(July 3, 2018 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 2. What do you think that "hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way" has indicated? It seems you are just asserting some observation that disproves people's religious experiences. How is that NOT: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. If you are not going to put up some recognized proof, you are asserting your conclusion, you are question begging.

It's so obvious what you are doing. When faced with something you can't refute, you respond with word salad. Like when I pointed out that the Bible was both the claim and the evidence you responded with word salad, that when finally parsed, said that the Bible was indeed both the claim and the evidence.

And then you try to derail the thread to avoid what the person is saying. It's a tactic typical of theists who don't like the arguments they are presented with but don't know how to refute them.

FACT: The brain interprets sensory information. What you perceive is not reality but your brain's response to reality.
FACT: How the brain interprets sensory information is influenced by previous experience.
FACT: Normal brains can be fooled.
FACT: Some brains can be delusional and not realise it.

The scientific method is successful precisely because it is an objective way to investigate reality that relies on measurements, reproducibility, falsifiability and unambiguous definitions rather than subjective experience.

(July 3, 2018 at 9:20 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 9:07 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You are straw manning your own argument.  First you note that the conclusion is based upon observation, and then you turn around and suggest rather that it's based on an assumption.  Your restatement misrepresents the position in a fundamental way.  So no, I don't think you get to the conclusion of question begging except by misrepresentation.   Which makes me wonder why you want so badly to drive towards that conclusion?  Having watched you on this forum, you seem to find a way to restate any position you don't like as being question begging.  I don't think you're being charitable to your opponent.  Your approach, at least superficially, seems vto be one of choosing the worst representation of the opposing position, rather than the best.

Not so. My contention is there is nothing underlying her statement I quoted: "hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way". It was a way to make her assertion (that Christian experiences are not real) sound scientific.

I have been using that a lot lately. My post count is way down--replying to you mostly and then defending that reply. It seems that most people here don't realize when they say such-and-such is not true that it is an assertion. When pressed 'why?' the obvious underlying principle of "you can't prove a negative" applies (whether they know it or not) and if they persist that such-and-such is not true it almost always can be reduced to question begging.

I suspect this comes down to questions about the nature of induction, universal claims, science, and so on. At the very least, you seem to have jumped to the conclusion of question begging from your own universal assertion, when perhaps you should have reached it through discussion, example, and showing your work. So, I'm not necessarily inclined to side with either you or her, but I think you're jumping the gun here. I don't know that it's categorically true that universal negatives always lead to question begging, and, if it does, maybe you need to show that instead, otherwise you're doing your own question begging.

As a side note, not as a point in and of itself, but the claim that you can't prove a negative would seem itself to be a universal negative, so it would be self refuting, or at least, it's not immediately obvious that it isn't. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Something I'd have to think about.

Anyway, I'm not given to such weighty speculations at the moment, so I'll leave it up to the rest of you to hash out whether there really is or is not an example of question begging at the heart of Mathilda's complaint. I don't offhand even know what her claim is (I haven't been following the thread). At the very least, you're not being as effective as you possibly could be by simply shutting down the dialog in this way.

(July 3, 2018 at 9:45 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(July 2, 2018 at 11:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I’m sorry, I’ll get to the rest later (may be delayed with the holiday).  However, I have a quick question. A catagory error is an ontological error, where a property is inappropriately  applied where it doesn’t belong, judging a painting’s worth by how much it weighs would be a category mistake.  The worth of a painting is not valued in that way.  So what is the category that you are saying is being misused here?  A category error is ontological, and therefore objective. So it cannot be based on your knowledge or a priori belief. Your subjective experience doesn’t change the nature of anything.  I don’t understand how you are applying this category error.

Sure.  So, from Wikipedia (if I may):

Quote:categorical mistake, or mistake of category is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.

Its own name and definition put “supernatural” in a seperate and distinct category from “natural”.  Unless you are going attempt to draw some kind of false equivalence between the two, I don’t see how they could be rationally considered as categorically equal.

