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

[J Neil Schulman]

Then, some scientist decides to test these people by projecting infrared and ultraviolet frequencies onto a screen and seeing if there is any correlation with the extra colors they claim to see. The results of these tests are uniformly negative. These people are again dismissed as cranks, mystics, and religious outcasts.

For what possible reason would such people be stigmatized in this manner? Again, they are merely claiming to see a variant of something (i.e., color) that all sighted people can perceive. Their claim is no more inherently improbable than, say, than the visual experiences of people with dyslexia.

So you're perfectly fine with people who say they see "auras" around people? You're not ready to dismiss them as nuts?

The assumption that their "internal" experiences have no external cause can only be tested when science reaches the point to know what to test for and design tests that can measure what they're looking for.

I submit paranormal phenomena can only be measured once we know what they are and how they work. The failure to be able to initiate these abilities on demand under laboratory conditions tells us only that much of the time they are not under the conscious control of the test subjects. But then again, neither are the content of dreams, and who denies that dreams are real -- and common -- phenomena?

This is the kind of "argument for all occasions" that one commonly finds with mystics and people who claim to possess paranormal powers. It can be applied to virtually any claim, no matter how fantastic and absurd. A person who claims to see dancing fairies at twilight, or who claims to be in telepathic communication with beings on another planet (as Geller does), or who claims to be the reincarnation of Napoleon, or who claims to be able to inhabit the bodies of other people, and so on without end, can make exactly the same argument that you do, viz, that science has not yet advanced to the point where their claims can be fairly tested, and it would therefore be sheer dogmatism to dismiss such claims.

This argument is worthless, and it shouldn't be too difficult for you to figure out why, given your claim to have read extensively in the field of epistemology. Even a modest knowledge of Rand's epistemology would be sufficient in this case.

Parapsychology is not yet a rigorous science with established standards and practices. It is polluted with superstition, dementia, and fraud. The worst of it is the lack of epistemological rigor by many of its proponents and practitioners.

I have been trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it's an ongoing process. To paraphrase Ayn Rand on another subject, "It's earlier than you think."

But dismissing an entire field of study as unworthy of any rational person because of its worst cases is not good epistemology, good science, or good manners.

Lastly, to say that dreams are "real" is not to say that dreams are anything more than a subjective experience. Of course, this does not mean that external factors do not play a role; anyone who has fallen asleep with the television on has probably noticed how a program can weave its way into a dream.

Ghs

Dreams cease to be merely a subjective experience when during what is commonly called a dream one is able to locate oneself by using landmarks and signs and upon awakening validate that these are in a real place that one has never visited nor seen. I know, I know. How can one prove that one didn't see it as a child, or on TV, or in a photo and didn't remember?

I expect you will never cease to regard me as gullible for taking such validations as proving my "dreams" as sometimes a perception of something externally real, and you'll always find any other explanation than OBE/astral projection as a lesser hypothesis.

There are degrees of skepticism I simply can't overcome.

[J Neil Schulman]

Cosmic rays are real phenomena, but not within the visual spectrum. So if someone "saw" them and described them as an additional "color," it would not be a color anyone could place on a color wheel or ever assign a pantone number.

Yes; cosmic rays are not composed of photons.

Remember, you wrote: "Okay, George, mix colors that represent the color "cosmic ray."

Why did you write that, when you know cosmic rays are not even part of the electromagnetic spectrum?

George was the one who said any additional "color" could be conventionally "mixed." Using something real that has now been detected but which is not made of photons was in fact my challenge to his analogy. If someone "saw" gravitic waves or cosmic rays as a "color" that would be a paranormal perception of something real. Since it would be a superior ability above the known bell curve of sight, one might not even be wrong in tagging such a perceptual ability supernatural. Saying it's only relatively recently that such a perception can be validated as something real is the point of my using this analogy, since I'm suggesting that other paranormal perceptions are precisely equivalent: a rarely mastered above-the-bell-curve ability to perceive something real; a supercognitive sense.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

I just had a late night thought and posting it here will be my last of the night. I think. :-)

I've been referring to supercognition as if it's an ability I regularly possess. But I've also said frequently enough in this discussion that it's something I have little ability to initiate at will, and only small amounts of control over.

George H. Smith has written that I must have a big ego for suggesting that God found me worth communicating with. But wouldn't my ego be larger if I claimed to have the ability to use my "supercognition" to communicate with God at will?

As it stands, I regard the communication as being handled from the other end. I wasn't in control of the process. I didn't initiate it; I didn't control the conditions during it; I didn't end it. So I suppose at least one "offer of proof" I can put forward is that Someone with vastly greater control over his powers of cognition and communication was making that experience happen for me. What I experienced was superior to any ability I'd ever had in my life to accomplish, before or since.

