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

[J Neil Schulman]

Does it take a hard struggle always to miss the point, George, or are you simply a natural genius at it?

If you have a point, other than the one on your head, I have yet to see it.

Ghs

Glad you're through alternating being sweet and vile to me, George. Consistent hostility is easier to navigate.

Atheists often are unsubtle in choosing the worst examples of theists to trot out as bad examples of what happens to you when you abandon reason and engage in whim-worshipping -- for example, no longer being an atheist. It's a technique you see in movies like Reefer Madness and Red Highway. Or what Mr. Scherk did in this discussion by trotting out end-of-worlders and a guy who went after his girlfriend with a knife.

Me, my values, work, and life weren't destroyed by a direct one-on-one with God. I didn't even have to lead an army into battle or get nailed to a cross.

I call that two points for lapsed atheism.

Edited January 8, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

I'm going to do something I haven't yet done in this discussion. Quote scripture.

Matthew 7:16 - 7:20 attributes to Jesus "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

Luke 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

Some source of this scripture had heard of Euripides, who'd said four centuries earlier:

Judge a tree from its fruit, not from its leaves.

The point is, if one claims that God is "good" and is acting on orders from God -- and God's orders are to go out and slaughter innocent people -- a rational person with a decent set of values smells a rat. It's one of the reasons I refuse to take anything in the Bible as -- er -- Gospel. Too many human beings writing scripture justify appalling crimes and vilely evil legal codes by an appeal to divine authority. Either they're lying or God is capable of acting like a drunken child-beater, and despite the Book of Job needed to get sober and make amends to his kids. I suggested in my novel Escape from Heaven (and much earlier in some lines I gave Victor Koman which he used in his novel The Jehovah Contract) that God taking on a human body, walking a mile in our moccasins, and getting himself nailed onto a cross for blasphemy seemed like a repentant God taking his medicine. I don't know what God could have done for the first two steps which require reliance on a higher power, but deciding not to interfere further in our free-will decisions would have been a good Step Nine for him.

The person I mind-melded with has a good heart. He didn't tell me to kill anyone. He did prove to me his respect for life, reason, and individual liberty. If Ayn Rand met this guy she'd like him. I may have been too harsh on Joan of Arc -- who was, after all, a patriot defending her country from invaders -- but George H. Smith's standard that God is more interested in talking to people with swords than people with pens strikes me as curious, considering how much effective use of media to spread stories is part of a whole lot of claimed human contacts with God.

Did your god happen to say anything about calling people who disagree with or criticize you assorted names, such as asshole, liar, dishonest, cocksucker, and so forth?

That's some fruit. Only someone divinely inspired could possibly think of such clever things to say.

Ghs

Just goes to show I'm not divine, George -- just a good old boy who had an interview with the Big Guy.

[J Neil Schulman]

If the eight-hour event of 2/18/1997 had happened in isolation I might have been able to negate its reality by reducing it to a ketosis/dehydration-caused waking dream, albeit one which had the remarkable feature of allowing me to function normally while overlaying the perception of imagined features. But both prior and subsequent events gave me benchmarks for testing the experience as real or unreal; and a long period of my attempting to negate it as real, and failing to do so, finally convinced me it was real.

Neil, forgive me if this question has been asked and answered previously in this thread; the sheer volume of material is such that information is easily buried.

When you say that "prior events" gave you benchmarks for testing the experience as real or unreal, are you referring to the experience in which God manifested to you and told you to stop praying so hard or he would take your life, and the dream in which you were on trial, and the experiences regarding Simpson? Or are you referring to other experiences, and if so, can you say what they were?

When you say that "subsequent events" gave you benchmarks for testing the experience as real or unreal, can you say exactly what events these were and why they supported your conclusion?

Judith

Judith, it's a gestalt of my entire life's experiences. The 2/18/1997 event fits into the fabric of my life and weaves threads that made no sense to me otherwise. It explained to me things about myself that didn't fit together. No point my recounting them here because they're personal and meaningless to anyone else.

Edited January 8, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

I subscribe to every premise Ayn Rand puts forth in this video -- including her statement that substituting faith for reason is psychologically destructive and that faith-based religion is damaging to human self-esteem and reliance on reason.

Nowhere does she assert that God can not exist. She only says it is irrational to accept the existence of God on faith without proof.

