around to theodicy.

To a certain degree, yes, but not anything resembling the ridiculously over-reaching interpretation of what the word "omniscience" seems to imply to some humans.

I mean, it is utterly absurd to imagine that any living consciousness could be directly aware of...

(and simultaneously controlling - in "real time," no less)

...the position and status of literally every subatomic particle throughout the entire universe (which is what some humans actually seem to believe the word "omniscience" means as it pertains to God).

That, to me, is pure and utter nonsense, especially when it is coupled with the even more preposterous notion that this Being would also know the precise position and status of every subatomic particle, thousands of years into the future.

Hogwash!!!

On the other hand, when it comes to the word "omnipotent," I do think that any Being who is capable of creating a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets out of the living mental fabric of its very own being, is certainly omnipotent within the context of its own mind where all of this creating is taking place, as is depicted in yet another of my fanciful illustrations...



Take special note of that lower left-hand caption:

The "eye" of the mind, whether it be God's or ours, is the omnipotent core of "one" autonomous bubble of space-time.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

And then these parts:

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?

Well, first of all, I suggest that almost all of the vast number of "paths" that humans have proposed in the past, all have one thing in common, and that is they all stem from an inherent (intuitive/common sense) feeling that it is ludicrous to think that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance.

Right. Here you are like all the rest of us, an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the gargantuan vastness of all there is daring to tell us what is or is not ludicrous regarding the existence of the existence of the universe itself.

What you are referring to as being an...

"...infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the gargantuan vastness of all there is..."

...may not be quite as "tiny" as you imagine.

I apologize to all those who I am sure are tired of seeing my illustrations, but I need to use them to help me clarify my assertions. This one, for example...

I said earlier that the universe is a "dream-like" illusion and I meant it.

The universe is like a highly ordered and super-advanced "real dream," so to speak, occurring within God's mind, in which we participate, unwittingly (unaware of its illusory quality), and wholeheartedly, due to the absolute "believability" of the conditions set-forth before our senses.

Now here comes an extremely important correlation between our minds and the mind of God:

In conjunction with the metaphor of the universe being like a "real dream," the huge proportions and vast distances of separation within the universe is the same illusion of proportion and separation that occurs within our own minds when we dream -- which means that size and distance are "relative"...



The small and blurry captions read as follows:

...And for an example of what I mean by relative: this little image of a globe of the earth in a human mind...

...could actually be the same size as the real earth in God's mind, but you see, never the twain shall meet. At no time will they ever be superimposed upon each other for comparison...

...That is the essence of relativity. They exist in two separate dimensions of subjective reality, and the informational parameters regarding their size, or any other aspect, only have meaning to the explicating consciousness or consciousnesses (plural) within the context of the particular reality itself...

...So don't be overwhelmed by the size of the universe. For you see, from a certain perspective, our minds are the same size as the universe. Where we diverge from God is in the realm of order taking place within our minds.

The point is that you, iambiguous, are vastly underestimating the ontological status and eternal potential of the human mind.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

As for chance, what "on Earth" does that even mean? What can you possibly know about the laws of nature themselves. Sure, I suppose it is possible that -- presto! -- matter just popped into existence by sheer chance. On the other hand, maybe your "higher intelligence" did too. So, do you by chance have any hard evidence to settle it once and for all.

As I have stated over and over again, any sort of "hard evidence" for the existence of God, and that of our ultimate destiny, is forbidden. And that's because it might breach the integrity of the illusion of objective reality.

Or, perhaps, do you believe what you do because, psychologically, it comforts and consoles you to believe what you want to believe is true about what, instead, may well be an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence given the "brute facticity" of all there is.

Now you're starting to sound like Veritas Aequitas, and that is not a good thing.

Though, yeah, there's always this...

Clearly, they came up with all sorts of silly concepts that seemed to make sense at the time, but were eventually abandoned. However, the mystery still remains, even to this day. So, we keep trying.

I'm all for trying. Especially here in a philosophy forum. But my own frame of mind still aims more toward actually demonstrating that what you do believe "in your head", all other rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Especially given that in regard to God and religion the stakes couldn't possibly be higher: morality here and now, immortality and salvation there and then.

Here's the thing, iambiguous, there's nothing at stake!

The gift we have been given is a done deal with no strings attached, and is absolutely equal and perfect for every human ever awakened into life on this planet.

