Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?

[Brant Gaede]

Could those dogmatic douche bags who are in this thread only to sneer please go fuck off and leave this discussion for the grown ups?

Grown ups don't believe in God, not unless they compartmentalize that belief to some extent, especially from their work, as did Isaac Newton.

--Brant

Not so. Newton's religious beliefs were an integral part of his physics. See -Never At Rest- by Richard S. Westfall.

The cache of Newton correspondence purchased by J. M. Keynes in the 1930's (yes, that Keynes) indicated the Newton was a full time mystic, an alchemist, a seeker after Ancient Wisdom. One of his fundamental believes is that the spacetime continuum is the sensorum of God. He wrote four times as many words on the Mysteries of the Bible and Ancient wisdom than he did no physics and mathematics.

Newton was a genuine, uncompartentalized God phreak.

You have contradicted yourself. If it was all integrated in his mind then there were no separate categories for physics and mathematics. Please, where is God in his mathematics? His science? It didn't have to be a conscious compartmentalization in that he may have taken God into his work, but the work extruded it, which means his mind did too. I am surprised, however, that there was seemingly no conscious compartmentalization, somewhat accepting of what you said.

--Brant

Edited December 23, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[J Neil Schulman]

To summarize this thread for those I will be referring here:

I provided a definition of God that does not contain theological baggage which makes the concept unintelligible or in violation of the Law of Identity or negating current understandings of cosmology and ontology.

I provided links to my online book describing the background for and onset of those experiences that overcame my skepticism and ended my original atheism and later agnosticism.

I asked no one to accept religion, scripture, or faith as a means of determining any fact of reality.

I maintained my position that direct perception of something is the best test of any fact of reality, and that if given the choice between denying one's own perception or accepting the authority of others' denial based on their differing assumptions, denial of one's own perceptions would be self-annihilatory. ("How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?")

I've observed that "Argument by derision" is not a valid method of determining facts of reality, but is in effect the method of the dogmatic authoritarian.

I provided a detailed method with multiple approaches for someone wishing to attempt duplication of my experience.

Stage magicians, while entertaining, can not disprove that real extrasensory cognitive abilities exist by exposing other entertainers who either fake such abilities all the time or merely some of the time because of performance pressures.

I was invited here but I made one mistake. I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition.

[George H. Smith]

valid method of determining facts of reality, but is in effect the method of the dogmatic authoritarian.

I provided a detailed method with multiple approaches for someone wishing to attempt duplication of my experience.

What you did was specify conditions that might produce hallucinations. It is scarcely a secret that severe physical deprivation or stress can have this effect. You would therefore need to specify criteria by which a person could distinguish hallucinations from a genuine encounter with God. And thus do we return to the basic problem that you have not been willing to address.

Suppose someone did go the the trouble of trying one or more of your methods but that nothing happened. Would this have any effect on your beliefs? Of course not. You would merely claim that God chose not to reveal himself, or whatever, and you would urge the person to keep trying. You offer tests but you are not willing to stake anything on the outcome of those tests.

Stage magicians, while entertaining, can not disprove that real extrasensory cognitive abilities exist by exposing other entertainers who either fake such abilities all the time or merely some of the time because of performance pressures.

So your defense of John Edward is that he is only a part-time fraud? You made this comment before, and I'm surprised you would repeat it.

I was invited here but I made one mistake. I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

I have overstayed my welcome here. There's nobody here anymore who's interested in engaging in exchange of information.

The Spanish Inquisition was more open-minded.

Oh, and one parting shot, something to leave you with.

James Randi's entire methodology of proof is based on a classic error in logic.

"If something can be duplicated by trickery, it doesn't exist."

James Cameron used CGI trickery to recreate the Titanic which must prove -- by The Amazing Randi's logic -- that there was never a real Titanic.

"Oh, for crying out loud."

If that's what's considered common fucking sense here, I'll stick with my uncommon senses.

Your entire methodology reduces to this: If a person does standard magic tricks while claiming that he really has magical powers, he should be believed.

Ghs

My one and only reference to John Edward was that I quoted him in an interview in which he described how he had certain images in his mind that he had built into a symbolic vocabulary when doing readings. That description fits my own experience and makes me think that he has some genuine ability. I acknowledge that he does cold readings in public performance. I've compared this to a porn star who has performance pressures but needs to perform regardless, and suggested that since there is no Viagra for stage psychics with high-paying TV shows and large crews standing by if the abilities aren't working on a show day he'll use fakery to satisfy his contracts.

