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

[J Neil Schulman]

Your memory is as poor as your reading comprehension. I never dismissed Joan of Arc's revelations. I merely refused to dismiss mine because God didn't tell me to apply to the Pentagon for a job as a general.

Our discussion arose in the context of my asking you for criteria by which you distinguish authentic from inauthentic reports of mystical experiences. On at least one occasion you clearly stated that you don't accept reports that differ significantly from your experience. You even talked of the need for reports to conform "in every detail" to your own. This sure looks like a "spam" filter to me.

But let's assume that I misunderstood you. Okay, fine. Are you now saying that you do believe in the authenticity of Joan's reports? Are you saying that you believe that the Virgin Mary and sundry saints actually appeared to Joan in visions, and that God instructed her to fight the English?

Ghs

I'm saying the question is paralogia. The reality or unreality of my own experience is not dependent on my accepting or denying anyone else's, particularly those of long dead people the reports of which have been filtered through religious dogma. It's not reasonable to demand it of me.

[J Neil Schulman]

Your defense of con men isn't helping your case for God. It makes you appear extremely gullible.

Ghs

So the only real flavor is vanilla. Got it. That's the libertarianism that will sweep the world.

Better vanilla ice cream than an empty cone.

Your turn.

Ghs

Different scoops for different fooks.

[J Neil Schulman]

In short, your prejudgment of what is possible within your worldview filters out reports of things you consider impossible. And you never consider that this "spam" filter is itself the reason you never receive any useful communications?

This is sad and funny and awe-inspiring.

The 'spam filter' on Neil seems to exclude from consideration any notion that he himself could be mistaken about anything he believes to be true.

The most useful communications that Neil excludes are those that posit a plausible psychological explanation for his mystical experience. He rules it out, pushes that possibility off the table, and then lashes out at anyone who questions his filter.

Neil has made it clear -- it is impossible that his interpretation could be wrong. Within his worldview there is no possibility whatsoever that his ketosis/starvation/dehydration/insomnia could explain his mental state at the time of the mind-meld.

But the rest of us are the dogmatic, close-minded, crippled, authoritarian, cultist monsters.

Yikes.

Neil, I suggest that you are building a high wall between yourself and some reasonable options, that you are heading down a path that will lead only to self-exclusion, loneliness and pain.

Please allow that some of us here -- at least George and PDS and Michael -- are trying to help you keep a door open to consensual reality, to give you a passage to the world outside your self-built cell of delusion. Don't wall yourself away from everyone. There will be no benefits either short or long term.

The 'spam filter' on Neil seems to exclude from consideration any notion that he himself could be mistaken about anything he believes to be true.

The most useful communications that Neil excludes are those that posit a plausible psychological explanation for his mystical experience. He rules it out, pushes that possibility off the table, and then lashes out at anyone who questions his filter.

Neil has made it clear -- it is impossible that his interpretation could be wrong. Within his worldview there is no possibility whatsoever that his ketosis/starvation/dehydration/insomnia could explain his mental state at the time of the mind-meld.

That's why I published my experience, to isolate myself into a self-reifying belief bubble. That's why I asked the most intellectually rigorous agnostic in my circle of friends to be the one to interview me for the book. That's why I come here to cross swords with my old atheist mentor, George H. Smith.

That's why I suggested that George H. Smith could learn more about whether or not God exists by studying me like a lab rat than reading a hundred more books about the dogmatic claims made about people long dead.

[J Neil Schulman]

Brad Linaweaver has a question. Is there an escrow account in some known bank with a million dollars waiting to be paid to a claimant who passes James Randi's test, and who has signature authority on that account?

If no such account exists, why is James Randi not just as much of a fraud as John Edward?

[George H. Smith]

Your memory is as poor as your reading comprehension. I never dismissed Joan of Arc's revelations. I merely refused to dismiss mine because God didn't tell me to apply to the Pentagon for a job as a general.

Our discussion arose in the context of my asking you for criteria by which you distinguish authentic from inauthentic reports of mystical experiences. On at least one occasion you clearly stated that you don't accept reports that differ significantly from your experience. You even talked of the need for reports to conform "in every detail" to your own. This sure looks like a "spam" filter to me.

But let's assume that I misunderstood you. Okay, fine. Are you now saying that you do believe in the authenticity of Joan's reports? Are you saying that you believe that the Virgin Mary and sundry saints actually appeared to Joan in visions, and that God instructed her to fight the English?

Ghs

I'm saying the question is paralogia. The reality or unreality of my own experience is not dependent on my accepting or denying anyone else's, particularly those of long dead people the reports of which have been filtered through religious dogma. It's not reasonable to demand it of me.

I'm not demanding anything of you. I am simply pointing out that you also have "spam" filters that prevent you from accepting certain reports as credible, for whatever reason. You won't accept what you call "religious dogma"? Is this the result of "dogmatic blindness"? Many Catholics would say it is.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

Your memory is as poor as your reading comprehension. I never dismissed Joan of Arc's revelations. I merely refused to dismiss mine because God didn't tell me to apply to the Pentagon for a job as a general.

Our discussion arose in the context of my asking you for criteria by which you distinguish authentic from inauthentic reports of mystical experiences. On at least one occasion you clearly stated that you don't accept reports that differ significantly from your experience. You even talked of the need for reports to conform "in every detail" to your own. This sure looks like a "spam" filter to me.