You need to stop focusing on and fretting over the silly nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds who used dire threats and grim warnings as rhetorical devices that functioned as "hooks" and "barbed fences" to ensure that the sheep (out of fear) stayed within the confines of a particular religion.

Then the part where your concept of God revolves around, among other things...

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

The simple and, perhaps, "glib" answer to that is that because we are not meant to stay within God's "cosmic womb" (in the material universe) forever, then everything you mentioned in the above quote...

(plus thousands of other ways of inducing death)

...are nothing more than the various means for "breaking God's water," so to speak, so that our minds (souls/consciousnesses) can be "delivered" (birthed) into the aforementioned higher context of reality.

Again, I reiterate one of the key assertions of Biblical metaphysics...

"...Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again..."

Sure, whatever way we are fated to physically die may indeed be unpleasant and painful, but the birthing process has almost always been a painful ordeal (with some "labor periods" being longer than others).

It's just that, in this case, "Mother God" isn't stupid, and thus delegates the birthing pains to be experienced by the birthee, rather than herself.

Now I realize that the above may sound kind of silly, but I suggest that the truth of our situation (and of ultimate reality in general), is much more "natural" and "organic" than what it seems to be from our present (and extremely limited) perspective.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

You're better not to try to bluff somebody who knows the material.

If I am not mistaken, earlier you admitted you have not read the Blackwell Guide?

Heh. You're mistaken, alright. I've got it right here, and have read it cover to cover.

You want to test me? Please do. Give me a passage with which you have an issue, and say what you want to interrogate. I'll find your page, and tell you exactly what I think.

I told you, I have read chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide

Yeah, I'm not buying that. You'll have to convince me.

Quotation and page, please?

It's not coming because you don't have it. That's the easiest conclusion. Because if you did, you'd have offered it long ago, if only to show me wrong.

As for intense experience of 'God' you are ignorant because you have not done in depth and sufficient research on this topic. I have had spent years researching on this topic.

Hilarious.

You have no idea...but that's fair, because I've not told you anything about my own identity, history or activities, so you have no way of knowing any better. Still, it does really amuse me to see you say it. It reminds me of just how little any of us knows about each other on this forum.

But I'll bite: what "research" have you done?

While I was a theist I have had 'extraordinary' spiritual experience and thought I was VERY special for a long time.

Tell me about that. I'm sincerely interested.

What was your "spiritual experience," and why did it incline you to think you were special? (I want to ask that non-cynically, if I may be so understood.)

But fortunately being very rational and analytical, and the more research I did, the more I understood those experiences were psychological derivatives.

That may have been true in your own case: if you say it was, I have no reason to doubt it was. But there's zero reason in that to suppose it was true for anybody else -- your experiences were your own, were they not? Do you have any reason to think they are typical of all "religious" persons? Are they all "experiential," and are all their "experiences" as inauthentic or disappointing as you decided your own was?

It's one heck of a jump to say, "Because I had a bad 'spiritual experience,' all such things must be nothing but 'experiences,' and all must be as bad as the one I had." There's no logic or reason I can see that would warrant that supposition.

I prefer not to discuss the specific details of my 'spiritual' experiences, but in general they were all confined to altered states of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sciousness

Before I did the relevant research, I don't hear it from friends and colleagues who had claimed to have such experiences but rather what I experienced were similar to the experiences of the so-called gurus. Thus I thought that was special.

I also will not go into the detailed researches I have done [too tedious to present them]. However whenever I research on any critical subject I will leave no stones unturned and dig them in whatever books, articles, internet, etc. [if anyone can direct me to any other relevant sources I will make and an attempt to get to it].

My source of 'spiritual' experiences was from regular meditation and perhaps my constitution.
But what I found out the 'spiritual' experiences I had were similar to those who took drugs, hallucinogen, mental cases, had brain damage, stressed, triggered by magnetic waves, etc..
One notable source of is that of Temporal Epilepsy and God.
I linked this earlier,
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes [Epilepsy] and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

"God has sent me to you": Right temporal epilepsy, left prefrontal psychosis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27176877/

There are tons of articles written on this subject, if you are serious to counter it, just do the necessary research.