I hereby withdraw my reference to an interview I saw with John Edward. I don't need him to validate my own experiences any more than I need Joan of Arc. Apparently any quotation of a source you disapprove of is sufficient reason for you to go off on paralogistic tirades, and rather than put up with this infantile behavior I'm withdrawing from this discussion.

[J Neil Schulman]

valid method of determining facts of reality, but is in effect the method of the dogmatic authoritarian.

I provided a detailed method with multiple approaches for someone wishing to attempt duplication of my experience.

What you did was specify conditions that might produce hallucinations. It is scarcely a secret that severe physical deprivation or stress can have this effect. You would therefore need to specify criteria by which a person could distinguish hallucinations from a genuine encounter with God. And thus do we return to the basic problem that you have not been willing to address.

Suppose someone did go the the trouble of trying one or more of your methods but that nothing happened. Would this have any effect on your beliefs? Of course not. You would merely claim that God chose not to reveal himself, or whatever, and you would urge the person to keep trying. You offer tests but you are not willing to stake anything on the outcome of those tests.

Stage magicians, while entertaining, can not disprove that real extrasensory cognitive abilities exist by exposing other entertainers who either fake such abilities all the time or merely some of the time because of performance pressures.

So your defense of John Edward is that he is only a part-time fraud? You made this comment before, and I'm surprised you would repeat it.

I was invited here but I made one mistake. I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Ghs

This discussion is harder to leave than a night club with Helen Keller working as the hat check girl.

What you did was specify conditions that might produce hallucinations. It is scarcely a secret that severe physical deprivation or stress can have this effect. You would therefore need to specify criteria by which a person could distinguish hallucinations from a genuine encounter with God. And thus do we return to the basic problem that you have not been willing to address.

The method I suggested of trying to imagine light in a blacked out room does not require any severe physical deprivation or stress. And I suggested attempting to validate what one perceives as real by trying to read signs and find landmarks then trying to find out where you've been. The first time you find you've perceived real places that are thousands of miles away from your other sensory organs will rock your world.

[william.scherk]

What some of us here at OL are avoiding is a rather chilling possibility -- that the eternal spirit of the multiple continua has entered our world and that we have paid no heed.

Spirits walked among us in the form of Aristotle's Advance, Chu hua and J Neil Schulman. Spirit gave us information and sincerely tried to help us see the error of our thinking.

And then what did we do?

We terrorized this spirit with a determined scheme of violence, torture, imprisonment and harsh 'enhanced' interrogation, in short -- an Inquisition.

Yup. Tortured human beings with the aim of expunging and destroying that multiple spirit within.

J Neil's spirit appearances here can serve to chasten us, if only we heed the lessons (for I think we must accept the probability that the eternal spirit still speaks in Neil's mind, is still melded but at lower volume, as a sort of indwelling 'super-ego' or conscience).

Spirit has apparently given us one last direct written communication through J Neil Schulman (and a summary appendix). I think we owe it to rationality to give long and thoughtful and continuing attention to all J Neil Schulman messages. For here I prophesy -- the greatest spirit of the ages is NOT going to go away from OL!

Spirit gave us challenges this past month. Spirit gave us opportunity to see spirit's design, through engrams, multiple continua, and revelation -- through J Neil Schulman. Spirit indwells at OL. The opening has been made.

I therefore think this thread should be pinned and all further excursions of spirit be linked to this thread. All spirit excursions should be explicitly welcomed on OL, and every effort should be made to allow spirit free play for the delightful wisdom it utters.

I hereby invite J Neil Schulman to keep his and spirit's mind-meld in this thread as he continues the effort to enlighten and bless us.

I urge OLers to open their minds and strive evermore to encourage this spirit to contest our limited understandings.

And I must ask OL to put down the tools of The Inquisition, of derision, of hateful mocking and poking, of auto-da-fe, rack, acid, burning, stake, hot oil, and of pointed questions.

For J Neil Schulman can see what is on this thread at any time -- even though we cannot see him here!

He is here, he will always be here and he will always take note of what we say. And He will return to us and write freely if we make the conditions ripe for his wisdom.

How do I know this? Because I feel the spirit of J Neil Schulman speaking inside me! I feel I can speak the words of J Neil Schulman with complete and utter fidelity to the thoughts in his mind, and by extension, the eternal spirit of the multiple continua.