That's one reason I think it really was God.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes; cosmic rays are not composed of photons.

Cosmic rays are 89 protons, 10 percent alpha-particles (nuclei of helium atoms) and the rest are electrons and heavier elements all moving very fast. The velocity of this particle mix is what makes cosmic extremely energetic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Trying to serve a believer's cake on an Objectivist platter makes no sense, Neil. For there is no bridge from Objectivism to the belief in a god. None whatsoever.

No, but there is in the other direction.

It looks like I did not use an adequate comparison with my "bridge" example. I should have written instead "There is no connection from Objectivism to the belief in a god".

For one can of course cross a bridge from point A to point B and decide never return to A. But this is not what I meant.

I meant that one either is an Ojectivist or a believer in transcendence. One cannot be both since it would collapse the premises of both systems.

I don't have individuals in mind who pick and choose from Rand's philosophy those aspects which suit them, while ignoring other fundamental premises on which Objectivism is based. I'm thinking of those who have dug deeply into Objectivism, absorbing and accepting the philosophy in its totality, which includes accepting the premise "atheism" as one of the pillars the whole thing rests on.

From all of the exchanges in this thread, it appears to me that, in addition to writing entertaining novels, Neil is quite a character and, I am sure, would be a fascinating conversationalist (I hope this does not come across as condescending). However, his argument in advocating for his "conversations with God" boil down to the usual last (and final) stand of all fideists (using Martin Gardner's term): "Take my word for it."

I too have the impression that Neil is quite a character.

I also believe that he is convinced he has had a god encounter, i. e. that he did not make it up to tell a good fictional story or something to that effect.

If Neil had made it up, imo he would have thought out a far more plausible sounding story than the one he presents here, containing stuff which downright contradicts proven facts like god suggesting to him that OJ Simpson was framed. Give me a break! What is one to think of a god who is that clueless?

Religionists usually follow up with a challenge to "prove that I did not have conversations with God." I find it astonishing that people fall for this, but many apparently do. It certainly worked for Joseph Smith, whose baseless testimony is taken as literally the gospel by millions of professing Mormons. But to me, people using this type of facile argument are either 1) delusional and/or hallucinating, or 2) scoundrels who use the faith racket as a tool to attain personal wealth and power. There may be other alternative explanations, such as an inability to adequately explain to others what he or she was experiencing.

The "prove that I did not have have conversations with god" is indeed a primitive and easy to see through attempt to get rid of the burden of proof by shifting it to the wrong party. It's like brazenly dumping one's own stuff in the neighbor's garden.

It is a shame that those soul seducers get away with it, especially since this primitive attempt is easy to counter by putting the burden of proof back to where it belongs: to the one who claims to have had a god experience. For it is upon the claimer to provide evidence which then is evaluated.

If Person X asserts: "It was Susie who pinched the cookies from the jar.", the reasonable qestion to ask is how X has reached this conclusion. Imagine X would now, instead of presenting his/her evidence, say to the inquirer: "Prove that Susie did not pinch the cookies from the jar". One would righty judge such a reply as absurdly illogical, but that's precisely what believers are doing when they try to dodge the burden of proof. A burden of proof which they know they cannot meet.

From the points he N: schulamn has presented here, I saw no explanation of his God encounters that would impress anyone that doesn't already believe in God, or doesn't take a personal (and unverifiable) testimony as proof.

I share your assessment of this issue.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Trying to serve a believer's cake on an Objectivist platter makes no sense, Neil. For there is no bridge from Objectivism to the belief in a god. None whatsoever.

No, but there is in the other direction.

It looks like I did not use an adequate comparison with my "bridge" example. I should have written instead "There is no connection from Objectivism to the belief in a god".

For one can of course cross a bridge from point A to point B and decide never return to A. But this is not what I meant.

I meant that one either is an Ojectivist or a believer in transcendence. One cannot be both since it would collapse the premises of both systems.

I don't have individuals in mind who pick and choose from Rand's philosophy those aspects which suit them, while ignoring other fundamental premises on which Objectivism is based. I'm thinking of those who have dug deeply into Objectivism, absorbing and accepting the philosophy in its totality, which includes accepting the premise "atheism" as one of the pillars the whole thing rests on.

I don't reject "transcendence," but the word has several meanings. Believer this and that. An Objectivist believes in reality axiomatically, but that's that for it then becomes religious if levitated off that base. Objectivism is not based on atheism, only its axioms. One is an atheist, aside from atheists who make it a religion in itself, for the same reason one doesn't believe the moon is made out of cheese. It is not believed. It is without faith. The cheesists might make an issue of this and exclaim that one of the pillars of Objectivism is non-cheesism.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I know nothing about a color called "cosmic ray." Find someone who does and have him mix the paint.