But let's assume that I misunderstood you. Okay, fine. Are you now saying that you do believe in the authenticity of Joan's reports? Are you saying that you believe that the Virgin Mary and sundry saints actually appeared to Joan in visions, and that God instructed her to fight the English?

Ghs

I'm saying the question is paralogia. The reality or unreality of my own experience is not dependent on my accepting or denying anyone else's, particularly those of long dead people the reports of which have been filtered through religious dogma. It's not reasonable to demand it of me.

I'm not demanding anything of you. I am simply pointing out that you also have "spam" filters that prevent you from accepting certain reports as credible, for whatever reason. You won't accept what you call "religious dogma"? Is this the result of "dogmatic blindness"? Many Catholics would say it is.

Ghs

I accept no fact on the basis of religious dogma or faith, nor demand such from others. I'd think that would be a minimum a rationalist atheist like you would demand from someone like me claiming a rational basis for asserting a communication with a being you doubt exists.

[william.scherk]

Brad Linaweaver has a question. Is there an escrow account in some known bank with a million dollars waiting to be paid to a claimant who passes James Randi's test, and who has signature authority on that account?

If no such account exists, why is James Randi not just as much of a fraud as John Edward?

Um, so Brad has a question of the JREF, which he passes to you to pass to OL . . . is there something seriously wrong with Brad or is he merely unfamiliar with the ways of the world?

Earlier you claimed to have known psychics who met the JREF challenge but who were not paid. I asked you for their names.

Could you please ask George to ask Brad to ask Michael to ask you to tell George to tell Brad to tell us their names, please?

Incidentally, when you use the word paralogia, did you intend to call George a deluded fool?

In other news, I have asked my uncle to ask George to post a note to SOLO to ask if anyone knows anything about the JREF challenge. It might be a while for an answer back by that route, so I invite you, Neil, to tell Brad to either go dig up his own answers, or to invite him here to join us in this festival of goodwill and spiritual openness.

If this attempt at communication is successful, I will share with Brad the hidden secret means of discovering the answer to his questions. I will admit the answers involve at least one thumb/finger, one keyboard and the key words "million dollar faq randi."

Edited December 27, 2010 by william.scherk

[George H. Smith]

Brad Linaweaver has a question. Is there an escrow account in some known bank with a million dollars waiting to be paid to a claimant who passes James Randi's test, and who has signature authority on that account?

If no such account exists, why is James Randi not just as much of a fraud as John Edward?

From the FAQ at the James Randi Educational Foundation website:

3.1 I heard the prize money doesn’t really exist and that it’s all just a scam.

The short answer: The money is real.

The medium-length answer: The money is held with the Evercore Trust Company. Anyone can verify that the money exists by requesting the information in writing from the JREF. They will in turn forward you the most recent account statement from Evercore Trust.

The long answer: The JREF is a 'tax exempt' organization, so they are required by law to have a level of financial transparency. That means that the public can request things like an annual report and copies of JREF's 990 (the tax return non-profits file). Go to http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php (search for Randi, 2005 is here.) to look up JREF's 990. Contained within these types of documents is enough information to verify that the organization does indeed have special assets in a reserved account to cover the prize, should it ever be won. The contract between the claimant and JREF is binding enough that the JREF must pay the prize if someone wins it. This is a published, legal obligation, not just a casual offer. We have no choice in the matter. As a savvy applicant, all you need to do is verify that the organization has the funds to cover the prize. Also, if JREF were not able to hold up its end of the bargain, the IRS would investigate and pull the JREF's tax exempt status. It would mean severe penalties for the JREF, and Randi himself would also be personally liable and subject to potential incarceration. Rest assured: The money is there.

Long answer, continued: The JREF prize fund is maintained in a way that is similar to an endowment fund. Non-profits often create reserves of assets called endowments to build up enough money to take care of the organization in the case of bad financial times, or to save up money for a project down the road, like building a new facility or starting a large new program that would require a lot of capital. Endowment funds are held in a separate Goldman Sachs account designated, "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account." This prevents the JREF from accidentally spending the prize money. It is never a good idea to just let large sums of money sit in a savings account for years and years, so most non-profits invest their endowment funds. The way they invest it is really not important. JREF invests in bonds, which is fine. If a claimant wins the prize, it must be awarded within ten days, as per the Challenge rules and the legally binding contract entered into when the application was signed.

I know you are going to ask, "What if the bonds cannot be easily liquidated?" If the JREF did not pay a winning claimant in a reasonable amount of time, we would be open to a lawsuit for breach of contract. The claimant will be paid. The JREF states that the funds are held in immediately negotiable bonds so that a claimant can feel at ease about the ability of the JREF to pay. The fact that the JREF will do so is going above and beyond the requirements of the law and the generally accepted practices of good, responsible non-profits. It is an enormous act of good faith on JREF's part. The million dollars exist. Arguments to the contrary are utterly pointless, and they will not be entertained by the JREF.

For the statement from Goldman Sachs, see: http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs.pdf.

Details about the protocols and applicants can also be found on the JREF website.

You could have easily located this information yourself. If you want any more information, do the research yourself or write to the Foundation for details.

