trendkill

Er, okay, I'm just going to ignore this because it has nothing to do with anything I said.

We (at least some of us, probably not all) have an innate feelings that I would say religious believers impose ideas like "God" and "dependence" de facto upon, and then influence others to do so by claiming with great certainty that it is the only "correct" and "honest" interpretation of those feelings.

It doesn't give us an innate idea, it gives us an innate feeling. How could evolution give us a feeling that's wrong? Very, very easily. It does so all the time. Oftentimes intuitions that may or may not have had survival value in the past give bad results in the present. Ever feel like someone is watching you when they weren't? Ever get the wrong impression from someone's body language? It would make more sense to ask why on Earth we would expect all the feelings we get to be "correct" or useful just because we evolved to feel that way? Evolution only comes with the likelihood that the net result of our characteristics will be survival. It does not come with a 100% guarantee of survival or accuracy, much less a guarantee that the characteristics that help us survive (or at least don't kill us) will also result in us believing true things.

BSM

M-Crock:

Thanks for the link. After digging around on the author's website I found a much better link here: http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/cehsc/childhoo.htm

This version has her references at the end. If I get time [insert laughter] I may have to check her sources.

Regards,

~BSM

Metacrock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
(1) religious instinct exists.



did you not understand what I said, about "God's point to 'god?" Why is that hard for you to figrue out? Hmmm? yes, allah exists and buddha and the God of the Bible, they all exist becasue they are all the sam one! Because they are all cutlural constructs used to explian the big expreince we can't explain.


What is so hard to understan about that?



Quote:
(2) God part of the brain means no one is born an atheist, we are all born with a sense of God consciousness

No, you you were not born possessing an idoelogy. Atheism is an ideology, therefore, you werer not born an atheist.







Quote:
we get war fuzzies when we hear God talk.




No it's not! You don't have scientific backnig for that. but do have studies that say it's not an hallucination. You don't even know what a hallucination is, what causes them. Its caused by Religious experience, i CAN TELL YOU TAHT RIGHT NOW.

Quote:
(3) atheism is more than just "not acting religious" an no one is born with an ideology.




Wrong. Read Wittgenstine. <Edited> there's no such thing as a mere absense of belief. One you organize something it becomes an ideology. When you have organiztions for it's organized.




Quote:
(4) there are no innte ideas accept God, because that's coming the God part of the brain.

Show me these innte(sic) ideas and point to the part of the brain where this 'God part' is.




It's well documented, many manty studies prove that part of hypocampus when stempulated gives people ideas of God.


I would plaster a sting of quotes about it but since they allow cut and paste anymore, then I can't.



<Edited>


No I said that because I feel that you are not my ideas seriously, but are only saing thing to rise out of me. I dont' consider classical to be a troll. He diesagrees with me that's ok. there are other peole i dont' consider to be trolls too, becasue show respect for my ideas even if they disagree with them.

PoodleLovinPessimist

:huh: wtf?

You don't seem to be using fornication in the dictionary sense of, "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other."

I don't see any reference to sexual intercourse in the cited article.

Metacrock

Originally Posted by Metacrock
No it doesn't. God doesn't have to exist for one to not be an atheist.



In other words, you don't understand the argument. I'm saying even if God doesn't exist it doesnt' mean that everyone is born an atheist. Everyone could be born nuetral toward God and that has nothing to do with weather God exists or not.



Quote:
If there's a part of the brain that leads us to believe in God, it doesnt' matter if God is real or not. We are not born atheists, we are born with innate belief.



Many studies prove that part of the brain exists. It's not really disputed much now it's pretty well proven. You can chalck it up to conicidense or say that religion deveoped as a result of that part of the brain, not the other way around. That would be logical except it doesn't make much sense of evolution to give people ideas.


Quote:
But really, how could evolution give us an innate idea that's wrong?