In my next post I shall reveal the thoughts of J Neil Schulman, thoughts completely verifiable as The Spirit Of J Neil Schulman -- and by extension, the eternal spirit of the multiple continua.

This flash of insight and gnosis became clear to me overnight, when, in a state of sleeplessness, dehydration, ketosis, paranoia and hypnogogic trance, I heard J Neil Schulman in my head . . . he said "James Randi's entire methodology of proof is based on a classic error in logic. If something can be duplicated by trickery, it doesn't exist."

I tremble at the force and strength of this divine communication. This is the most important communication of them all.

Edited December 23, 2010 by william.scherk

[J Neil Schulman]

What some of us here at OL are avoiding is a rather chilling possibility -- that the eternal spirit of the multiple continua has entered our world and that we have paid no heed.

Spirits walked among us in the form of Aristotle's Advance, Chu hua and J Neil Schulman. Spirit gave us information and sincerely tried to help us see the error of our thinking.

And then what did we do?

We terrorized this spirit with a determined scheme of violence, torture, imprisonment and harsh 'enhanced' interrogation, in short -- an Inquisition.

Yup. Tortured human beings with the aim of expunging and destroying that multiple spirit within.

J Neil's spirit appearances here can serve to chasten us, if only we heed the lessons (for I think we must accept the probability that the eternal spiri still speaks in Neil's mind, is still melded but at lower volume, as a sort of indwelling 'super-ego' or conscience).

Spirit has apparently given us one last direct written communication through J Neil Schulman (and a summary appendix). I think we owe it to rationality to give long and thoughtful and continuing attention to all J Neil Schulman messages. For here I prophesy -- the greatest spirit of the ages is NOT going to go away from OL!

Spirit gave us challenges this past month. Spirit gave us opportunity to see spirit's design, through engrams, multiple continua, and revelation -- through J Neil Schulman. Spirit indwells at OL. The opening has been made.

I therefore think this thread should be pinned and all further excursions of spirit be linked to this thread. All spirit excursions should be explicitly welcomed on OL, and every effort should be made to allow spirit free play for the delightful wisdom it utters.

I hereby invite J Neil Schulman to keep his and spirit's mind-meld in this thread as he continues the effort to enlighten and bless us.

I urge OLers to open their minds and strive evermore to encourage this spirit to contest our limited understandings.

And I must ask OL to put down the tools of The Inquisition, of derision, of hateful mocking and poking, of auto-da-fe, rack, acid, burning, stake, hot oil, and of pointed questions.

For J Neil Schulman can see what is on this thread at any time -- even though we cannot see him here!

He is here, he will always be here and he will always take note of what we say. And He will return to us and write freely if we make the conditions ripe for his wisdom.

How do I know this? Because I feel the spirit of J Neil Schulman speaking inside me! I feel I can speak the words of J Neil Schulman with complete and utter fidelity to the thoughts in his mind, and by extension, the eternal spirit of the multiple continua.

In my next post I shall reveal the thoughts of J Neil Schulman, thoughts completely verifiable as The Spirit Of J Neil Schulman -- and by extension, the eternal spirit of the multiple continua.

This flash of insight and gnosis became clear to me overnight, when, in a state of sleeplessness, dehydration, ketosis, paranoia and hypnogogic trance, I heard J Neil Schulman in my head . . . he said "James Randi's entire methodology of proof is based on a classic error in logic. If something can be duplicated by trickery, it doesn't exist."

I tremble at the force and strength of this divine communication. This is the most important communication of them all.

If I might quote Aaron Sorkin's script for The Social Network: it's not that you're an asshole. It's that you try so hard to be one.

[william.scherk]

For here I prophesy -- the greatest spirit of the ages is NOT going to go away from OL!

If I might quote Aaron Sorkin's script for The Social Network: it's not that you're an asshole. It's that you try so hard to be one.

Spirit, my prophecy is fulfilled. Thank you. How's that Inquisition thing working out for you?

+++++++++++

Added -- Here's the backstage note I sent to Neil under the rubric 'Please reconsider your departure from OL.' I hope other fair-minded OLers can help convince him to stick around. I know he wants to . . . he is still watching and posting to this thread long after his departure notice. Rescind, Neil!

I think you should stick around. The comparision to The Inquisition is not quite apt. More like the stocks . . .