Btw, do you have a signed affidavit from God certifying that he talked to you? I was curious whether or not you are a fraud.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I accept no fact on the basis of religious dogma or faith, nor demand such from others. I'd think that would be a minimum a rationalist atheist like you would demand from someone like me claiming a rational basis for asserting a communication with a being you doubt exists.

Fine. I won't accept your story on faith either. So why does the same standard make me dogmatically blind and you open-minded?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

In other news, I have asked my uncle to ask George to post a note to SOLO to ask if anyone knows anything about the JREF challenge. It might be a while for an answer back by that route, so I invite you, Neil, to tell Brad to either go dig up his own answers, or to invite him here to join us in this festival of goodwill and spiritual openness.

If this attempt at communication is successful, I will share with Brad the hidden secret means of discovering the answer to his questions. I will admit the answers involve at least one thumb/finger, one keyboard and the key words "million dollar faq randi."

There are various ways to access the closely guarded secrets of Randi's Challenge. Another way is to Google "Randi challenge." It took me a long time to figure that one out.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

That's why I suggested that George H. Smith could learn more about whether or not God exists by studying me like a lab rat than reading a hundred more books about the dogmatic claims made about people long dead.

I don't regard your report (i.e., your interpretation of your experience) as credible, so why would I want to study you?

As for the reports of people "long dead," what does this have to do with anything? Will your interview become worthless after you die?

As an atheist I feel a little strange saying this, but I am offended by your cavalier dismissal of other religious experiences as dogmatic. You are scarcely the first person to write an account of your experience, and I have read many accounts that are more interesting than yours. Perhaps the most famous is Augustine's account in his Confessions . In this classic autobiography -- the best ever written, imho; I have read it many times -- Augustine recounts in painstaking detail the events that led up to his religious experience, such as his intense grief over the death of his best friend, guilt over his hedonistic lifestyle, and a sense of profound emptiness that pagan philosophies could not fill. Augustine, who had a genius-caliber intellect and was extremely well read, had rejected Christianity as only fit for lesser minds, and the Bible did not impress him. But all this changed after Augustine's dramatic religious experience. (I took this passage from an old translation on the internet because I didn't want to type it out. The modern Penguin Books translation is much more readable. )

But when a deep consideration had from the secret bottom of my soul drawn together and heaped up all my misery in the sight of my heart; there arose a mighty storm, bringing a mighty shower of tears. Which that I might pour forth wholly, in its natural expressions, I rose from Alypius: solitude was suggested to me as fitter for the business of weeping; so I retired so far that even his presence could not be a burden to me. Thus was it then with me, and he perceived something of it; for something I suppose I had spoken, wherein the tones of my voice appeared choked with weeping, and so had risen up. He then remained where we were sitting, most extremely astonished. I cast myself down I know not how, under a certain fig-tree, giving full vent to my tears; and the floods of mine eyes gushed out an acceptable sacrifice to Thee. And, not indeed in these words, yet to this purpose, spake I much unto Thee: and Thou, O Lord, how long? how long, Lord, wilt Thou be angry for ever? Remember not our former iniquities, for I felt that I was held by them. I sent up these sorrowful words: How long, how long, "to-morrow, and tomorrow?" Why not now? why not is there this hour an end to my uncleanness?

So was I speaking and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when, lo! I heard from a neighbouring house a voice, as of boy or girl, I know not, chanting, and oft repeating, "Take up and read; Take up and read. " Instantly, my countenance altered, I began to think most intently whether children were wont in any kind of play to sing such words: nor could I remember ever to have heard the like. So checking the torrent of my tears, I arose; interpreting it to be no other than a command from God to open the book, and read the first chapter I should find....Eagerly then I returned to the place where Alypius was sitting; for there had I laid the volume of the Apostle when I arose thence. I seized, opened, and in silence read that section on which my eyes first fell: Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, in concupiscence. No further would I read; nor needed I: for instantly at the end of this sentence, by a light as it were of serenity infused into my heart, all the darkness of doubt vanished away.

Augustine did not merely relate his conversion experience to others and expect them to believe it. Rather, he expanded and applied the insights gained from his religious experience to philosophy and history -- especially in City of God, one of the most influential books in the history of western civilization.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

Brad Linaweaver has a question. Is there an escrow account in some known bank with a million dollars waiting to be paid to a claimant who passes James Randi's test, and who has signature authority on that account?

If no such account exists, why is James Randi not just as much of a fraud as John Edward?

From the FAQ at the James Randi Educational Foundation website:

3.1 I heard the prize money doesn’t really exist and that it’s all just a scam.

The short answer: The money is real.

The medium-length answer: The money is held with the Evercore Trust Company. Anyone can verify that the money exists by requesting the information in writing from the JREF. They will in turn forward you the most recent account statement from Evercore Trust.