My stroke of insight | Jill Bolte Taylor [Brain Damage]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

The "God Helmet" Can Give You Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHCcCO1jxmg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0&t=4s
The term God Helmet refers to a controversial experimental apparatus in neurotheology. The apparatus, placed on the head of an experimental subject, stimulates the brain with magnetic fields. Persinger reports that at least 80 percent of his participants experience a presence beside them in the room, which they variously say feels like God or someone they knew who had died.
The leading researcher in this area is Michael Persinger. Persinger uses a modified snowmobile helmet or a head-circlet device nicknamed the Octopus that contain solenoids which create a weak but complex magnetic field over the brain's right-hemisphere parietal and temporal lobes.

DMT: The Spirit Molecule
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=22s

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4031576/
Patients with schizophrenia also exhibit religious delusions and hallucinations.

I have posted the above before, there are many more that give one a clue that 'God' is a psychological derivative.

While a small percentile of theists has "special" experiences of a God like the above, the majority [you ?] are merely driven to cling to an idea of God with superficial experiences of the divine as a balm to soothe their cognitive dissonances.

After discovering the above I gravitated more towards Buddhism which is non-theistic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

..aside from your nihilistic vision of reality that implies that there is no ultimate and eternal purpose for humans as individuals,...

...what exactly are you offering to humans that might give them a glimmer of "hope" that there might be more to life than what meets the eye?

For example, what words of comfort and solace do you have to offer to grieving parents who just lost their young child to a disease?

Or what specific words or vital aspect of your philosophy would be useful for this little girl to recall...

...in the few remaining moments before the vulture comes in to devour her flesh?

Come on now, Veritas, give me the best and most memorable lines from your materialistic philosophy that will help these humans endure their darkest hours on earth.

_______
[/quote]
I agree it is possible that humanity has evolved with greater knowledge due to some people who may have accidentally eaten hallucinogenic mushrooms and other food.

But it could possible by other reasons as well, e.g. the unfolding of the 'seed' of potential expansion of knowledge which is very evident in the notable scientists who did not take drugs, e.g. Newton, Einstein, and the likes.

Note I have been promoting Kant vision for humanity, i.e. his vision of perpetual peace achievable via his Epistemology and Moral System, i.e. his famous 3 visions;

• 1. What can I know? epistemology and metaphysics
  2. What can I do? Kantian Morality based on Freedom and Necessity
  3. What can I hope for? -perpetual peace.

Kant had presented a model [Moral Framework and System] on how the achieve the above efficiently.
Kant's model is already partially executed in practice albeit inefficiently at present due to humanity's current 'beastly' psychological state which is continually evolving.
BUT Given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, it will be possible to realize that 'hope' of perpetual peace in the future [not now] where all the terrible evils [like you presented above] will not exists anymore.

What model and plans you have to plan for humanity with your subjective experience?
All you have is a psychological derivative to soothe your current cognitive dissonances.

[Immanuel Can]

I prefer not to discuss the specific details of my 'spiritual' experiences, but in general they were all confined to altered states of consciousness.

Okay. So you were in an "altered state of consciousness," and had a bad "experience," and now think that all "religion" is nothing but "altered states of (bad) consciousness?

But what I found out the 'spiritual' experiences I had were similar to those who took drugs, hallucinogen, mental cases, had brain damage, stressed, triggered by magnetic waves, etc..

Right. So again, you had either a brain injury, epilepsy, or some other trouble with your temporal lobe (all of which you cited in your response) and now you assume that what happened to you is the same as what is happening to every other person who is "religious," even those not in an "altered state of consciousness"?

I have posted the above before, there are many more that give one a clue that 'God' is a psychological derivative.

Well, it was for you, perhaps.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that the same things is what must be happening in other cases of "religious experience" or just "religious belief" maybe? Or are you just taking that for granted?

While a small percentile of theists has "special" experiences of a God like the above, the majority [you ?] are merely driven to cling to an idea of God with superficial experiences of the divine as a balm to soothe their cognitive dissonances.

Oh, wait: now you're floating a completely different theory.

Now you're saying that religious people don't generally have "special experiences" at all, but just cling to the idea because of "cognitive dissonances"? Then that would say that their "religion" was not an experiential brain phenomenon at all, but rather a belief held for emotional reasons.

Which theory are you actually going with? Because your two theories contradict.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And what is your argument?

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Why God should be absolute? Why absolute is unreachable?

I hope you understand the dreaded fears of a threat of eternal Hell for many theists?