That doesnt' make sense in reation to the God pod, because it's more just a feeling. It's a feeling that happens only with religous references and God talk, it doesnt' happen with anything else. So it is the ideas that its triggared to. One of the major researcher, Newberg, became a Christian as a result of his research on the God pod.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metacrock

that's the table of contents not the bibliography. Dont tell me you are going to criticize her becasue she studies UFO abduction. Her speiciality is sleep. So obviosuly she's gonig to study dreaming, and other kinds of dreaming which includes UFO stuff. She never said she believe it.


i've argued many times in depth about her bib. So there's you are going to say that haven't heard and dont' have an answer for. It's just a case of people think they are being analytical when really they are only looking at the surface.

Often she's criticized for listing Depock Chopra on her Bib, but no one ever stops to find why she does. Maybe she said he's an idiot. I can't find a place where she says he's grerat. Just having him on the bib doesnt' prove that the studies are bad.

the people she lists:

Hood and his hood scale.

lucough and lu

Maslow

many others are tops in the field. So her bib is really filled with great sources. I'm sure you will have many criticitrisms of it, but just remember they are only surface level.

and there tons of other studies. and other sites.

mirage

Hello again Meta.

In reference to transcendental experiences in general, as we have discussed they don't depend on belief in god or necessarily include god in the content.

Your own argument of longterm positive benefit is a good argument for evolutionary advantage, regardless of any beliefs it generates (since these beliefs aren't particularly harmful to survival it seems).

Despite this, I am reluctant to attribute everything, particularly the regarding the mind, to its adaptive value. There are many other hypotheses for the survival benefits of religion, but it may just be a byproduct, perhaps like music. All we know is that evolution has cooked up a massive complicated brain very quickly. Presumably it did this for problem solving and social advantages, but who knows what extra baggage comes along with something so complicated? Who knows what compromises had to be made?

lpetrich

So now it's "Even if there is no such thing, I can't help but believe that there is". Which is laughable, since there are large numbers of people who don't believe in a Metacrockian God, even if they believe in other kinds of gods.

Which undoubtedly has given you a lot of practice in that.

But most of the time as human and male.

So what about that?

But it is also the ground of all the Universe outside of our consciousnesses, which is nearly all of the Universe. Since it is impersonal, a supposed "ground of being" would also have to be impersonal.

Or else to impress people and cover up the lack of content in one's rhetoric.

I wonder what makes Metacrock so sure of that. Has he studied others' beliefs and practices in the appropriate detail?

What is there to "understand" about such would-be syncretism?

Suggesting some sort of hallucination. And Hindu and Buddhist and Taoist mystics don't exactly discover some sort of Universe-controlling superbeing.

BSM

Metacrock -

I think you may have misunderstood me when I added the [insert laughter] part to my post. It was a bit of self-depricating humor intended to poke fun at the fact that I have so many projects this weekend I don't have a weekend.

Anyhow, I'll have to give the thread and your posts a look-see and see if I have anything to add.

Regards,

~BSM

BSM

Metacrock writes:

Meta if we distinguish between subjective feelings (i.e., those existing in us) and objective feelings (i.e., those existing outside of us) we see that our subjective feelings cannot guarantee that the corresponding objective feelings are true.

For example, thinking that I see a cat staring at me now does not guarantee that I am seeing a cat no matter how psychologically certain I might be. For that matter, believing that my cat loves me does not guarantee that he does.

In other words, you seem be saying that your subjective experience proves objective facts. However, others have all ready pointed out that this may not be the case. The question is this: Can your mystical experience give you that internal feeling (i.e., subjective) without coming from God? I think it can and I think science offers an explanation that at worst, competes with your theistic explanation; and, at best, trumps it.

MC writes:

I disagree. I’ll grant you that "the studies" may suggest that the religious experience (or mystical experience) produces some sort of change in the person. In fact, Dr. Gackenbach whom you cite seems to be arguing for this view in her paper:

You are arguing that the mystical experience cannot be explained by psychological or biological explanations. However, in my opinion, you’ll need to cart out some better evidence than Dr. Gackenbach’s paper. After reading it all I could find is a weak, almost-refutation of the scientific explanations:

She then writes:

In my opinion Dr. Gackenbach appears confused. Regarding a refutation of naturalistic explanations for the mystical experience she goes from likely some physiological/phenomenological similarities, to “recent work [comment mine: 1988 is recent?] has shown clear differences�?. She then cites Oxman et al which basically say that naturalistic explanations (as evidenced through drug-induced states) are “more different than alike�?.