Cosmic rays are real phenomena, but not within the visual spectrum. So if someone "saw" them and described them as an additional "color," it would not be a color anyone could place on a color wheel or ever assign a pantone number. But go back before cosmic rays could be detected in a lab, and someone who said they existed and he knew that because he'd seen them would be called by you a mystic, a crank, a charlatan, or if you were feeling generous, merely unable to satisfy your epistemological standards of evidence.

You keep changing your hypothetical in the hope that you will eventually hit upon a mutation that will survive criticism.

At first you posited people who claim to see a unique color, but only at high tide, that others cannot see. Now you posit a person who sees cosmic rays at high tide (unless you dropped the latter condition without informing anyone) that he describes as a color. You also stipulate that this claim was made before scientists could detect cosmic rays in a lab; by implication, therefore, this person would not know that he is actually seeing cosmic rays. All he could say is that he sees something during high tide that he describes as a color.

Is it physically possible for the human eye to see cosmic rays? I don't know, and neither do you, but you have gerrymandered your example by stipulating beforehand that this is possible, indeed, that it has really happened. Likewise, it we stipulate beforehand that a god exists and that he sometimes communicates with people, then your claim to have talked to this god would have some measure of credibility.

Here is the essential point: If, before the discovery of cosmic rays, all we had to go on was a person's claim to see a unique color at high tide, we would be wholly unwarranted in concluding that cosmic rays exist. This person's perception of a unique color would not constitute evidence, much less conclusive evidence, for the existence of cosmic rays. Only if were able to verify the existence of cosmic rays by independent means could a possible causal link be forged between them and the unique "color" in question.

Likewise, your subjective experiences have no evidentiary value -- nada, zilch -- unless you are able to verify the existence of your god by independent means. What empirically falsifiable tests would you suggest for this? By this I mean tests that, if they failed, would cause you to change your mind about the existence of God?

I doubt if you can even conceive of such a test in principle. One scientific experiment after another could fail miserably, but you would claim that all such tests were inadequate. In other words, you would not accept the results of any experiment unless it corroborated your predetermined conclusion.

This is why your references to science are disingenuous. Your belief in God is not analogous to a claim that might later be verified by scientific means, because there is no conceivable experiment that could possibly falsify your belief, or even raise serious doubts in your mind. If I am wrong about this, then tell me what kind of experiment could possibly change your mind.

The term "delusional" pertains to false beliefs or opinions, especially to those which are held despite evidence to the contrary.

But you have no evidence to the contrary, George; the best you can muster is to say you haven't experienced it, yourself, and don't know of anyone else you regard as reliable who has. Am I expected to negate my own experience merely because it's not conventional? Am I to make my assertion of it dependent on the agreement of others? Think of what Ayn said about the sort of person who would deny his own hard-won knowledge because others didn't see it.

There is no need to present counter-evidence in response to a knowledge claim for which no evidence has been presented. This is why I I reject your account, not because it is unconventional.

But suppose this person believes he is hearing chimes in heaven or a fire alarm in hell. Most people would regard these beliefs as delusional, but probably not you. After all, scientists have not developed tests that can determine whether or not is possible to hear chimes in heaven or fire alarms in hell, so who are we to dismiss such beliefs outright?

I would endeavor to keep an open mind. I might not succeed. I have expressed doubt about Neale Donald Walsch's claims in Conversations with God because the personality of God as he writes his dialogue does not correspond with the fellow I chatted up. Still, if I met Neale Donald Walsch I would try hard not to call him names.

By all means, Neil, keep an "open mind." That way, the next time you encounter a derelict who claims to be Jesus, or a bag lady who clams to be the Virgin Mary, or cultists who commit mass suicide in order to rendezvous with an alien mothership orbiting Earth, you can give serious consideration to these and similar claims, and thereby potentially expand your range of knowledge. Many people would characterize you as extraordinarily gullible, but if you prefer the term "open minded," so be it.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Cosmic rays are real phenomena, but not within the visual spectrum. So if someone "saw" them and described them as an additional "color," it would not be a color anyone could place on a color wheel or ever assign a pantone number.

If a person couldn't find a substance which is the color of "cosmic ray" from which to grind a pigment for making paint, we could always have him look through something like Dürer's simple drawing machines instead, and ask him to outline the areas of spaces and objects where he sees the color, and to identify where and when it is the strongest. There are many methods with which we could precisely measure, test and evaluate his claims.

J

[Jonathan]

There is no doubt in my mind that Neil's account is sincere. To perpetrate a fraud of this magnitude is not in his nature...

Okay, thanks for your comments. As I get to know Neil and his ideas a little better, perhaps I'll have fewer doubts about his sincerity.