Now, Rand did say no one can prove the existence of God. She was half correct. No one can prove the existence of God to someone else.

I do not accept the existence of God based on faith. I accept it from personal experience which I've tested with my reason and found impossible to negate as unreal. Having done so, to deny it would be exactly what Rand condemned: the denial of reality of someone without the confidence in his own individual reason.

How much more of this epistemological rat poison must we endure?

Ghs

I could be clever and say, "When the epistemological rats are dead, of course." But then you'd have another chance to talk about how un-mellow I am.

What's making you choke is that Objectivist epistemology places direct experience at the root of all perception and concept-formation. You've spent a life attacking people of faith and unlike the religious I don't regard faith as a tool of knowing anything. I had an experience. You are free to dismiss my interpretation of it because I regard it as proving to myself things you consider unprovable, but you are not going to get away with dismissing me as irrational. Sneer all you like. Use all the debate tricks in the Aleister Crowley handbook to try to throw me -- hey, the first thing I learned in any fight is how to fall.

The majority of my fans are atheists, and I think that's what bugs you most of all.

Edited January 8, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

http://www.pulpless....ianprophet.html

My response to Schulman would have been what Cromwell once said:

In the bowels of Christ, think that ye might be mistaken?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I spent well over two years trying to prove to myself that I was mistaken, and couldn't do it.

[George H. Smith]

What's making you choke is that Objectivist epistemology places direct experience at the root of all perception and concept-formation.

From what I've seen you know very little about Rand's epistemology. You manage to parrot a few generalizations that one can find in many empiricist philosophers, and that's it.

You've spent a life attacking people of faith and unlike the religious I don't regard faith as a tool of knowing anything.

The fact that you don't appeal to "faith" doesn't make your claims any less idiotic.

I had an experience. You are free to dismiss my interpretation of it because I regard it as proving to myself things you consider unprovable, but you are not going to get away with dismissing me as irrational. Sneer all you like. Use all the debate tricks in the Aleister Crowley handbook to try to throw me -- hey, the first thing I learned in any fight is how to fall.

You had an experience. Whoop-dee-do! You have not proven the existence of God to yourself or to anyone else. You have managed to convince yourself that God exists, and that is all.

The majority of my fans are atheists, and I think that's what bugs you most of all.

What bugs me is your relentless and egomaniacal self-promotion with nothing more than bullshit to offer.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Atheists often are unsubtle in choosing the worst examples of theists to trot out as bad examples of what happens to you when you abandon reason and engage in whim-worshipping -- for example, no longer being an atheist. It's a technique you see in movies like Reefer Madness and Red Highway. Or what Mr. Scherk did in this discussion by trotting out end-of-worlders and a guy who went after his girlfriend with a knife.

Me, my values, work, and life weren't destroyed by a direct one-on-one with God. I didn't even have to lead an army into battle or get nailed to a cross.

I call that two points for lapsed atheism.

You are indeed an excellent example of what happens when a person abandons reason, but I didn't choose you. You trotted into this discussion on your own steam.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Did your god happen to say anything about calling people who disagree with or criticize you assorted names, such as asshole, liar, dishonest, cocksucker, and so forth?

That's some fruit. Only someone divinely inspired could possibly think of such clever things to say.

Ghs

Just goes to show I'm not divine, George -- just a good old boy who had an interview with the Big Guy.

If I recall correctly, you have claimed divine inspiration for some things you have written. The Big Guy must have deserted you during your participation on this thread. If you do manage to write a divinely inspired post, however, be sure to let us know so we can treat it with the reverence it deserves.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Does it take a hard struggle always to miss the point, George, or are you simply a natural genius at it?

If you have a point, other than the one on your head, I have yet to see it.

Ghs

Glad you're through alternating being sweet and vile to me, George. Consistent hostility is easier to navigate.

If this is true, then my future posts will make you orgasmic.

I stayed away from this thread for nearly a week, partly because it was clear that you were never going to address some key philosophical issues in a serious manner, but also because I thought my replies might be provoking you to return to a thread that you had repeatedly and unsuccessfully resolved to quit.

But you continued to drone on with the same nonsense about how you "proved" the existence of God to yourself; and how, in basing your knowledge of God on your experiences, you were being a good Randian, in effect.

