Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 2:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:49 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 6:24 am
Bluff.
Show the research that proves your experience has to be the same as that of everybody else.
I had suggested you must research
You don't know what I've researched, of course. So you don't know what I "must" do.
What you do know is that I don't know what "research" you're referring to...because, I suspect, there isn't any. And on that thought, I should just say my honest observation of your communication style.
I'm understanding now how you argue. Other people, jusdging from their comments, are seeing it, too:
- You argue by pretending you know things you don't.
- You claim to have read things you have not.
- You post sites that are not research supporting your claims, and present them as if they were.
- You try to refer back to your own old arguments and posts as if you were, yourself an authority, or as if your earlier (failed) arguments were proof of something.
- When pressed, you keep changing your story until it fits the new problem, then claim you were right all along.
In other words, the whole thing is a sustained bluff.
It seems you're interested in "getting the last word," which you mistake for a philosophical "win," rather than having the best argument in the first place, or actually supplying the relevant reasons and evidence.
That this isn't "philosophy," and isn't how philosophy makes points, doesn't seem to have occurred to you.
Your whole load above are merely noises and nonsense.
This is a philosophy forum which is limited and where to exercise rigor is not practical.
I believe I have provided sufficient materials to provide reasonableness for my points.
You want to complain you have to provide specifics.
Those who do not agree with are theists who share the same views like you.
Since I have raised so much doubts for theism, and since theism is so critical to you, you yourself should do more philosophical research to understand [not necessary agree] what my points are all about and them present your counters.
BUT in your current psychological state as a theist you can only do theology and produce philosophical farts. For you to do serious philosophy, that will trigger insecurities in you.
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.
Well, then, since you don't know what everybody else's experience is, how can you say that religion must be an "altered state of consciousness"? You might be speaking about yourself, there: but you say you are not making any such claim for anyone else? Then it shows nothing about "religion" generally.[/quote]
You missed my point, deliberately?
The subject of 'what is religious/spiritual experience' had been studied since a long time ago e.g. the Buddha >2500 years ago who turned non-theistic and others before him.
The first serious one I read was;
The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature William James written in 1901!
Since then there has been a lot of research on 'religious experience' out there which will included altered states of consciousness.
These religious experiences are sorted into various categories.
As I had stated earlier [you ignored] I can easily reconcile my own experiences with those from certain categories of spiritual experiences.
The above exposed your ignorance and you must stay ignorant to ensure your soteriological purposes are secured.
Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states.
But that's a very basic fallacy. It's called "Causal Fallacy." It's the assumption that when two things happen at the same time, one must be the "cause" of the other.
That is, it's the assumption that if religious experiences manifest in the brain, then the brain must be
causing the religious experiences. But that is an obvious fallacy, since some other thing can be "causing" both, and neither "causing" the other.
If that's the case, they it could be right to say that experience with God causes both cognitions of religious experience and particular electrical patterns in the brain.
So both you and Newberg (assuming he even agrees with you) have made a basic philosophical error. Even if his science were good, his conclusions would be fallacious by way of the causal error.
Where did Newberg nor I assert and certain conclusions? As a scientist, Newberg could at best present 'polished conjectures'. Newberg never make any claim of the existence of God.
The fact is Newberg's subject are supposedly highly spiritual [monks who have had years of meditative experiences], highly religious [Christian monks, etc.] and he found when they experience their so-called religious experience, the same parts of the brain are triggered.
At the same time, the experiences of these highly spiritual and religious people are no different from the 'religious/spiritual' experiences of those who suffer from temporal epilepsy, mental illnesses, brain damage, drugs, hallucinogens, etc.
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.
Yes, I got it. But they contradict.
If God is a brain phenomenon, like an "altered state of consciousness," then He is not a "cognitive dissonance" strategy. For "altered states" are not produced rationally.
But "cognitive dissonance" avoidance strategies are rationalizations of things.
You're still running two different stories at the same time, and not seeing the confusion that's evident between them.
As usual you missed the point. The confusion is by you who is ignorant.
Here is how it goes in perspective,
- 1. From evolution, all humans are embedded with an inherent cognitive dissonance [CD] driven by an existential crisis, i.e. the self-awareness of mortality [not by living non-humans]. This is the fundamental psychological derivative.
2. The idea [mere thinking] of God [omni-whatever] is the most effective balm to soothe the CD. Note God only an idea as thought not a verified real thing. The majority of theists used this easy and immediate strategy to soothe their CD because it works immediately, i.e. just believe in God and viola! the terrible pains of CD vanish immediately and accompanied by joy and tears for many.
3. All humans has the potential to experience altered states of consciousness [ASC] and a certain percentile has experienced ASC via the various events and means. ASC are verifiable and justifiable as rationally real via science and they can be tested and reproduced deliberately. [counter your point].
4. Some theists who have had experienced of ASC especially losing one self-consciousness with expansion and omnipresent-like consciousness infer that is somewhat like what God is as in 2. Such experiences reinforce their cognitive dissonance strategy. Many of such theists who had experienced ASC claimed to be prophets and messengers of God.
But such a correlation and conclusion to link ASC with God is fallacious.
5. Some non-theists who have had such omnipresence-like consciousness [very profound to them] had also converted to the theists since such experiences prove to them God exists.
In this case, they have used such novel experience as a cognitive strategy. There are so many cases of such conversion, St. Paul for example.
But such a correlation and conclusion to link ASC with God is irrational and fallacious.
Note the evolutionary time sequence from 1 to 5 and hope you get it this time.
The events of 2 to 5 is driven by 1 the fundamental
psychological derivative.
The Buddha understand the necessary psychological scam above and proposed a non-theistic technique to resolve the inherent embedded cognitive dissonance which in a way is necessarily which should not be got rid off permanently but merely it should be modulated optimally.
The analogy of the above CD is like that of a large river system with extraordinary potentials for the good of humanity but can cause terrible damage via floods etc. So the solution is not to stop the water flow but rather build dams to modulate its seasonal water levels.
As for the terrible potentials and powers of those elements that cause the CD, the individuals need to build effective neural inhibitors [dams] to modulate his primal impulses.
These effective neural inhibitors and modulators have a very rational basis and not by pure blind faith like the majority of theists [you included] are engaging in.