Since the emergence of theism as a salvation to eternal life to avoid Hellfire, theists has to defend their stance from continual criticisms either from theists or non-theists.
Any admission of fallibility of their God will trigger the dreaded fears and insecurities.

As such, when others condemned their god as inferior, [e.g. Muslims will claim the Christian God is inferior and vice-versa] the defenders will have to come up with a one-up claim to counter their God is the greatest.

For example, theist-A could claim the God of theist-B is so inferior that theist-A's more superior could force theist-B's God to eat shit, or something degrading, etc.
Since no theists will admit their God to be inferior they will continue to counter continually with one-up arguments to avoid the trigger of fears and insecurities in them.

Somehow the one-upping will have to end with the limit of their knowledge.
Then they will naturally end up with the idea of an absolute ontological God.

Thinking theists will then claim their absolute ontological God as,
"a being than which no greater can be conceived" St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.
When both claim such an ontological God, they are both secured from anyone downgrading their God.

But an absolute ontological God is obviously an impossibility to be real.
Thus theists are cornered with no where to go;
-if they claim a non-ontological god, their god could be forced to eat shit by another superior god,
-if they claim an absolute ontological God, it is clearly impossible to be real.

The fact is the idea of God is merely a psychological derivative.
Resolving the psychological root causes will alleviate the burden to believe in an illusory god.
This is what Buddhism [and other non-theistic religions] has been doing since > 2500 years ago.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I prefer not to discuss the specific details of my 'spiritual' experiences, but in general they were all confined to altered states of consciousness.

Okay. So you were in an "altered state of consciousness," and had a bad "experience," and now think that all "religion" is nothing but "altered states of (bad) consciousness?

But what I found out the 'spiritual' experiences I had were similar to those who took drugs, hallucinogen, mental cases, had brain damage, stressed, triggered by magnetic waves, etc..

Right. So again, you had either a brain injury, epilepsy, or some other trouble with your temporal lobe (all of which you cited in your response) and now you assume that what happened to you is the same as what is happening to every other person who is "religious," even those not in an "altered state of consciousness"?

I have posted the above before, there are many more that give one a clue that 'God' is a psychological derivative.

Well, it was for you, perhaps.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that the same things is what must be happening in other cases of "religious experience" or just "religious belief" maybe? Or are you just taking that for granted?

Researchers have been collecting all sorts of 'religious experiences' and noted the similar patterns.
Researchers surely will want to hear of very unique ones, but to date whatever is reported as 'spiritual experiences' [altered states of consciousness] will fall into the already known categories.

While a small percentile of theists has "special" experiences of a God like the above, the majority [you ?] are merely driven to cling to an idea of God with superficial experiences of the divine as a balm to soothe their cognitive dissonances.

Oh, wait: now you're floating a completely different theory.

Now you're saying that religious people don't generally have "special experiences" at all, but just cling to the idea because of "cognitive dissonances"? Then that would say that their "religion" was not an experiential brain phenomenon at all, but rather a belief held for emotional reasons.

Which theory are you actually going with? Because your two theories contradict.

You are too hasty. Read my point again!

I differentiated,

• 1. a small percentile of theists [say 1%] who have 'special' 'altered states of consciousness [ASC]' spiritual experiences. You need to do more research on the nature of ASC.
  2. the majority of theists [99%] who don't have the special 'altered states of consciousness' but may claim to experience God is a superficial way via prayers, sensing, 100% blind faith etc. .

Btw, ALL humans has an inherent cognitive dissonance driven by an existential crisis.
Theists 1 or 2 used theism as a balm to soothe their cognitive dissonances.
Non-theists used other strategies.

[Immanuel Can]

Researchers...

Bluff.

Show the research that proves your experience has to be the same as that of everybody else.

While a small percentile of theists has "special" experiences of a God like the above, the majority [you ?] are merely driven to cling to an idea of God with superficial experiences of the divine as a balm to soothe their cognitive dissonances.

Oh, wait: now you're floating a completely different theory.

Now you're saying that religious people don't generally have "special experiences" at all, but just cling to the idea because of "cognitive dissonances"? Then that would say that their "religion" was not an experiential brain phenomenon at all, but rather a belief held for emotional reasons.

Which theory are you actually going with? Because your two theories contradict.

You are too hasty. Read my point again!

