Angrillori

Actually, as long as your second boils down to:

A lot of people said it, therefore it's reasonable to believe them.

It's ad populum.

Also, just to forestall you:
"It's rational to believe X because lots of other people believe X,"
and:
"The more people say something the more likely it is to be true,"
both qualify too.

If you want to be specific, it's appeal to invalid authority as well. Since we're relying on individuals' self-diagnosis, who are not trained neurologists, physicians, or in any way a valid authority at diagnosing mental states, we're appealing to invalid authorities in each of these cases except where trained medical or scientific staff are coming up with the diagnosis.

Remember, all we've got here is a series of people that had widely varying sensory experiences, who, decided to label them religious. The fact of the experience is a wholly different thing than the fact that people chose to label these experiences religious. All the second is evidence of is that people unqualified to diagnose mental states have been culturally indoctrinated to ascribe unknown sensory expereinces to the supernatural.

luvluv

My argument didn't say that.

I didn't say that either.

That's closer, but still no cigar.

My claim is the more people who claim to have directly experienced or perceived x, the more likely it is that x was directly experienced or perceived.

Obviously, if hundreds of people run up to you claiming to have seen an elephant running loose in Central Park, the more evidence you have that there is an elephant running loose in central park.

Human testimony is always evidence, though quite often human testimony is not sufficient evidence to make a belief either true or rational. So long as we keep that in mind, one is not committing an ad populum fallacy when one says that human testimony regarding the perception or experience of x is evidence in favor of x.

Do you discount the person who runs up to you and tells you theres an elephant loose in Central Park because He's not a zoologist?

The fact is, it's far from clear that a neurologist whose never had a religious experience could authenticate a religious experience better than the person who experienced it. The best the neurologist could do is affirm whether or not the person has generally reliable cognitive equipment. After that, he'd be guessing as much as the rest of us. And besides, it's silly to think that we all have to check with our neurologists to ensure that any experience we'd had was real, unless of course we have a history of serious mental health issues.

Angrillori

Not if its hundreds of blind people who have never seen an elephant before, but have been told since birth that a "tweeting sound in the trees" indicates the presence of elephants...

Anytime you attempt to justify belief based on numbers of other people who believe it, (on the population, so to speak, of people who believe it) you'll be ad populum-ing, regardless of how fancy you dress it up.

Just another case of using words to try to cover up facts.

But I do if he's blind, has never seen an elephant before, and doesn't know where central park is. His claim that he heard tweeting in the branches of a tree, and therefore believes an elephant is running through central park, is discountable then, yes.

Angrillori

Uhm, that's just absurd. Of course the neurologist is more qualified, being able to recognize many non-divine cases of the same sensory experience. Remember EVERY religious experience was just an experience before someone labeled it a religious experience. A neurologist would be qualified to say: this sensory experience X is not accounted for by reasons A, B, and C. Which makes his opinion significantly more valid than the layperson who is ignorant as to whether their sensory experience was caused by god, or by indigestion, or by mushrooms, when that person self-diagnoses the experience as "religious."

But, unlike the layperson who had the experience, the neurologist (or medical agent, or scientist) COULD make that affirmation. Again, (since you seem to dig analogies), when you go to the pharmacist having self-diagnosed ADD or schizophrenia or whatever, does he or doesn't he expect an official prescription from a doctor?

No, it's just silly to rely for evidence on the self diagnoses of people wholly unqualified to differentiate "god experience" from "natural experience."

There's a reason a pharmacist will fill a prescription from a psychiatrist saying a person has bipolar disorder, but will not just hand out lithium tablets to anyone walking up to the window saying: "I have bipolar disorder."

luvluv

Let's just say they were ordinary, competent people. People who, like most of us, have never seen a real elephant up close before, but who know the basic properties of an elephant, and know when they are perceiving something with those basic properties.

Let's say a series of people you don't know run up to you and tell you to run because a rampaging elephant is coming your way. Is that evidence that a rampaging elephant is coming your way? Or at least, that they've seen something whose basic charactersitics are such that the conclusion that what is coming is an elephant is not certain, but it is a well-evidenced assumption that they've at least seen something very elephant-like?

And if dozens of people report seeing something very elephant-like, isn't that evidence, though perhaps insufficient evidence, that the elephant-like thing is actually an elephant?

I really do not know how John Powell or I could make any clearer the fact that we CATEGORIALLY ARE NOT trying to JUSTIFY a belief in God based on religious experiences. I am at a total loss as to how so many seemingly intelligent people could fail to grasp the central portion of an argument that has literally been beaten into their heads in several SCORES of underlined, boldened, italicized, exclamatory statements. I'm going to naively try again, in the hopes that at some point, this just has to sink in, assuming I'm dealing with rational human beings:

TO CLAIM THAT X HAS EVIDENCE IN IT'S FAVOR IS NOT TO CLAIM THAT X IS TRUE OR THAT IT X IS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE OR THAT A BELIEF IN X IS JUSTIFIED.

IT IS MERELY TO CLAIM THAT X HAS GAINED SOME PROBABILITY OVER IT'S INITIAL PROBABILITY ON THE BASIS OF SOME BIT OF DATA.