Ok, I describe supernatural, as outside of the natural universe. But other than that I don’t see a difference or where by nature it is any difference. As well, what is seen and described is completely in the realm of the natural. It’s only when you follow the evidence to the conclusion, that you may designate it as supernatural. Really the only time I’m concerned with supernatural, is when someone wants to treat God like a natural force.

(July 3, 2018 at 8:52 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 8:50 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Perhaps you are interacting with a Mathilda in an alternate universe. That doesn't describe the Mathilda I know at all.

Go ahead, summarize her argument about why Christian experiences are not real.

We understand that people have experiences. What we also understand is that our brains are notorious for misinterpreting and misremembering experiences. Especially when under emotional stress.

I have a friend (an old surfing buddy) that became addicted to alcohol and drugs, was living on the street and doing petty crimes.

One day he walked into a Hindu temple in Los Angeles, and he claims he had a religious experience where he saw Hindu gods, and they communicated with him (the god told him to clean up his life, and that he was hurting his loved ones).

He literally quit alcohol and drugs that day. Cleaned up his life, and now owns a small business, and has a great family. He is still Hindu.

So, what do you think is more likely, he had a real experience with the Hindu god, that caused him to clean up his life, or, he had a real experience, like a change in mental states, that he misinterpreted as communication with Hindu gods?

(June 30, 2018 at 7:20 am)SteveII Wrote: For any of this to be valid, you would have to show that science has disproved/called into question religious experiences. It has not come even close, not a little, at all.

Has science disproved religious experiences? No. Has it called them into question? That's a different question. Why do you believe that science has had zero success toward that end? The popular view is that scientific evidence does a lot to impugn the reliability of religious experience as a way of interpreting reality. Do you feel that's wrong?

(July 3, 2018 at 10:48 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Has science disproved religious experiences?  No.  Has it called them into question?  That's a different question.  Why do you believe that science has had zero success toward that end?  The popular view is that scientific evidence does a lot to impugn the reliability of religious experience as a way of interpreting reality.  Do you feel that's wrong?

Or to reappropriate your reply ...

Has science proven that all forms of lightning are not due to the god Thor? No. Has it called their cause into question? That's a different question. Why would anyone believe that science has had zero success toward that end? The popular view is that scientific evidence does a lot to impugn the idea that thunder and lightning are created by Thor. Does Stevell feel that's wrong?

Of course no one nowadays believes that Thor is responsible for lightning storms because we have a far more plausible explanation for them. Science is in the process of doing the same with religious experiences. We're not there yet because brains are extremely complex but the more we learn the more we find out that they function as a purely mechanistic process.

@steve, would you be saying then, that the natural and the supernatural are two seperate and distinct categories?  If so, then you and your Christian counterpart in this discussion are in disagreement. Also, what difference does it make how many centuries were between the OT and the NT? If passage of time isn’t considered a problem for the legitimacy of NT according to most Christians, why should it be a problem for the OT? Other than because it’s inconvenient, Ofc.

(July 3, 2018 at 9:09 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 8:52 am)SteveII Wrote: Go ahead, summarize her argument about why Christian experiences are not real.

No one is maintaining that the experiences aren't real. They're real experiences. It's their nature that we're disputing. Because religious experiences differ depending on culture, different people interpret similar experiences differently, and the experiences can be simulated with drugs and/or electronics, religious experiences fit the profile of a neuro-cultural phenomenon. Evidence that there is more going on would be advisable before concluding that there's more going on. That is, the null hypothesis has not been defeated.

This is the part I am challenging. If you take the step of saying that the person's experiences are not a result of the supernatural, that is a simple assertion. Any attempt to justify that assertion becomes question begging. Your attempt to introduce a null hypothesis is simply an attempt to sneak in the assertion; since the only way to know of a person's inner experience is to ask them, the concept does not apply. 

Quote:And if religious experiences are an argument for Christianity being true, they are equally an argument for Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Jainism being true. That is incoherent.