Finally, to summarize her weak argument for the differences in the true mystical experience she concludes that “drug induced mystical experiences may [emphasis mine] be different than nondrug generated ones…�?

First, this is hardly conclusive proof that the naturalistic explanations fail to explain the mystical experience. Second, even if these mystical experiences are “more different than alike�? it hardly proves that the only explanation can be God. In fact, unless I’m reading her wrong, Gackenbach isn't even trying to argue in her paper that the mystical experience comes from God. Rather, the bulk of her paper is arguing that the mystical experience has “life enhancing�? benefits. In fact, based on my experiences in the martial arts, this is a position that I might be inclined to agree with, however I believe that there are naturalistic explanations for these benefits.

Regardless, both you and Gackenbach are going to have to do better than ONE 17-year-old study that argues “subjective experiences of schizophrenia, hallucinogenic drug-induced states, and mystical ecstasy are more different from one another than alike�?, before you’ll convince me that any mystical experience comes from God—much less is evidence for said God!

[Disclaimer: I have not read Oxman et al (1988) so I am hesitant to comment further on their study. For those interested, here is the full citation: Oxman, T.E., Rosenberg, S.D., Schnurr, P.P., Tucker, G.J. & Gala, G. (1988). The language of altered states. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 176(7), 401-408. If I can find the time I may try to track this study down.]

Finally, Gackenbach writes:

Just an observation Meta but don’t you find it troubling that there are at least 35 differing definitions of the mystical experience? Yet practically in the same sentence you expect us to believe that all of these different experiences are evidence for the same God?

Regardless, back to your notion that the mystical experience can best be explained by “some real higher reailty [sic]�? (God I presume).

Correct me if I’m wrong but after skimming this thread I get the impression that you are subtly trying to shift the burden of proof back on the skeptic:

First, you make many unsubstantiated (or poorly substantiated—see my earlier comments) assumptions. Second, how do you get from the God of mystical experience (aka the Metacrockian God) to what I presume to be the Christian version of God? Going with Crock’s argument, logically we’d have to accept the existence of every God anyone has claimed to have experienced. The problem is that if the monotheistic religion of Christianity is correct, these other Gods do not exist. In fact, this line of thought only works for the polytheists and I doubt that’s what Crock is arguing for.

Another problem: If we accept personal testimony when we cannot show good reason to reject it (Note: as evidenced by this thread, I and others think that there are good reasons to reject it), then logic would dictate a worldview that allows for all sorts of nonsense. In fact, I would like to submit my personal testimony for Metacrock to refute: Currently, I am having a mystical experience with Big Foot, an alien named Leroy, and a Santa Claus. All three beings are responsible for my general sense of well-being. Meta, please disprove my personal testimony.

To sum up my position: First, many religious experiences come to people who are under extreme psychological stressors that may be a result of fasting, psychological or physiological traumas, self-induced meditative trances, drugs, or even near-death experiences. Second, as noted by Gackenbach, these mystical experiences can be replicated in the laboratory. Third, at best, she makes a weak argument for the alleged differences between a self-inducted mystical experience and one that is replicated in the laboratory. Moreover, even if there is a difference, this hardly proves that God exists. All it suggests is there are different mystical experiences—all of which can be explained without postulating another unknown: Metacrockian God. Fourth, all of these mystical experiences (and there appears to be at least 35 different mystical experiences—see above) are relative to one’s own religion. In other words, each religion claims that their god (or gods) is responsible for the experience. In addition, these experiences happen in each individual’s respective religion, not others, whereas persons from other religions have experiences in their own religion. This suggests to me that religious experience may have a link to learning from one's own religion which is readily explained by psychology--not mysticism or the supernatural. In short, Metacrock has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the naturalistic explanations for mystical experiences do not compete with the theistic explanations—much less craft a successful argument that refutes naturalism.

~BSM