J

[George H. Smith]

I just had a late night thought and posting it here will be my last of the night. I think. :-)

I've been referring to supercognition as if it's an ability I regularly possess. But I've also said frequently enough in this discussion that it's something I have little ability to initiate at will, and only small amounts of control over.

George H. Smith has written that I must have a big ego for suggesting that God found me worth communicating with. But wouldn't my ego be larger if I claimed to have the ability to use my "supercognition" to communicate with God at will?

As it stands, I regard the communication as being handled from the other end. I wasn't in control of the process. I didn't initiate it; I didn't control the conditions during it; I didn't end it. So I suppose at least one "offer of proof" I can put forward is that Someone with vastly greater control over his powers of cognition and communication was making that experience happen for me. What I experienced was superior to any ability I'd ever had in my life to accomplish, before or since.

That's one reason I think it really was God.

You need to get your story straight. You have repeatedly urged others to replicate your "experiment," so they too can talk to God. But you here make it crystal clear that you didn't run any kind of experiment at all. You were not in control of the process, you did not initiate it, and you cannot replicate your experience on demand, even under the same conditions. Everything was "handled from the other end."

You have also summoned your inability to replicate your experience as an "offer of proof" for the authenticity of that experience. I don't think I have the patience to deal with this absurd claim, at least not now. Suffice it to say (as I indicated in my last post) that this conveniently renders your claims unverifiable in principle. If you were able to chat with God on demand, I could give you some questions to ask him about my personal life that only I know about; and if you, via God, were able to answer even a few such questions, you would have me convinced me that something extraordinary is going on, at the very least. But as things stand now, you can always say that you gave God a ring but that no one answered.

My comment about your big ego was made in the context of your rejection of similar mystical claims by others whose reports do not conform "in every detail" to your own. You said that God has talked to you and perhaps one other person in the history of humankind. "Big ego" cannot do justice to a person who really believes this. The sense of self-importance implied by such a claim is positively messianic, as is your claim (in the intro to your book) that your experience would "change the world."

Btw, how is that "change the world" thingy working out for you? Did God tell you that you were destined to change the world, or did you infer this from the fact that God views you one of the most important people -- and perhaps as the most important person -- in history?

Then there is your claim to possess "supercognition" -- which would make you a Superman of the intellect, so to speak, if a Superman in training who has not yet mastered his super-powers.

Big ego? You? Perish the thought!

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

There is no doubt in my mind that Neil's account is sincere. To perpetrate a fraud of this magnitude is not in his nature...

Okay, thanks for your comments. As I get to know Neil and his ideas a little better, perhaps I'll have fewer doubts about his sincerity.

J

I hate to say this, but I would have more respect for Neil if all this were some kind of elaborate publicity stunt. I mean this in an epistemological sense, not a moral one.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26132/?ref=rss

[J Neil Schulman]

There is no epistemological basis to reject that something can exist merely because one can't conceive an experiment to falsify it.

The burden of proof remains with the person suggesting it exists.

That is sound epistemology and science.

[J Neil Schulman]

George H. Smith asked me to attempt to negate my experience the same way he challenged his own arguments in Atheism: The Case Against God.

My book, I Met God -- God Without Religion, Scripture, or Faith documents that that I have attempted to negate my experiences of a real encounter with God.

And here is my bottom line, even today: nothing I experienced can not be explained by conventional means. Nor have I ever claimed otherwise.

Why, then, do I persist in asserting the reality of the experience? Why don't I simply admit that I experienced a temporary break with reality and that my experience was fantasy cooked up by an imaginative brain that was stressed by dehydration and ketosis?

Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FbSPXC4btU

FYI: My ultimate experience was February 18, 1997. Contact was released in July 1997, so it could not have influenced my experience.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[George H. Smith]

There is no epistemological basis to reject that something can exist merely because one can't conceive an experiment to falsify it.

I never said this. You are the one who brought up the subject of experiments My point is that an experiment is cognitively worthless if one has determined beforehand not to accept any outcome except one that supports a predetermined conclusion.

The burden of proof remains with the person suggesting it exists. That is sound epistemology and science.

Exactly. You have the burden to prove the existence of God. Thus far you have not given a single bit of evidence that can be corroborated by others. All you have done is to suggest some bogus "experiments" that are not experiments at all, because you will accept only one outcome.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

I just had a late night thought and posting it here will be my last of the night. I think. :-)

I've been referring to supercognition as if it's an ability I regularly possess. But I've also said frequently enough in this discussion that it's something I have little ability to initiate at will, and only small amounts of control over.

George H. Smith has written that I must have a big ego for suggesting that God found me worth communicating with. But wouldn't my ego be larger if I claimed to have the ability to use my "supercognition" to communicate with God at will?