The long answer: The JREF is a 'tax exempt' organization, so they are required by law to have a level of financial transparency. That means that the public can request things like an annual report and copies of JREF's 990 (the tax return non-profits file). Go to http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php (search for Randi, 2005 is here.) to look up JREF's 990. Contained within these types of documents is enough information to verify that the organization does indeed have special assets in a reserved account to cover the prize, should it ever be won. The contract between the claimant and JREF is binding enough that the JREF must pay the prize if someone wins it. This is a published, legal obligation, not just a casual offer. We have no choice in the matter. As a savvy applicant, all you need to do is verify that the organization has the funds to cover the prize. Also, if JREF were not able to hold up its end of the bargain, the IRS would investigate and pull the JREF's tax exempt status. It would mean severe penalties for the JREF, and Randi himself would also be personally liable and subject to potential incarceration. Rest assured: The money is there.

Long answer, continued: The JREF prize fund is maintained in a way that is similar to an endowment fund. Non-profits often create reserves of assets called endowments to build up enough money to take care of the organization in the case of bad financial times, or to save up money for a project down the road, like building a new facility or starting a large new program that would require a lot of capital. Endowment funds are held in a separate Goldman Sachs account designated, "James Randi Educational Foundation Prize Account." This prevents the JREF from accidentally spending the prize money. It is never a good idea to just let large sums of money sit in a savings account for years and years, so most non-profits invest their endowment funds. The way they invest it is really not important. JREF invests in bonds, which is fine. If a claimant wins the prize, it must be awarded within ten days, as per the Challenge rules and the legally binding contract entered into when the application was signed.

I know you are going to ask, "What if the bonds cannot be easily liquidated?" If the JREF did not pay a winning claimant in a reasonable amount of time, we would be open to a lawsuit for breach of contract. The claimant will be paid. The JREF states that the funds are held in immediately negotiable bonds so that a claimant can feel at ease about the ability of the JREF to pay. The fact that the JREF will do so is going above and beyond the requirements of the law and the generally accepted practices of good, responsible non-profits. It is an enormous act of good faith on JREF's part. The million dollars exist. Arguments to the contrary are utterly pointless, and they will not be entertained by the JREF.

For the statement from Goldman Sachs, see: http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs.pdf.

Details about the protocols and applicants can also be found on the JREF website.

You could have easily located this information yourself. If you want any more information, do the research yourself or write to the Foundation for details.

Btw, do you have a signed affidavit from God certifying that he talked to you? I was curious whether or not you are a fraud.

Ghs

If I had made out one during the eight hours when I was mindlinked with God, would that have satisfied you?

[J Neil Schulman]

I mentioned this thread to Brad Linaweaver in conversation and he raised the question about the prize money. Now I've sent him some of the exchanges and he wants to make two comments without getting deeper into this discussion:

1. To William Scherk: "I am an agnostic and skeptical about most psychic claims. As a libertarian, I am also skeptical about financial claims given what has been going on in this country. It is remarkable that a million dollars could be put aside just to encourage psychics to commit more of their frauds for the entertainment of James Randi and the kind of people Neil is arguing with at Objectivist Living."

2. To George H. Smith: "I think it is remarkable that you have decided to contrast Augustine with Schulman. This is because Augustine came to his belief in God through remorse and guilt. These are not Objectivist virtues. Neil's God experience has nothing to do with remorse or guilt. I agree about the genius of Augustine but but why do you have more respect for his God experience only because he has the moral values repudiated by you Objectivist people?"

[J Neil Schulman]

I accept no fact on the basis of religious dogma or faith, nor demand such from others. I'd think that would be a minimum a rationalist atheist like you would demand from someone like me claiming a rational basis for asserting a communication with a being you doubt exists.

Fine. I won't accept your story on faith either. So why does the same standard make me dogmatically blind and you open-minded?

Ghs

Because when I wanted to find out whether God was real, I managed to come up with a protocol to do it that succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. What you need to ask yourself, George H. Smith, is why I succeeded where you have failed. Of course you'll just reply I haven't. How can you be certain without running my experiment for yourself?

[Starbuckle]

J. Neil wrote: "Because when I wanted to find out whether God was real, I managed to come up with a protocol to do it that succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. What you need to ask yourself, George H. Smith, is why I succeeded where you have failed. Of course you'll just reply I haven't. How can you be certain without running my experiment for yourself?"

THe utility of anybody's doing any scientific experimentation presupposes the possibility of investigation of the world, i.e., presupposes the self-evident fact that things have a specific nature that can be investigated--that things are what they are and that my awareness is awareness of reality (and that any principles of directing that awareness must be based on reality).

The law of identity, what Aristotle formulated as the law of non-contradiction, is an axiom, an inescapable foundation of thought, not a dogma. A dogma is a formulation or creed hewn to in unreasonable disregard of any evidence that might contradict it. But there is no possibility that any feature of reality might contradict the fact that the features of reality are what they are.

If I accept this fact consistently, what reason do I have to suppose that there is a particular entity who does have an inexplicable ability to alter the nature of things not by some wondrous unknown alchemic machinery (which would mean simply that God is a space alien with better tech), but by the mere working of his will?

According to Neil's memoir, his transformation into God, or God's self-depositing into Neil, was accomplished via no detectable causal process explicable in terms of the evident and observable nature of things. The antecedent short-term experiences and longer-term philosophical rethinking described in the memoir DO help to explain the experience as some kind of vivid dream or other event of human consciousness. But these prequels do nothing to either explain or even render intelligible the proposition either that there is a God to begin with or that God and Neil were as one during the several-hour period described. Neil's God is more limited in various ways than the omniscient, omnipotent type of God; but if Neil's God had no power to subvert or ignore the nature of things, he would not be a god at all. Yet God even in Neil's conception is still regarded as somehow above and beyond the natural world, and regardless of any inconvenient rules that might arbitrarily limit his arbitrary power.