Just remember that the other spiritists ran off OL recently. I would like you to stay in the game and use the mind that spirit gave you to continue your work for wisdom . . .

Edited December 23, 2010 by william.scherk

[PDS]

WSS:

I don't see what the point is in affirmatively taunting Neil, however witty the taunts might be, and I am probably guilty of this myself. Neil is the person with the most knowledge regarding the topic of this thread, i.e., his particular experience with God. He was invited here and has participated in largely good humor, with the exception of calling most of us assholes and douche-bags, which I am betting he regrets. He has a story to tell, even if it is not for everyone.

I think this thread has been quite interesting--especially his back and forth with Ghs, which, in essence, cuts to the heart of almost every discussion of the efficacy of revealed religion. It would be a shame for it to break down over some (albeit hilariously witty) school yard taunts.

Neil is here in seeming good faith to explain his experience, and I would daresay anybody--however rare--who might have a similar experience would have a lot of trouble shaking it off as a low-carb side effect. I say let's let Neil tell his story, at least on this thread.

Edited December 23, 2010 by PDS

[PDS]

And no, I am not Phil Coates. So I am hereby preemptively rejecting all such comparisons...

Edited December 23, 2010 by PDS

[Starbuckle]

GHS wrote: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Bring on the comfy chair.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Starbuckle

[PDS]

Bring on the comfy chair.

Hey, you started this thread, not me...

[Xray]

George, prove to me that you really don't believe in God. I mean, you've written books and given lectures saying you don't, but what real evidence can you offer me? You've made no real effort to offer anyone actual hard evidence for your claim of atheism.

You are not schooled enough in stringent epistemological thinking, Mr. Schulman, which is why your argumentation has landed you in quicksand from which you will only emerge if you realize your fundamental error: the issue is not about "proving" one's belief in a god's existence (or non-existence).

The issue is about providing evidence supporting the belief (or non-belief) in a god.

To question the fact of a person's belief or nonbelief is to question the sincerity of that person.

Correct. I don't doubt your sincerity and think you really believe to have had an encounter with "God".

Just as I don't doubt e. g. Jeanne d'Arc's sincerity and think she really believed to have had an encounter with "God".

Neil is the person with the most knowledge regarding the topic of this thread, i.e., his particular experience with God.

Let's stay precise: the issue is about Neil's believing that his experience was an experience with God.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

GHS wrote: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Bring on the comfy chair.

I haven't seen the Python sketch for a while, but aren't we supposed to poke Neil with soft cushions before we resort to the drastic measure of the comfy chair?

Ghs

[william.scherk]

GHS wrote: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Bring on the comfy chair.

I haven't seen the Python sketch for a while, but aren't we supposed to poke Neil with soft cushions before we resort to the drastic measure of the comfy chair?

I missed the dang reference the first time around. Here is an excerpt of the transcript for those who need to know, from a connoisseur.

[Cut to them torturing a dear old lady, Marjorie Wilde]

Ximinez: Now, old woman -- you are accused of heresy on three counts -- heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action -- *four* counts. Do you confess?

Wilde: I don't understand what I'm accused of.

Ximinez: Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Biggles! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS!

[JARRING CHORD]

[biggles holds out two ordinary modern household cushions]

Biggles: Here they are, lord.

Ximinez: Now, old lady -- you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly -- *two* last chances. And you shall be free -- *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.

Wilde: I don't know what you're talking about.

Ximinez: Right! If that's the way you want it -- Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!

[biggles carries out this rather pathetic torture]

Ximinez: Confess! Confess! Confess!

Biggles: It doesn't seem to be hurting her, lord.

Ximinez: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?

Biggles: Yes, lord.

Ximinez [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

[JARRING CHORD]

[Zoom into Fang's horrified face]

Fang [terrified]: The...Comfy Chair?

[biggles pushes in a comfy chair -- a really plush one]

Ximinez: So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair!

[They roughly push her into the Comfy Chair]

Ximinez [with a cruel leer]: Now -- you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven. [aside, to Biggles] Is that really all it is?

Biggles: Yes, lord.

Ximinez: I see. I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, woman. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess

Biggles: I confess!

Ximinez: Not you!

[9thdoctor]

I haven't seen the Python sketch for a while, but aren't we supposed to poke Neil with soft cushions before we resort to the drastic measure of the comfy chair?