No, I read it, and I saw both things.

But they try to "explain" religion in terms of two different and conflicting explanations: your 1) is that it is an "altered state of consciousness," and the other 2) that it is an instance of very deliberate but unethical suppression of truth incentivized by "cognitive dissonance."

One is totally involuntary, the other is voluntary. One describes "religion" as a delusional brain state, the other as a result of (possibly unethical) reasoning. One is irrational, and the other a rationalization.

Are you trying to say religious people are "stoned" or "scared"?

You're going to have to pick one of those 'horses' and ride it, if you want to have a theory at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Researchers...

Bluff.
Show the research that proves your experience has to be the same as that of everybody else.

That is the problem with your ignorance.
I had suggested you must research in more depth with what is altered states of consciousness in general.
There are so many reports of the various types of experiences in youtube.
Note the Jill Bolte's experience for example which is different from Ramachandran's patient.

I stated what I experienced was altered states of consciousness in general but I did not claim they are the same in details as everybody's else.

What I had experienced is the same with certain categories of ASC.

Have you heard of Andrew Newberg [..I have linked him before].

• http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
  Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states. He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.” His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.

There are others doing similar research.

Oh, wait: now you're floating a completely different theory.

Now you're saying that religious people don't generally have "special experiences" at all, but just cling to the idea because of "cognitive dissonances"? Then that would say that their "religion" was not an experiential brain phenomenon at all, but rather a belief held for emotional reasons.

Which theory are you actually going with? Because your two theories contradict.

You are too hasty. Read my point again!

No, I read it, and I saw both things.

But they try to "explain" religion in terms of two different and conflicting explanations: your 1) is that it is an "altered state of consciousness," and the other 2) that it is an instance of very deliberate but unethical suppression of truth incentivized by "cognitive dissonance."

One is totally involuntary, the other is voluntary. One describes "religion" as a delusional brain state, the other as a result of (possibly unethical) reasoning. One is irrational, and the other a rationalization.

Are you trying to say religious people are "stoned" or "scared"?

You're going to have to pick one of those 'horses' and ride it, if you want to have a theory at all.

Note, 1. is based on direct experience [rational] but to link it to a God is irrational.
Point 2 is theists using God as a balm to soothe their cognitive dissonance.

Are you trying to say religious people are "stoned" or "scared"?

Yes, subliminally, they are cowered with terrible fears inside but many are not conscious of this terrible fears driven by an existential crisis.
This is why there is so much evil manifesting from theists when 'what they deemed as saved' is threatened via rational arguments, blasphemy, and other threats, this is so evident. [note the recent killings in Nigeria], the history of Christian persecutions of non-believers, etc.

[Iwannaplato]

I stated what I experienced was altered states of consciousness in general but I did not claim they are the same in details as everybody's else.

Here's what Veritas actually did....
He is asked by Immanuel Can what research he did...He responds, amongst other things, the following....

While I was a theist I have had 'extraordinary' spiritual experience and thought I was VERY special for a long time.

But fortunately being very rational and analytical, and the more research I did, the more I understood those experiences were psychological derivatives.

In context the message is clear. He has had the same kinds of experiences. He knows it was egotistic on his part so it is on others. He knows that it is psychological not real in the sense of reflecting how things are, because it wasn't or he thinks it wasn't in his case.

He is dismissing the experiences and interpretations of others in a kind of been there, done that, so I know what you experienced and because (I think) I was wrong, I know you were.

Veritas thinks he is the measure or all things.

[Age]

I stated what I experienced was altered states of consciousness in general but I did not claim they are the same in details as everybody's else.

Here's what Veritas actually did....
He is asked by Immanuel Can what research he did...He responds, amongst other things, the following....

While I was a theist I have had 'extraordinary' spiritual experience and thought I was VERY special for a long time.

But fortunately being very rational and analytical, and the more research I did, the more I understood those experiences were psychological derivatives.

In context the message is clear. He has had the same kinds of experiences. He knows it was egotistic on his part so it is on others. He knows that it is psychological not real in the sense of reflecting how things are, because it wasn't or he thinks it wasn't in his case.

He is dismissing the experiences and interpretations of others in a kind of been there, done that, so I know what you experienced and because (I think) I was wrong, I know you were.

Veritas thinks he is the measure or all things.

Very good and correct observation and analysis of "veritas aequitas" I must say.