For a person conscious of his limited time and resources, spending time and resources on ANY activity requires some possibility of a pay-off; even aside from the issue of judging the extent of a likelihood of success, there has to be at a minimum a metaphysical possibility that a thing could happen to begin with.

What I mean is that if I were to investigate a boulder and learn from observation and experimentation--for example, by being hit by one--that it has certain properties of mass and density, I would have no reason whatever given my acceptance that entities are only what they are (not also something else the incompatible properties of which could allegedly also be experienced at any moment) to then entertain and investigate a claim that the boulder also and secretly or potentially has the properties of lasagna or styrofoam. (Of course rock has the potential to become rock dust, but this potential nature is consistent with its actual nature.) What sensible geologist with the goal of understanding the stuff that mantles are made of could be tempted to commence an inquiry into the possible lasagna feature of a boulder "just to be sure," as if such claims could be on a par with an erroneous theory of tectonic plates? Would the geologist, if a practical and reasonable sort of person, be tempted to do the investigation into whether rocks are also lasagna if a vivid dream that such were possible were reported to him? Would he at least be tempted if he experienced such a dream himself (and would it in the latter case be reasonable for him to accept as "proven" by his own direct sensory perception what the revelation of his dream implies)?

Yet claims about psychic spoon-bending powers, dream-powered teleporation, multi-dimensional rabbits popping out of multi-dimensional hats and/or being transfigured into a downsized version of the Christian God--who needn't, this time, die on the cross--are exactly of this unbelievable character with respect to what they require the prospective investigator to accept about identity and causality. The claims about the gods are more plausible than the proposition about the rock and the lasagna to many people for a wide range of cultural and psychological reasons--but not for any logical ones.

Despite his own imaginative theological innovations, many of these cultural factors, mediated in part by the apologias and story-telling of C.S. Lewis, have clearly helped shape Neil's understanding of his experience. For example, Neil would not have learned during his revelation that there was no need to die on the cross "this time" had there been no other time that an incarnate God had died on the cross according to the dominant religious mythology of the West.

Brad Linaweaver wrote: "...you Objectivist people..."

Oh dear.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Starbuckle

[George H. Smith]

I mentioned this thread to Brad Linaweaver in conversation and he raised the question about the prize money. Now I've sent him some of the exchanges and he wants to make two comments without getting deeper into this discussion:

1. To William Scherk: "I am an agnostic and skeptical about most psychic claims. As a libertarian, I am also skeptical about financial claims given what has been going on in this country. It is remarkable that a million dollars could be put aside just to encourage psychics to commit more of their frauds for the entertainment of James Randi and the kind of people Neil is arguing with at Objectivist Living."

2. To George H. Smith: "I think it is remarkable that you have decided to contrast Augustine with Schulman. This is because Augustine came to his belief in God through remorse and guilt. These are not Objectivist virtues. Neil's God experience has nothing to do with remorse or guilt. I agree about the genius of Augustine but but why do you have more respect for his God experience only because he has the moral values repudiated by you Objectivist people?"

I said that I found Augustine's account more "interesting" than Neil's, not that I have "more respect" for it -- whatever that is supposed to mean.

Why do you suppose that God, if he exists, would have Objectivist values?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

digress, default, demand

People under a great deal of stress can save themselves by defaulting to a backstop position. This might be Augustine who defaulted to Christianity or an Arab who defaults to Islam (rather than be killed) or some such. The reason can be psychological or existential or a mixture of the two. For Augustine it would seem he defaulted to Christianity because, for one reason, it was there to be defaulted to. In a serious sense religion and hallucination are genius serving real human need. This, of course, informs and balances the political too, especially in Europe and the Americas. In Islam the religion has mostly overwhelmed the political.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I accept no fact on the basis of religious dogma or faith, nor demand such from others. I'd think that would be a minimum a rationalist atheist like you would demand from someone like me claiming a rational basis for asserting a communication with a being you doubt exists.

Fine. I won't accept your story on faith either. So why does the same standard make me dogmatically blind and you open-minded?

Ghs

Because when I wanted to find out whether God was real, I managed to come up with a protocol to do it that succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. What you need to ask yourself, George H. Smith, is why I succeeded where you have failed. Of course you'll just reply I haven't. How can you be certain without running my experiment for yourself?

You relate the following "experiment" in Chapter 3, one that made you 98 percent certain that you had an encounter with God.

So, here is where I was leading up to my psychic thing. It would have to be sometime in the area of around 1987, when I learned that Robert Heinlein — whom, of course, I’d first met in September, 1973 after doing the interview with him in July, 1973 and had become friends with – when I learned in 1987 that Heinlein was dying of emphysema, which by the way was what killed my maternal grandfather, at the point where I knew that Heinlein was dying of emphysema I did something very, very strange in my own mind. I tried to psychically link my energy to his to keep him alive.