Indeed, and at some point they bring out "the rack". It's one of those things you stack drying dishes on.

Here's a really sick bit of (related) slime from Dinesh D'Souza:

Convenient how he singles out just the death toll from the Spanish Inquisition, when the Albigensian crusade was the one with the substantial body count. The percentage of people terrorized by the Spanish Inquisition who were killed was about 1%. Most were tortured and/or had their family's wealth confiscated. Oh, and Jews and Muslims weren't subject to the Inquisition, but they got worse. Doesn't count, sure.

[Starbuckle]

GHS wrote: "I haven't seen the Python sketch for a while, but aren't we supposed to poke Neil with soft cushions before we resort to the drastic measure of the comfy chair?"

Oh brother. Did I get the incidents of the sketch out of sequence? Man alive. THIS is what you call the "argumentation"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????? Oh man, I am OUTTA HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Xray]

I'm disappointed by Neil's ad hominesh blasting of GHS.

It is not rare for this to happen when a person's premises are being checked, which Ghs has been doing with Neil Schulman.

Imo the ad hominem blasting won't bother Ghs much - I suppose he's received many of such blastings during his career - in addition, while he can dish it out, he can also take it. Ghs is a real tough cookie when it comes to that.

Neil is also far more emotionally upset in the exchange than Ghs; again, this is not surprise since Neil is in the role of a defensor fidei here, finding himself challenged by critics. Since OL is a place where the majority are non-believers in transdendence, a believer can quickly get the feeling of being emotionally on his own in "ememy territory".

So there is always a group dynamic going on, and being aware of it can help a lot.

There's an insightful passage in Why Atheism where Ghs reflects on why discussion regarding beliefs can get so emotional. Rereading the passage the other day made me think of the situation Neil is currently going through here.

George H. Smith, Why Atheism, p. 62:

"The value-laden nature of personal beliefs helps to explain why we tend to be more jealous of our personal beliefs than of our abstract knowledge claims, often defending them with more vigor and passion. When someone criticizes my personal beliefs (i. e. my beliefs "in", she is doing far more than challenging my abstract claim to know, for this knowledge claim constitutes he foundation of my most important value commitments. And because my sense of "who I am" is inextricably linked to my fundamental values, I will defend the knowledge on which these values depend with great passion, as if I were fightin form my very existence, as indeed in a psychological sense, I am."

This explains Neil's emotional reaction to epistemological challenge, for epistemological challenge always carries with it the danger of premises being exposed as false. When premises have been exposed as false, the consequences for the values derived from those premises are dramatic: severed from the vein feeding them (= the 'objective truth' knowledge claim), they can go down the drain together with the false premise.

Therefore it is typical for believers convinced that what feeds their belief is based on 'objective truth' (for example, that what it says in the Bible is true) to react so allergic to epistemoligical challenge.

The same goes for believers in secular salvation religions, like for example Marxism.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

This explains Neil's emotional reaction to epistemological challenge, for epistemological challenge always carries with it the danger of premises being exposed as false. When premises have been exposed as false, the consequences for the values derived from those premises are dramatic: severed from the vein feeding them (= the 'objective truth' knowledge claim), they can go down the drain together with the false premise.

Therefore it is typical for believers convinced that what feeds their belief is based on 'objective truth' (for example, that what it says in the Bible is true) to react so allergic to epistemoligical challenge.

The same goes for believers in secular salvation religions, like for example Marxism.

I think hostility to challenge is illogical. If one's premises are challenged and found to be mistaken, one is set on the path of truth or at least away from the path of error. If one's premises survive vigorous challenge then one can be more confident in them. In either case, being challenged is a good service. I attribute hostility to challenge as yet another manifestation of neurotypical mishugas. NTs seem to have thin skin.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

I am going to miss Neil's presence on this thread, assuming he stays away. Seems like a good dude when he's not pissed off that we under-appreciate that the Author of the Universe entered his body for 8 hours one day, several years after having threatened to kill him.

I too would regret it if Neil stayed away. For one can learn a lot from studying the argumentation and mind world of a philosophical opponent. I have always been interested in exchanges with those who don't share my premises, and have also adopted some values from them. Imo Objectivism as a closed system has problems with such 'patchwork philosophy'.

Whereas in reality patchwork philosophy can work just fine.

Oh, and by the way, why didn't OJ just plead guilty?