For this argument to work, you have to show that the religious experiences are the same (or largely the same).  A few points:

1. Picture the world of the first/second/third centuries. Christianity was spreading across the Roman empire to India. There were no 'cultural' Christians. The converts were not atheist. They had their religion and religious experiences yet they chose Christianity. Even today, we have millions per year changing religions. We can infer from this that religious experiences are not all created equal.
2. Concepts of those experience are objectively different:
     a. My understanding is that Muslims are not big on inner ongoing religious experiences. They believe in an authoritative God that is too holy and distant to developing a personal relationship that is a constant resource helping you navigate your daily life. 
     b. Hindus pursue a feeling of a divine presence as a result of meditation. 
     c. Buddhists pursue states of being and enlightenment through various practices. Not sure what is considered divine or not. 
     d. Christians believe that God (Holy Spirit) is actually present with you and is a catalyst for such things as the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. There is an actual causal connection between God and us on a daily basis--not a search for something that can be achieved with enough effort. 
3. A base level of religious experiences throughout history is evidence that the human mind recognizes the supernatural. Methods of pursuit can be different, incomplete, and wrong. 
4. All religions have some version of religious experience. All religions are exclusive. One or none are correct. Assuming they are all incorrect because they all cannot be right is a composition fallacy.

Therefore a conclusion that religious experience is not evidence for Christianity is an assertion. Is may not be proof, but it is evidence for a cumulative case.

---

(July 3, 2018 at 10:24 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(July 3, 2018 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 2. What do you think that "hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way" has indicated? It seems you are just asserting some observation that disproves people's religious experiences. How is that NOT: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. If you are not going to put up some recognized proof, you are asserting your conclusion, you are question begging.

It's so obvious what you are doing. When faced with something you can't refute, you respond with word salad. Like when I pointed out that the Bible was both the claim and the evidence you responded with word salad, that when finally parsed, said that the Bible was indeed both the claim and the evidence.

And then you try to derail the thread to avoid what the person is saying. It's a tactic typical of theists who don't like the arguments they are presented with but don't know how to refute them.

FACT: The brain interprets sensory information. What you perceive is not reality but your brain's response to reality.
FACT: How the brain interprets sensory information is influenced by previous experience.
FACT: Normal brains can be fooled.
FACT: Some brains can be delusional and not realise it.

The scientific method is successful precisely because it is an objective way to investigate reality that relies on measurements, reproducibility, falsifiability and unambiguous definitions rather than subjective experience.

Yes or no...are the personal experiences of Christians supernaturally caused?

---

(July 3, 2018 at 11:24 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @steve, would you be saying then, that the natural and the supernatural are two seperate and distinct categories?  If so, then you and your Christian counterpart in this discussion are in disagreement.  Also, what difference does it make how many centuries were between the OT and the NT?  If passage of time isn’t considered a problem for the legitimacy of NT according to most Christians, why should it be a problem for the OT?  Other than because it’s inconvenient, Ofc.

The natural and supernatural are different. A proposition becomes a category error when the nature of the proposition does not apply to both categories. There a tons of things that can be said of BOTH the natural and supernatural and are not category errors. I will give my opinion if you tell me exactly what proposition you are talking about.

Many atheist blur all the 66 books of the Bible together. Christianity is primarily concerned about the NT. I can't remember where I made the distinction and why. If you want me to comment on something I said, quote it or relate something specific.

(July 3, 2018 at 11:54 am)SteveII Wrote: Yes or no...are the personal experiences of Christians supernaturally caused?

You do like your binary religious thinking don't you.

What I am saying is that the more we learn about the brain the more that can be explained as a mechanistic process. Hence the reason I used the analogy of explaining lightning where I explained that the gap for your god is getting smaller.

It's never a case of proof. Only xtians and mathematicians ask for proofs. But as we get more scientific evidence, the explanation of xtian experiences having a supernatural cause (if supernatural can even be defined, which it seems it can't) is becoming increasingly implausible.

That's with my scientist hat on.

But I am OK with stating that I personally believe that, given what I know and understand that xtians do not have supernatural experiences. If for nothing else then because the whole definition of supernatural is bullshit.

Also it is not energy to separate supernatural from natural to say that they are separate categories or that they are different. A category error is About imposing a category incorrectly.

@Lady The question still remains about what you are indicating is a category error