As it stands, I regard the communication as being handled from the other end. I wasn't in control of the process. I didn't initiate it; I didn't control the conditions during it; I didn't end it. So I suppose at least one "offer of proof" I can put forward is that Someone with vastly greater control over his powers of cognition and communication was making that experience happen for me. What I experienced was superior to any ability I'd ever had in my life to accomplish, before or since.

That's one reason I think it really was God.

You need to get your story straight. You have repeatedly urged others to replicate your "experiment," so they too can talk to God. But you here make it crystal clear that you didn't run any kind of experiment at all. You were not in control of the process, you did not initiate it, and you cannot replicate your experience on demand, even under the same conditions. Everything was "handled from the other end."

You have also summoned your inability to replicate your experience as an "offer of proof" for the authenticity of that experience. I don't think I have the patience to deal with this absurd claim, at least not now. Suffice it to say (as I indicated in my last post) that this conveniently renders your claims unverifiable in principle. If you were able to chat with God on demand, I could give you some questions to ask him about my personal life that only I know about; and if you, via God, were able to answer even a few such questions, you would have me convinced me that something extraordinary is going on, at the very least. But as things stand now, you can always say that you gave God a ring but that no one answered.

My comment about your big ego was made in the context of your rejection of similar mystical claims by others whose reports do not conform "in every detail" to your own. You said that God has talked to you and perhaps one other person in the history of humankind. "Big ego" cannot do justice to a person who really believes this. The sense of self-importance implied by such a claim is positively messianic, as is your claim (in the intro to your book) that your experience would "change the world."

Btw, how is that "change the world" thingy working out for you? Did God tell you that you were destined to change the world, or did you infer this from the fact that God views you one of the most important people -- and perhaps as the most important person -- in history?

Then there is your claim to possess "supercognition" -- which would make you a Superman of the intellect, so to speak, if a Superman in training who has not yet mastered his super-powers.

Big ego? You? Perish the thought!

Ghs

I prayed for proof. I then experienced what I regard as proof. Your arguments are consistently to drop context, misinterpret my statements by either adding elements I don't assert or leaving out elements I do, and to take specific answers to specific questions and generalize them to the point of absurdity.

And I'm the one weak on epistemology?

No, sir.

You're far more interested in winning an argument than possibly learning anything that doesn't already reify your worldview.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[George H. Smith]

George H. Smith asked me to attempt to negate my experience the same way he challenged his own arguments in Atheism: The Case Against God.

My book, I Met God -- God Without Religion, Scripture, or Faith documents that that I have attempted to negate my experiences of a real encounter with God.

And here is my bottom line, even today: nothing I experienced can not be explained by conventional means. Nor have I ever claimed otherwise.

Why, then, do I persist in asserting the reality of the experience? Why don't I simply admit that I experienced a temporary break with reality and that my experience was fantasy cooked up by an imaginative brain that was stressed by dehydration and ketosis?

Here's why:

[video deleted]

FYI: My ultimate experience was February 18, 1997. Contact was released in July 1997, so it could not have influenced my experience.

You conveniently left out some relevant background details. Humans had previously received transmissions from a distant planet that gave a detailed blueprint for a mechanism beyond current technological knowledge. At the very least this gave considerable credibility to the experience related by Foster's character. Moreover, as I recall, at the end of the movie there is reference to a suppressed static-filled video tape that corresponds to the length of time reported by Foster's character.

If, in contrast, Foster's character had claimed to have been transported to another planet via a dream or by purely psychic means, and without any independent evidence that intelligent life exists on another planet, then her account would not have been credible. Lastly, keep in mind that her experience could be replicated by others in the same machine that she used. If, say, 100 people used the same machine but got negative results, then this would cast very serious doubts on her story.

So I tell you what, Neil: Have God send you some blueprints for a highly sophisticated device hitherto unknown to humans, and I will take your report more seriously.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Neil is satisfied with what he regards as "proof" from God. But Neil, your "proof" doesn't travel.

--Brant

[J Neil Schulman]

George H. Smith asked me to attempt to negate my experience the same way he challenged his own arguments in Atheism: The Case Against God.

My book, I Met God -- God Without Religion, Scripture, or Faith documents that that I have attempted to negate my experiences of a real encounter with God.

And here is my bottom line, even today: nothing I experienced can not be explained by conventional means. Nor have I ever claimed otherwise.

Why, then, do I persist in asserting the reality of the experience? Why don't I simply admit that I experienced a temporary break with reality and that my experience was fantasy cooked up by an imaginative brain that was stressed by dehydration and ketosis?

Here's why:

[video deleted]

FYI: My ultimate experience was February 18, 1997. Contact was released in July 1997, so it could not have influenced my experience.