When going through Neil's posts, I was also looking for possible evidence which might reveal that what his God allegedly covenyed to him was false information. Since O.J. Simpson is guilty as hell, if Neil's God suggested that OJ is innocent, then this God is either clueless or a liar. Not exactly attributes one would associate with a God ...

As V. Bugliosi has pointed out, the evidence implicating Simpson in the murders was so overwhelming that one could throw out 80 % and the remaining 20 % would still be more than sufficient to make the case against him.

Vincent Bugliosi, whose only claim to fame is prosecuting Charles Manson in a case that a first-year law student could have won, wrote one of the most prosecution-biased and uninteresting books on the Brown/Goldman murders, that only reported on evidence presented in trial.

Wrong on both counts.

As for the Manson murders, the motive behind them was a most bizarre, unusual one, and it was Bugliosi's investigative ingeniousness which enabled him to put the intricate puzzle together.

Imo Helter Skelter about the Manson murders is one of the best true crime books ever written. Bugliosi's books are also an excellent demonstration of rationality and stringent thinking.

Re the book Outrage: Bugliosi did NOT only report on evidence presented at trial. In fact a key element of the book is about crucial evidence incriminating O.J. which the prosecution chose not to present at a trial, with Bugliosi heavily criticizing the prosecution for failing to do so.

I read every published book on these murders, did my own independent journalistic investigation, and regard detective Bill Dear's investigation to have proved a far more compelling case against Jason Simpson than either the criminal trial that acquitted O.J. Simpson or the civil trial that found him liable.

The usual stuff. These high profile cases almost always have some detectives emerging who then try to make a "compelling case" against some other suspect, which in some cases can also be a mythical "intruder" (as in the JonBenét Ramsey case, where btw it was also a veteran detective (Lou Smit) who sunk the ship of the Boulder PD's investigation because he accepted at face value what was in fact a staged scene).

"Claiming that God exists while failing to meet the burden of proof "merely communicates to others that one has a particular mental attitude known as belief".

(Ghs, Why Atheism, p. 32)

No more so than the "belief" that I ate at Denny's last night. I have a recollection of an experience I regard as real.

Mr. Schulman,

I have no doubt that you regard both experiences as real, and the problem lies exactly in your not mentally separating these two types of experience.

Can you at least see the point Ba'al raised in his reply to you?

Any thing that exists is not magical.

The existence of God is not verified by intersubjective agreement or reproducible empirical evidence. God is believed in and not known in the sense that the Eiffel Tower is known.

I maintained my position that direct perception of something is the best test of any fact of reality, and that if given the choice between denying one's own perception or accepting the authority of others' denial based on their differing assumptions, denial of one's own perceptions would be self-annihilatory.

But the question is whether what you perceived was a direct perception of reality. For perceptions can be deceiving. Just as the dehydrated wanderer in the desert may "perceive" an oasis where there is none.

So the discussion is not about denying your subjective perception, it is about your interpretation of this perception.

I provided a definition of God that does not contain theological baggage which makes the concept unintelligible or in violation of the Law of Identity or negating current understandings of cosmology and ontology.

But keep in mind that any definition of a god is merely definition of a concept, of an idea to which there exists no objective referent. Which means that even if you work out what you think of as a "perfect, non-contradictory definition", this creates no epistemological bridge at the end which one would find the existence of god as a real being.

Your trying to establish the existence of God via a "perfect definition" is merely another variation of the Ontological Argument.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

I'm disappointed by Neil's ad hominesh blasting of GHS.

It is not rare for this to happen when a person's premises are being checked, which Ghs has been doing with Neil Schulman.

Imo the ad hominem blasting won't bother Ghs much - I suppose he's received many of such blastings during his career - in addition, while he can dish it out, he can also take it. Ghs is a real tough cookie when it comes to that.

Neil is also far more emotionally upset in the exchange than Ghs; again, this is not surprise since Neil is in the role of a defensor fidei here, finding himself challenged by critics. Since OL is a place where the majority are non-believers in transdendence, a believer can quickly get the feeling of being emotionally on his own in "ememy territory".

So there is always a group dynamic going on, and being aware of it can help a lot.

There's an insightful passage in Why Atheism where Ghs reflects on why discussion regarding beliefs can get so emotional. Rereading the passage the other day made me think of the situation Neil is currently going through here.