Now that sounds crazy. Why would I have even thought that I could do something like that? And here we come to a year of praying, sometimes more than once a day. Almost clinging to God in a sense “Don’t let me die,” “Don’t let me die,” “Don’t let Heinlein die,” “Don’t let Heinlein die.” I mean this really crazy neurotic mental cycles.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: And this is still when, if somebody asked you pointblank, at that moment, you’d still say you’re an agnostic but you’re running a prayer experiment, perhaps. Because in one of your interviews with Jack, you say years after you have convinced yourself or had the experience of God, years after that experience you told Jack, in one or you interviews, that you think the best way to think of God is God is an experimental scientist.

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: So, God is running the experiments?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: And here you were at your end, you were running an experiment on God, the way that you could argue God runs experiments on us?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Yes.

...

I need to bring up the physiological component because the physiological component is going to play an important part later on.

I was a very heavy coffee drinker. I seem to have some sort of allergy to coffee which I’ve never fully figured out. I thought for a long time that it had to do with the acid of the coffee, or the caffeine, and it doesn’t seem to be either of those, because acid by itself or caffeine by itself does not do what coffee does to me. It sends me into irregular heartbeat and hyperventilation. It seems to be almost an allergic reaction.

...

I kept on going into fits of unexpected hyperventilation and they were causing panic attacks, so much so that I was having to carry around a paper bag with me to breathe into it, to try to get myself out of it. I didn’t know what was going on. I stopped drinking coffee after the first day, or something like that, when I realized it was linked. But nonetheless, even after stopping the coffee, it was not stopping and it was going on day after day after day. So by around the fifth or the sixth day I was a wreck.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Total empathy?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Total empathy.

Now, I had thought of myself as somebody who, if he identified with any character out of Star Trek, it was Spock. I was out of control. Suddenly my emotions were out of control. It was “Amok Time” — or something like that — without the mating ritual.

It got to the point where on the night before my birthday I lay down in bed and this feeling of uncertainty — and remember this combined with this death phobia — I was afraid I was going to die from this, that something was happening in me that was killing me. I didn’t know what it was.

I lay down in bed – and bed for me was a futon on the floor in this bedroom – and I felt a hand on my heart inside my chest. I can’t describe it any other way. I felt a physical presence of a hand, as if it was holding my heart. Not squeezing it but holding it so I could feel it. In my head I heard this voice and it said to me, “I can take you now.”

Suddenly my worst fear, death was coming, you know, God is going to take me. I’m in the middle of a Twilight Zone episode. Hand on my heart. I’m scared to death – literally. And a voice — The Voice, which I knew was God’s voice — was saying, “I can take you now.” And I was scared.

Something unusual happened at that point. The Voice, which had just said “I can take you now,” started laughing at me....

After He stopped laughing at me, God said “You have to make a choice. I can take you now. You will die now or I can let you live but here’s the thing. No more promises. No more deals. You have in your mind somewhere that you can make a deal with me and I’m going to make everything come out all right and you’re going to be safe from everything and you’re not going to die and the people around you, who you keep on praying for constantly, are not going to die. And if you stay – if I don’t take you now – all bets are off. You stay, unconditionally, with no promises, and whatever happens, you have to let happen.”

And I was more scared of death than of fate. And so I said “I’ll stay.”

And I felt The Hand leave my heart. I had accepted the contract.

...

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Now, important question. So what would have been your first contact with God — when it was over you thought it might very well be God but you weren’t one-hundred-percent certain that it was God?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: I was pretty certain that it was God.

BRAD LINAWEAVER: Ninety percent or one-hundred percent?

J. NEIL SCHULMAN: Ninety-eight percent.

This "experiment" made you 98 percent certain that you had an encounter with God. So if I want to follow your carefully designed protocol, I will need to:

1. Induce a morbid fear of death in myself so I can experience "really crazy neurotic mental cycles."

2. Pray at least once a day for a year, even though I am an atheist, in the hope that this will postpone my own death and/or that of a friend. Continue this regimen until God gets so pissed off that he tells me to stop.

3. Drink so much coffee that it causes me to hyperventilate and experience irregular heartbeats. Then figure out some way to keep hyperventilating, even after I stop drinking coffee.

4. Then, after I attain the state of being "a wreck," I should lie down until I feel a hand on my heart.

Please let me know if I overlooked any key elements of your protocol. I am so looking forward to replicating your "experiment."

Ghs

[PDS]

Starbuckle wrote: "Neil's God is more limited in various ways than the omniscient, omnipotent type of God; but if Neil's God had no power to subvert or ignore the nature of things, he would not be a god at all. Yet God even in Neil's conception is still regarded as somehow above and beyond the natural world, and regardless of any inconvenient rules that might arbitrarily limit his arbitrary power."

I had noticed this too, and perhaps unkindly referred to this God as "puny" in a post a week or two ago. Upon reflection, this God actually resembles the Genesis God of the Garden of Eden, who was not obviously omniscient or omnipotent, i.e., and who resembles something more akin to one's bumbling, older Uncle.

If I am right, there is some very interesting ground for psychological inquiry here, and Neil's (unintentional, one presumes) choice/experience of this version of God, rather than the Conqueror-God of Isiah, or the largely silent God of Esther and the lesser books, or, for that matter, the Wagering-Whirlwind God of Job.

Honestly, I do think most people would prefer a Genesis God to those random alternatives I mentioned above.