You conveniently left out some relevant background details. Humans had previously received transmissions from a distant planet that gave a detailed blueprint for a mechanism beyond current technological knowledge. At the very least this gave considerable credibility to the experience related by Foster's character. Moreover, as I recall, at the end of the movie there is reference to a suppressed static-filled video tape that corresponds to the length of time reported by Foster's character.

If, in contrast, Foster's character had claimed to have been transported to another planet via a dream or by purely psychic means, and without any independent evidence that intelligent life exists on another planet, then her account would not have been credible. Lastly, keep in mind that her experience could be replicated by others in the same machine that she used. If, say, 100 people used the same machine but got negative results, then this would cast very serious doubts on her story.

So I tell you what, Neil: Have God send you some blueprints for a highly sophisticated device hitherto unknown to humans, and I will take your report more seriously.

Ghs

Perfect example of how you drop context.

James Woods' character in Contact, Michael Kitz, puts forward a perfectly plausible alternative explanation that the message and blueprints were all an expensive scheme to defraud the world, conducted by the eccentric billionaire S.R. Hadden. Kitz makes a perfect George H. Smith argument that nothing extraordinary happened. Ellie Arroway is left with no evidence to present that her experience was anything but subjective. She doesn't have access to the 18 hours of blank static anymore than I have access to anything that can prove my experience was real.

And I don't believe you. If I sent you the blueprints for the Interociter (a movie device stolen from the novel and movie This Island Earth) you'd find some reason to negate them as anything extraordinary.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[George H. Smith]

I prayed for proof. I then experienced what I regard as proof. Your arguments are consistently to drop context, misinterpret my statements by either adding elements I don't assert or leaving out elements I do, and to take specific answers to specific questions and generalize them to the point of absurdity.

And I'm the one weak on epistemology?

No, sir.

You're far more interested in winning an argument than possibly learning anything that doesn't already reify your worldview.

You have shifted ground repeatedly in this discussion. In any case, it is absurd to call your prayers an "experiment." Countless Christians have reported the "born again" experience of praying for Jesus to come into their hearts, and having their prayers answered. Would you characterize these as successful experiments? Would you say that these experiences have proved that Jesus really exists and answers prayers? This "experiment," after all, has been successfully "verified" by millions of people, not merely one, so why are you not a Jesus-loving, born-again Christian?

If you are truly open-minded, then for at least once a day for a year, you should pray to be saved by Jesus. Only a dogmatic, closed-minded person would refuse to conduct this experiment.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

I prayed for proof. I then experienced what I regard as proof. Your arguments are consistently to drop context, misinterpret my statements by either adding elements I don't assert or leaving out elements I do, and to take specific answers to specific questions and generalize them to the point of absurdity.

And I'm the one weak on epistemology?

No, sir.

You're far more interested in winning an argument than possibly learning anything that doesn't already reify your worldview.

You have shifted ground repeatedly in this discussion. In any case, it is absurd to call your prayers an "experiment." Countless Christians have reported the "born again" experience of praying for Jesus to come into their hearts, and having their prayers answered. Would you characterize these as successful experiments? Would you say that these experiences have proved that Jesus really exists and answers prayers? This "experiment," after all, has been successfully "verified" by millions of people, not merely one, so why are you not a Jesus-loving, born-again Christian?

If you are truly open-minded, then for at least once a day for a year, you should pray to be saved by Jesus. Only a dogmatic, closed-minded person would refuse to conduct this experiment.

Ghs

I did already. From my 1995 book Self Control Not Gun Control:

A Non-Christian's Prayer To Christ

Of course

You already know what happened.

So I'll just tell it

for the audience.

I'm at the Abbey.

The place where You have the monks.

Only I was at a conference

and it wasn't one of the monks

I was arguing with.

This guy

and I don't have to bring names into this

You know who it was

and so do those who were there

and it's not important for the rest of you

he's a preacher

an official spokesperson

for Jesus

and the Word of God,

particularly the newer stuff.

But the reason I'm listening to him

is that he was close to somebody

whose opinion I really respected

and he really knows his stuff.

Also, I like him a lot

on the first meeting.

Anyway, he's selling me that

the Bible says

You took the bullet for me

And if I don't say it's so

naming the right Names

I don't get into Heaven.

Let me tell you,

I want to get into Heaven.

Eternal rest has no appeal for me.

Neither does swimming in fire.

I say, what about the Jews?

No go, probably, he tells me.

They say God but they don't mean

Christ

and that's a rejection of what

You did

for them.

Some,

the real religious ones

might slip through, though.

And the Mormons, I ask?

You ever look into them?

he asks me.

A scam job, he says.

But the idea, he tells me

Is that if they had the choice

to accept You by name

and they didn't take it,

it's one ticket to a customer.

And the theater is cleared

between shows.