George H. Smith, Why Atheism, p. 62:

"The value-laden nature of personal beliefs helps to explain why we tend to be more jealous of our personal beliefs than of our abstract knowledge claims, often defending them with more vigor and passion. When someone criticizes my personal beliefs (i. e. my beliefs "in", she is doing far more than challenging my abstract claim to know, for this knowledge claim constitutes he foundation of my most important value commitments. And because my sense of "who I am" is inextricably linked to my fundamental values, I will defend the knowledge on which these values depend with great passion, as if I were fightin form my very existence, as indeed in a psychological sense, I am."

This explains Neil's emotional reaction to epistemological challenge, for epistemological challenge always carries with it the danger of premises being exposed as false. When premises have been exposed as false, the consequences for the values derived from those premises are dramatic: severed from the vein feeding them (= the 'objective truth' knowledge claim), they can go down the drain together with the false premise.

Therefore it is typical for believers convinced that what feeds their belief is based on 'objective truth' (for example, that what it says in the Bible is true) to react so allergic to epistemoligical challenge.

The same goes for believers in secular salvation religions, like for example Marxism.

The reason I've resorted to calling people in this thread assholes has nothing to do with my emotional sensitivity or lack of epistemological study. I've studied at least as much on epistemology and cognition as GHS and I'd wager more, since it's been a crucial means of maintaining my sanity in the face of paradigm-shattering experience. I don't think I've ever observed in any discussion so many people who are so insufferably convinced of their superior dedication to reason yet who abandon it in favor of arguments from authority, conclusions identical to their first assumptions, and never engaging in any actual scientific pursuit because a stage magician tells them the shocking truth that some people are frauds.

Yes, George H. Smith, proving that someone is claiming that their bottle of alcohol elixer cures cancer doesn't mean that there's no such science as oncology.

[J Neil Schulman]

Since Uri Geller's name was invoked earlier in the thread:

I was at a hotel conference in which about fifty people attempted bending the hotel's cutlery. I observed dozens of people bending the hotel's spoons. The claim was not that by focusing psychic energy on a spoon it would bend by itself but that by focusing psychic energy on a spoon its tensile strenth would weaken to the point that the merest touch could bend it after it had softened. Tensile strength versus the force being applied to the spoon to bend a spoon being something I could not differentiate by visual observation, I tried making a spoon bend without having to twist it by hand when it had "softened." I was unable to do so.

[George H. Smith]

I don't think I've ever observed in any discussion so many people who are so insufferably convinced of their superior dedication to reason yet who abandon it in favor of arguments from authority, conclusions identical to their first assumptions, and never engaging in any actual scientific pursuit because a stage magician tells them the shocking truth that some people are frauds.

You are insufferably convinced that you talked to God, indeed, that you were God for a while, and you get bent out of shape when people won't take your word for it. No one here has claimed a superior dedication to reason. They simply want some evidence.

Yes, George H. Smith, proving that someone is claiming that their bottle of alcohol elixer cures cancer doesn't mean that there's no such science as oncology.

You need to work on your analogies.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

I am going to miss Neil's presence on this thread, assuming he stays away. Seems like a good dude when he's not pissed off that we under-appreciate that the Author of the Universe entered his body for 8 hours one day, several years after having threatened to kill him.

I too would regret it if Neil stayed away. For one can learn a lot from studying the argumentation and mind world of a philosophical opponent. I have always been interested in exchanges with those who don't share my premises, and have also adopted some values from them. Imo Objectivism as a closed system has problems with such 'patchwork philosophy'.

Whereas in reality patchwork philosophy can work just fine.

Oh, and by the way, why didn't OJ just plead guilty?

When going through Neil's posts, I was also looking for possible evidence which might reveal that what his God allegedly covenyed to him was false information. Since O.J. Simpson is guilty as hell, if Neil's God suggested that OJ is innocent, then this God is either clueless or a liar. Not exactly attributes one would associate with a God ...

As V. Bugliosi has pointed out, the evidence implicating Simpson in the murders was so overwhelming that one could throw out 80 % and the remaining 20 % would still be more than sufficient to make the case against him.

Vincent Bugliosi, whose only claim to fame is prosecuting Charles Manson in a case that a first-year law student could have won, wrote one of the most prosecution-biased and uninteresting books on the Brown/Goldman murders, that only reported on evidence presented in trial.

Wrong on both counts.