Not surprisingly, given Neil's background, the Genesis God is more or less a libertarian.

Edited December 27, 2010 by PDS

[George H. Smith]

Starbuckle wrote: "Neil's God is more limited in various ways than the omniscient, omnipotent type of God; but if Neil's God had no power to subvert or ignore the nature of things, he would not be a god at all. Yet God even in Neil's conception is still regarded as somehow above and beyond the natural world, and regardless of any inconvenient rules that might arbitrarily limit his arbitrary power."

I had noticed this too, and perhaps unkindly referred to this God as "puny" in a post a week or two ago. Upon reflection, this God actually resembles the Genesis God of the Garden of Eden, who was not obviously omniscient or omnipotent, i.e., and who resembles something more akin to one's bumbling, older Uncle.

In Chapter 2 of his book, Neil says:

I saw it as quite possible that there could be laws which would be true to our plane of existence as local phenomena such as the laws of chemistry, the laws of physics, the laws of how space/time worked, gravitation, speed of light. All these sorts of things were local phenomena. But there had to be some overriding natural laws which would apply in all modes of existence, all the universe, all possible universes. So in other words, I saw that there had to be some sort of universal natural laws, laws of logic or something intrinsic to the nature of reality, which would guide the formation of the physical laws with the universes.

Okay, so I saw that even the meta-law, which created the natural law of our universe, would have its own rules, its own principles, its own necessary logic. So I saw that the supernature would have supernatural laws. In the sense of laws which would necessitate certain things, exclude other things. That there were things that would be impossible in any existence

of any sort.

This is not a novel position. In the Catholic tradition, for example, Thomists have maintained that God cannot will a logical contradiction, nor can he contradict himself. According to these theologians, it is not a limit on God's omnipotence to say that he cannot do the logically impossible, because the logically impossible is meaningless.

The claim that God cannot contradict himself is more complicated and problematic, but it was essential to the Thomistic position on ethics. To the question "Does God will something because it is good, or is something good because God wills it?" Thomists argued that good and evil flow necessarily from the nature of God's creation. Although God could have created a different universe with different moral rules, given the universe as it is, even God cannot arbitrarily alter fundamental moral rules, for to do so would be to contradict the nature of his own creation, i.e., his own will.

This position led Thomas Aquinas and some of his followers to admit that even atheists can live moral lives to some extent, because atheists can use their reason to discern natural moral principles without the assistance of divine revelation.

Ghs

[PDS]

Starbuckle wrote: "Neil's God is more limited in various ways than the omniscient, omnipotent type of God; but if Neil's God had no power to subvert or ignore the nature of things, he would not be a god at all. Yet God even in Neil's conception is still regarded as somehow above and beyond the natural world, and regardless of any inconvenient rules that might arbitrarily limit his arbitrary power."

I had noticed this too, and perhaps unkindly referred to this God as "puny" in a post a week or two ago. Upon reflection, this God actually resembles the Genesis God of the Garden of Eden, who was not obviously omniscient or omnipotent, i.e., and who resembles something more akin to one's bumbling, older Uncle.

In Chapter 2 of his book, Neil says:

I saw it as quite possible that there could be laws which would be true to our plane of existence as local phenomena such as the laws of chemistry, the laws of physics, the laws of how space/time worked, gravitation, speed of light. All these sorts of things were local phenomena. But there had to be some overriding natural laws which would apply in all modes of existence, all the universe, all possible universes. So in other words, I saw that there had to be some sort of universal natural laws, laws of logic or something intrinsic to the nature of reality, which would guide the formation of the physical laws with the universes.

Okay, so I saw that even the meta-law, which created the natural law of our universe, would have its own rules, its own principles, its own necessary logic. So I saw that the supernature would have supernatural laws. In the sense of laws which would necessitate certain things, exclude other things. That there were things that would be impossible in any existence

of any sort.

This is not a novel position. In the Catholic tradition, for example, Thomists have maintained that God cannot will a logical contradiction, nor can he contradict himself. According to these theologians, it is not a limit on God's omnipotence to say that he cannot do the logically impossible, because the logically impossible is meaningless.

The claim that God cannot contradict himself is more complicated and problematic, but it was essential to the Thomistic position on ethics. To the question "Does God will something because it is good, or is something good because God wills it?" Thomists argued that good and evil flow necessarily from the nature of God's creation. Although God could have created a different universe with different moral rules, given the universe as it is, even God cannot arbitrarily alter fundamental moral rules, for to do so would be to contradict the nature of his own creation, i.e., his own will.

This position led Thomas Aquinas and some of his followers to admit that even atheists can live moral lives to some extent, because atheists can use their reason to discern natural moral principles without the assistance of divine revelation.

Ghs

George: inherent in the Thomast and other such positions is the notion that God does not evolve or change, isn't that right? In other words, God can change his mind. As I mentioned earlier, this was the premise of Jung's Answer to Job, which posits that God was so traumatized by what he did to Job that he literally decided to change course and come to earth around 6 B.C. Others have posited a different cause, such as God's failure to rescue the Judeans from Babylon, etc., but the same concept applies: if God evolves in his conception of himself, then indeed he can contradict himself, change course, do some open-field running, etc.