Now, it was late.

I'd been up since early morning

and I was in one of those places

where you take an idea seriously

and run with it.

And I'm thinking,

Okay, God's always been straight with me.

I'll pray again

and if I have to use the name Jesus,

what's the big deal?

Then it hits me.

My parents aren't going.

Neither of them is ever

going to pray to Jesus.

That's goes for all my relatives, too.

Well, maybe except my sister

since I've never been able to

figure out

what she thinks

or who she prays to

or for what.

But I want her in Heaven, too.

It just wouldn't be the same

without her.

My grandmother

the biggest heart I ever knew.

Not there, waiting for me.

My aunt

a great heart

even if I always thought she was

a Communist

if the words Jesus Christ ever

left her lips

it was as a curse.

Probably not in Heaven,

according to my preacher friend.

And there's my ex-wife.

Okay, I admit I didn't make the

smartest move in marrying her

it didn't work out

but, damn it, she has a hard time

believing in You

so that means she's not going either

and if my daughter gets in

she's going to miss her mommy.

My friends.

My beloved friends.

One wrote a book

in which You Killed Yourself.

Another used to believe in you

but doesn't now.

Another one pulls stuff

that even I think is crap

but he's done a lot of good stuff too.

I can't think of three friends

who make it past Your gate

under these rules.

If I ask to go

I'm leaving behind

everyone I loved.

Then I think about the Mormons.

They want so much

to make sure everybody gets into Heaven

that they get genealogies on everybody

then baptize them

even if they're already dead.

Maybe some people are offended by this

but not me.

I think it's sweet.

Looking out for the other guy

particularly the ones who are ready to dump on you.

Now that's Christian charity.

You have to love the Mormons

for making maximum effort.

This was starting to put me in a panic.

Let me see if I have this right

I say to You

In LA Times letters page style.

Someone who doesn't love anybody here

they don't care if anyone's left behind

so it doesn't cost them anything to

use one particular name

and get into Heaven.

No problem for the guy who never

learned to love

he gets in.

Somebody who's a coward

and would sell out his family

because they didn't use the right name

but because this moral cripple uses the right Name

he gets in?

What sort of God

I ask You

would set things up this way?

This would be really lame.

I'd cry for the Universe

made out of such cheap materials.

And I think of Heinlein's story

where he already looked at this problem.

You could always count on him

to get to the point.

Hey, Heinlein wouldn't be in Heaven either,

under these rules

and there goes the most interesting man

I ever met.

So cowards go to Heaven

and it's not the home of the brave?

Lovers and families

are split up for all time

with those who use Your Right Name

left in eternal grief

or worse

given some forever heroin?

I know.

That's not how C.S. Lewis

played it

in his book about a visit to Heaven.

He stacked the deck

so everyone who's there

is happy

and everyone who's left behind

is drained of all that was good

about them.

You know what?

That sucks, too.

I don't believe it.

That's not how God would set things up.

That's the kind of universe the devil

would think up.

Then it hits me.

If you have to make this choice

between being a selfish coward

looking out for Number One

and getting into Heaven

or rejecting You

because friends and lovers aren't going?

It's a test.

It's like the gag You pulled on Abraham

to test his faith.

Take your son

and sacrifice him to Me.

Only at the last minute

You tell him,

Good Job,

Just kidding.

That's got to be right, right?

If I love

You have to love more than a mortal, right?

You've had more practice at it.

If I don't want to go to heaven

if all the good guys aren't going

if those I love won't be there

then that's out of respect

for an absolute standard of

good and evil

that even God would have to obey,

right?

God has to be better than I am,

and care about good and evil

more than I do

Don't You?

And if I

cheap as I am

would cut some slack

to let the marginal cases in

You know

the ones who tried

but didn't get it completely right

but they must have some good in them if

other people love them

then you'd cut an ever better deal,

right?

Because that's what God would do.

Listen, God.

You've got a p-r problem down here.

You've got people spreading bad news

about You.

Saying that you're cheap

and grumpy

and bureaucratic

and mean.

And they say Your Own Book said so.

The same people say

if I take this attitude

I'm choosing to reject You.

I'm in the devil's teeth.

I'm just a crackpot

heading for the kiln

for refiring.

I think it's a slander on You.

I think this is a libel.

I think that THIS is Satan's lie.

Not MY creator, buddy!

He wouldn't be like that.

Take it back!

God is good

it says so right on page One

and if You ask me

somebody better take a blue

pencil to the stuff

that says otherwise

no matter what title it says

on the Book cover.

So, God.

By any Name.

Including Jesus Christ.

I don't believe that about You.

You take the good guys to Heaven

No matter what name they say

or even if their lips don't move

or maybe even if they don't believe

what they don't see

because that, after all, makes sense too.