As for the Manson murders, the motive behind them was a most bizarre, unusual one, and it was Bugliosi's investigative ingeniousness which enabled him to put the intricate puzzle together.

Imo Helter Skelter about the Manson murders is one of the best true crime books ever written. Bugliosi's books are also an excellent demonstration of rationality and stringent thinking.

Re the book Outrage: Bugliosi did NOT only report on evidence presented at trial. In fact a key element of the book is about crucial evidence incriminating O.J. which the prosecution chose not to present at a trial, with Bugliosi heavily criticizing the prosecution for failing to do so.

I read every published book on these murders, did my own independent journalistic investigation, and regard detective Bill Dear's investigation to have proved a far more compelling case against Jason Simpson than either the criminal trial that acquitted O.J. Simpson or the civil trial that found him liable.

The usual stuff. These high profile cases almost always have some detectives emerging who then try to make a "compelling case" against some other suspect, which in some cases can also be a mythical "intruder" (as in the JonBenét Ramsey case, where btw it was also a veteran detective (Lou Smit) who sunk the ship of the Boulder PD's investigation because he accepted at face value what was in fact a staged scene).

"Claiming that God exists while failing to meet the burden of proof "merely communicates to others that one has a particular mental attitude known as belief".

(Ghs, Why Atheism, p. 32)

No more so than the "belief" that I ate at Denny's last night. I have a recollection of an experience I regard as real.

Mr. Schulman,

I have no doubt that you regard both experiences as real, and the problem lies exactly in your not mentally separating these two types of experience.

Can you at least see the point Ba'al raised in his reply to you?

Any thing that exists is not magical.

The existence of God is not verified by intersubjective agreement or reproducible empirical evidence. God is believed in and not known in the sense that the Eiffel Tower is known.

I maintained my position that direct perception of something is the best test of any fact of reality, and that if given the choice between denying one's own perception or accepting the authority of others' denial based on their differing assumptions, denial of one's own perceptions would be self-annihilatory.

But the question is whether what you perceived was a direct perception of reality. For perceptions can be deceiving. Just as the dehydrated wanderer in the desert may "perceive" an oasis where there is none.

So the discussion is not about denying your subjective perception, it is about your interpretation of this perception.

I provided a definition of God that does not contain theological baggage which makes the concept unintelligible or in violation of the Law of Identity or negating current understandings of cosmology and ontology.

But keep in mind that any definition of a god is merely definition of a concept, of an idea to which there exists no objective referent. Which means that even if you work out what you think of as a "perfect, non-contradictory definition", this creates no epistemological bridge at the end which one would find the existence of god as a real being.

Your trying to establish the existence of God via a "perfect definition" is merely another variation of the Ontological Argument.

If a wanderer in a desert imagines an oasis that rehydrates him, what then?

(That's a metaphor for the linguistically challenged among us; I'm referring to forensic proof I later encountered proving O.J.'s innocence.)

I'd enthusiastically debate Vincent Bugliosi on the evidence, both presented in court and not presented in court, on the Brown-Goldman murders. His entire book is nothing but an arrogant claim that he would have done a better job than Clark and Darden. He never negated Jason Simpson's alibi as Bill Dear quickly did, then found -- as Bill Dear did -- a knife matching the forensic wounds in a trunk owned by Jason Simpson and bought from a storage locker Jason abandoned for lack of payment.

I've held this knife in my hand.

That this is what convinces you I could not have had a genuine contact with God may be the weakest challenge I've ever had to refute.

Edited December 24, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

I don't think I've ever observed in any discussion so many people who are so insufferably convinced of their superior dedication to reason yet who abandon it in favor of arguments from authority, conclusions identical to their first assumptions, and never engaging in any actual scientific pursuit because a stage magician tells them the shocking truth that some people are frauds.

You are insufferably convinced that you talked to God, indeed, that you were God for a while, and you get bent out of shape when people won't take your word for it. No one here has claimed a superior dedication to reason. They simply want some evidence.

Yes, George H. Smith, proving that someone is claiming that their bottle of alcohol elixer cures cancer doesn't mean that there's no such science as oncology.

You need to work on your analogies.

Ghs

I don't get bent out of shape when people don't take my word for it. How many fucking times do I have to repeat that I expect no one to accept the reality of my report on faith?

What I do expect, George H. Smith, from people who have known me for decades, is not to excommunicate me because I no longer agree with their dogma.

My analogy refuted your fallacy. Deal with it.