The probability gained may be, overall, insignificant in terms of your final assessment of the total evidence.

In closing I think it's obvious that neither I nor John say that every religious experience is authentic, or even plausible, even as a report of a religious experience. But the issue is whether all reported religious experiences fall into the category of people who have no idea what to expect of a God, have no idea when they're in the presence of one, and are apt to take any interesting sensation as the presence of God. This is not the uniform nature of the evidence before us. Sober, intelligent, scientifically knowledgable people have had experiences they cite as being religious. They have had near death experiences, or they have felt themselves to be in the presence of a Being of great power, wisdom, and love. Certainly, none of these experiences singularly or united constitutes (for those of us on the outside looking in) sufficient reason for belief in God. But they are evidence for the existence of God.

luvluv

And you're seriously under the impression that neurologists are qualified to differentiate "god experience" from "natural experience"? On what day in medical school do they teach you to do that?

Angrillori

But then your analogy is USELESS.

The people whose self-god-diagnoses you're relying on are not familiar with the human mind, are not familiar with the causes of human sensory experience, are laity who have been told that sometimes you'll get a weird feeling, and when they do they've been told they should attribute it to the supernatural.

They're much more akin to my "elephant witnesses" who have been told that sometimes they'll hear tweeting in the branches, and this means elephants are nearby.

I would trust someone who could see, someone who could differentiate birds singing in trees from an elephant stampede. These would be the neurologists, doctors, and scientists. They are not the blind indoctrinated people.

As pointed out your analogy is completely useless unless you introduce people who can't see, and are just repeating an assertion they were taught since young (tweeting in the branches indicates elephants.)

Hmm, argumentum ad shouting and repetition. Not particulalry strong, really.

In any event, you're still merging the two distinct events:

1) People had sensory experiences.
and
2) People labeled them "religious."

1) Is not evidence for god, since sensory experiences happen all the time.
2) Only is evidence for god if you offer some reason why this person's self-diagnosis should be considered authoritative. How is this person trained or an expert in differentiating the supernatural from the natural explanations? How is this person's label any different than our blind fella labeling his experience of tweeting in the trees coming from elephants?

Mageth

No, they are cited to be evidence for the existence of God, as you yourself indicate. These reports are, on their own, simply evidence that people have NDEs and sometimes may sense that they are in the presence of a divine Being or some such. They are not evidence as to the source for those experiences and sensations.

"God" is posited as an explanation for those sensations and experiences. Note that some forms of epilepsy cause quite similar experiences and sensations, and other research has indicated quite natural explanations for such "evidence".

Again, NDEs and tingly sensations are not "evidence for God". God is cited as an explanation for them.

Angrillori

I'm sorry, are you under the understanding that neurologists are NOT trained to understand the various natural causes of human sensory experience?

That somehow we should take a layperson's claim that sensory experience X is not/could not be natural, and is in fact religious?



Just to make sure it doesn't get lost:

In any event, you're still merging the two distinct events:

1) Some people had sensory experiences.
and
2) Some people labeled them "religious."

1) Is not evidence for god, since sensory experiences happen all the time.
2) Only is evidence for god if you offer some reason why this person's self-diagnosis should be considered authoritative. How is this person trained or an expert in differentiating the supernatural from the natural explanations? How is this person's label any different than our blind fella labeling his experience of tweeting in the trees coming from elephants?

luvluv

Angrilorri:

Look, I don't know how my eyes work. But I know when I've just seen a pretty girl, and I don't need to consult a neurologist for justification. That I don't know in detail how my perceptual abilities work in no way indicates that I'm not qualified to know when I've had a near-death experience, or an on-going, fulfilling sense of the presence of God.

All a neurologist can do is come along after the religious experience and affirm whether the person was generally psychologically healthy or not. And that's not enough to authenticate or falsify a religious experience.

Fine, let's say they can't see. And they hear thundering hooves approaching and a shrieks that they were told as a child were like the sounds of elephants. And they heard people screaming and running out of the way.

Is this not evidence that something elephant-like is approaching, and is not the evidence for the approaching of something elephant-like not also evidence for the approaching of an elephant?

It doesn't matter if all the things we were taught as children about God were completely made-up. If we find ourselves in some way in the presence of something having the basic attributes of that which was described to us, that's evidence in favor of that which was described to us.

How could it not be?

Why would someone's claim to have had a near death experience, for example, need to be authenticated by an authority?

Who is more in a position to affirm or deny the experience? Again, what can the neurologist do, at that point, other than verify after the fact whether the person was generally psychologically healthy or not? And does that really help us ascertain whether or not the near death experience actually happened, and whether or not it had a natural cause?

I'm saying that in most cases, neurologists are not capable of authenticating or falsifying religious experiences, and are certainly not capable of doing so after the fact.

If I claim to have seen the Red Sea part, all the neurologist can do is check and see if I have neurological issues that would cause me to see things. If I don't, then he's in no position to verify whether what I saw happened or not.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into the other thread, so I think we should take this to the existing thread, where I'll ignore it.