And, I pray, I'll be seeing you

and all my lost beloved

just like You promised elsewhere

when it's my time.

Amen.

June 29, 1995

[Starbuckle]

JNS wrote: "FYI: My ultimate experience was February 18, 1997. Contact was released in July 1997, so it could not have influenced my experience."

Sagan's novel Contact was published in 1985. I assume Neil hadn't read it by February 1997. But the chronology is neither here nor there. Modern science fiction has been around since, let's say, the 1930s and 1940s. Neil's theology is one influenced by the ideas of sf. God is familiar with the literature.

[J Neil Schulman]

You have shifted ground repeatedly in this discussion.

Ghs

The hell I have. You just are incapable of forming a gestalt from the numerous specific answers I give to your misconceived questions.

On second thought that might be unfair. You might understand me perfectly well and simply drop context to win a debating point.

Edited December 31, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[william.scherk]

And here is my bottom line, even today: nothing I experienced can not be explained by conventional means. Nor have I ever claimed otherwise.

This is epistemological progress, and finally answers comments in this thread that suggested the same notion: explanation by conventional means.

Why, then, do I persist in asserting the reality of the experience? Why don't I simply admit that I experienced a temporary break with reality and that my experience was fantasy cooked up by an imaginative brain that was stressed by dehydration and ketosis?

I think you have answered this elsewhere: self-annihilation.

f 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.

Fun stuff.

Now, I also wonder if you could give us a sketch of the astral-travelling thing. Apparently you left your body and flew down to some place that you hadn't visited before, and then afterwards you visited the same place in the flesh and verified the information received during the flight.

For those who need to get up to speed on Astral Travel, here is a quick and easy method:

[George H. Smith]

George H. Smith asked me to attempt to negate my experience the same way he challenged his own arguments in Atheism: The Case Against God.

My book, I Met God -- God Without Religion, Scripture, or Faith documents that that I have attempted to negate my experiences of a real encounter with God.

And here is my bottom line, even today: nothing I experienced can not be explained by conventional means. Nor have I ever claimed otherwise.

Why, then, do I persist in asserting the reality of the experience? Why don't I simply admit that I experienced a temporary break with reality and that my experience was fantasy cooked up by an imaginative brain that was stressed by dehydration and ketosis?

Here's why:

[video deleted]

FYI: My ultimate experience was February 18, 1997. Contact was released in July 1997, so it could not have influenced my experience.

You conveniently left out some relevant background details. Humans had previously received transmissions from a distant planet that gave a detailed blueprint for a mechanism beyond current technological knowledge. At the very least this gave considerable credibility to the experience related by Foster's character. Moreover, as I recall, at the end of the movie there is reference to a suppressed static-filled video tape that corresponds to the length of time reported by Foster's character.

If, in contrast, Foster's character had claimed to have been transported to another planet via a dream or by purely psychic means, and without any independent evidence that intelligent life exists on another planet, then her account would not have been credible. Lastly, keep in mind that her experience could be replicated by others in the same machine that she used. If, say, 100 people used the same machine but got negative results, then this would cast very serious doubts on her story.

So I tell you what, Neil: Have God send you some blueprints for a highly sophisticated device hitherto unknown to humans, and I will take your report more seriously.

Ghs

Perfect example of how you drop context.

James Woods' character in Contact, Michael Kitz, puts forward a perfectly plausible alternative explanation that the message and blueprints were all an expensive scheme to defraud the world, conducted by the eccentric billionaire S.R. Hadden. Kitz makes a perfect George H. Smith argument that nothing extraordinary happened. Ellie Arroway is left with no evidence to present that her experience was anything but subjective. She doesn't have access to the 18 hours of blank static anymore than I have access to anything that can prove my experience was real.

And I don't believe you. If I sent you the blueprints for the Interociter (a movie device stolen from the novel and movie This Island Earth) you'd find some reason to negate them as anything extraordinary.

As I said, the controversy could be settled by having other people use the same device. Foster's speech at the end is an absurd sop to religionists. No competent scientist would say such a thing. It would be relatively easy to verify that the transmission of over 60.000 pages of technical data came from outer space, not from Earth, and any scientist worth her salt would insist that her claims should be verified by repeating the experiment.

Moreover, the character played by James Woods is politically motivated to suppress evidence. It's been a while since I have seen "Contact," but I don't recall that he actually disbelieves the account given by Dr. Arroway (Foster). So do you claim that your evidence has been suppressed by the U.S. Government?

As for your Interocitor, simply reveal detailed blueprints for one that actually works, and we will go from there. At the very least you could make a fortune by selling them.

Meanwhile, are there any other works of fiction that you would like to cite in support of your personal experiences? How about "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and other movies by Ed Wood?

Ghs