Edited December 27, 2010 by PDS

[George H. Smith]

George: inherent in the Thomast and other such positions is the notion that God does not evolve or change, isn't that right? In other words, God can change his mind.

God, a perfect being, does not change because any change would necessarily be change to a less perfect state of being. When you are perfect there is no place to go but down.

Whether this means that God cannot change his mind -- well, this depends on which theologian you read. There are numerous biblical stories about God changing his mind after people repent, but, as I recall, most of these appear in the Old Testament where (as you pointed out) Jehovah is portrayed in anthropomorphic terms.

In more abstract conceptions in which God is said not to exist in time at all, the notion of God changing his mind doesn't make much sense. But that is the point of pushing God completely into the realm of the unknowable.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Not surprisingly, given Neil's background, the Genesis God is more or less a libertarian.

If I should ever report a religious experience, you should be suspicious if my god turns out to be a big jazz fan who likes to play chess.

Many years ago in Los Angeles, I gave a talk titled "Is God a libertarian?" I concluded that he is not.

Or maybe Woody Allen was right, after all. Maybe God isn't evil; maybe he is just an underachiever.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

This "experiment" made you 98 percent certain that you had an encounter with God. So if I want to follow your carefully designed protocol, I will need to:

1. Induce a morbid fear of death in myself so I can experience "really crazy neurotic mental cycles."

2. Pray at least once a day for a year, even though I am an atheist, in the hope that this will postpone my own death and/or that of a friend. Continue this regimen until God gets so pissed off that he tells me to stop.

3. Drink so much coffee that it causes me to hyperventilate and experience irregular heartbeats. Then figure out some way to keep hyperventilating, even after I stop drinking coffee.

4. Then, after I attain the state of being "a wreck," I should lie down until I feel a hand on my heart.

Please let me know if I overlooked any key elements of your protocol. I am so looking forward to replicating your "experiment."

Ghs

Modified 2: Pray at least once a day for a year, even though you're an atheist, to see if you get a response that will overcome your epistemological, cosmological, ontological and natural-law objections to the existence of God, and invite him to communicate with you by his choosing a method that will overcome your skepticism and satisfy your demand for proof. That's as close as I can come to a universal protocol, and it requires moving from atheism (God is impossible) to agnosticism (God is not impossible but I regard it as highly unlikely and I can't currently conceive of what could be satisfactory proof that would convince me). This prayer needs to be done in absolute privacy -- no one else around. You may write your own prayer and need not follow any religious protocols or traditions. You need not worship or praise. You need not kneel or supplicate yourself or in any way demean yourself. You need not ask for anything except for one thing: the truth.

If God is real, he's very smart and if he so desired to communicate with you he is smart enough to design a response that can convince you, if you are open to being convinced. But he won't do it if it has to violate your free will. There has to be an invitation. It will be a "designer response" which satisfies your particular objections, not mine nor anyone else's. The response may use methods completely unlike his response to me so I will have no way of verifying to you whether it was real. It will be your decision, and it will be between the two of you whether you have any reason to report on it to anyone else.

You asked why he hasn't chosen to talk to you even though you're a famous atheist author and less of a crackpot than me. This might answer that question. Okay?

Edited December 27, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[George H. Smith]

This "experiment" made you 98 percent certain that you had an encounter with God. So if I want to follow your carefully designed protocol, I will need to:

1. Induce a morbid fear of death in myself so I can experience "really crazy neurotic mental cycles."

2. Pray at least once a day for a year, even though I am an atheist, in the hope that this will postpone my own death and/or that of a friend. Continue this regimen until God gets so pissed off that he tells me to stop.

3. Drink so much coffee that it causes me to hyperventilate and experience irregular heartbeats. Then figure out some way to keep hyperventilating, even after I stop drinking coffee.

4. Then, after I attain the state of being "a wreck," I should lie down until I feel a hand on my heart.

Please let me know if I overlooked any key elements of your protocol. I am so looking forward to replicating your "experiment."

Ghs

Modified 2: Pray at least once a day for a year, even though you're an atheist, to see if you get a response that will overcome your epistemological, cosmological, ontological and natural-law objections to the existence of God, and invite him to communicate with you by his choosing a method that will overcome your skepticism and satisfy your demand for proof. That's as close as I can come to a universal protocol, and it requires moving from atheism (God is impossible) to agnosticism (God is not impossible but I regard it as highly unlikely and I can't currently conceive of what could be satisfactory proof that would convince me). This prayer needs to be done in absolute privacy -- no one else around. You may write your own prayer and need not follow any religious protocols or traditions. You need not worship or praise. You need not kneel or supplicate yourself or in any way demean yourself. You need not ask for anything except for one thing: the truth.

If God is real, he's very smart and if he so desired to communicate with you he is smart enough to design a response that can convince you, if you are open to being convinced. But he won't do it if it has to violate your free will. There has to be an invitation. It will be a "designer response" which satisfies your particular objections, not mine nor anyone else's. The response may use methods completely unlike his response to me so I will have no way of verifying to you whether it was real. It will be your decision, and it will be between the two of you whether you have any reason to report on it to anyone else.

Okay?

Sure, Neil, I'm going to pray at least once a day for a year because you had an emotional crisis at one point during your life and suffered some hallucinations.

Don't insult my intelligence.

Ghs