You said earlier that our friendship is over. That's fine with me, because this means I can take off the gloves and treat you as I would any pompous fool.

Ghs

[Jerry Biggers]

http://www.pulpless....ianprophet.html

My response to Schulman would have been what Cromwell once said:

In the bowels of Christ, think that ye might be mistaken?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I spent well over two years trying to prove to myself that I was mistaken, and couldn't do it.

Neil,

Two whole years? Of course you did....having a pre-conceived "answer," you then went looking for something to justify what you already had concluded. To help you sort through this issue, please try the following:

1) I'm particularly fond of Chapter 4, "The Concept of God," in The Vision of Ayn Rand: Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden. (Note: The whole lecture series is also conveniently on CD for your listening pleasure while driving). The arguments made by Branden are greatly expanded upon in:

2) Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith (I was going to suggest a particular number of chapters, but upon reflection, I think all would help).

3) Re-read the above. Followed by Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies and Why Atheism?

4) Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, by Ayn Rand. Followed by The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception, by David Kelley.

I suppose that you may reply that you have read the above, or at least skimmed them. So, in addition, try these:

5) Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, by Michael Martin (Especially, Chapter 6, "The Argument From Religious Experience.").

And for the coup de grace,

6) The Impossibility of God, edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier.

And you can read these books in under your self-imposed two-year limit for considering these sort of things (even if you take notes).

[Selene]

For those of us who are not members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn:***

I could be clever and say, "When the epistemological rats are dead, of course." But then you'd have another chance to talk about how un-mellow I am.

What's making you choke is that Objectivist epistemology places direct experience at the root of all perception and concept-formation. You've spent a life attacking people of faith and unlike the religious I don't regard faith as a tool of knowing anything. I had an experience. You are free to dismiss my interpretation of it because I regard it as proving to myself things you consider unprovable, but you are not going to get away with dismissing me as irrational. Sneer all you like. Use all the debate tricks in the Aleister Crowley handbook to try to throw me -- hey, the first thing I learned in any fight is how to fall.

The majority of my fans are atheists, and I think that's what bugs you most of all.

***Aleister Crowley (pronounced /ˈkroʊli/; 12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947), born Edward Alexander Crowley, and also known as both Frater Perdurabo and The Great Beast, was an influential English occultist, mystic and ceremonial magician, responsible for founding the religious philosophy of Thelema. He was also successful in various other fields, including mountaineering, chess and poetry, and it has also been alleged that he was a spy for the British government. In his role as the founder of the Thelemite faith, he came to see himself as the prophet who was entrusted with informing humanity that it was entering the new Aeon of Horus in the early twentieth century. Born into a wealthy upper class family, as a young man he became an influential member of the esoteric Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn after befriending the order's leader, Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers. Subsequently believing that he was being contacted by his Holy Guardian Angel, an entity known as Aiwass, whilst staying in Egypt in 1904, he received a text known as The Book of the Law from what he believed was a divine source, and around which he would come to develop his new religion of Thelema. He would go on to found his own occult society, the A∴A∴ and eventually rose to become a leader of Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.), before founding a religious commune in Cefalu known as the Abbey of Thelema, which he led from 1920 through till 1923."

Adam

[J Neil Schulman]

George H. Smith has reduced himself to nothing more than a self-proclaimed mantle of superior scholarship and empty huffing; others just repeat denials of points I've already answered (I came here for an argument; not a contradiction); and I've already read the books being recommended to me, which just aren't all that good.

Once again I'm done here until someone presents a challenge I find more intelligent than Biff H. Smith's schoolyard taunts.

[Selene]

George H. Smith has reduced himself to nothing more than a self-proclaimed mantle of superior scholarship and empty huffing; others just repeat denials of points I've already answered (I came here for an argument; not a contradiction); and I've already read the books being recommended to me, which just aren't all that good.

Once again I'm done here until someone presents a challenge I find more intelligent than Biff H. Smith's schoolyard taunts.

Neil:

I have not engaged in this entire thread, but I found some sections of the discussion quite interesting. Thanks for your comfort and clarity in explaining your experience.

I was going to suggest that you visit Phil's Cathedral and report back to us, but that would be my usual satirical shot at Phil and I did not want it to be misinterpreted as denigrating your experience which I found quite enlightening.

All my good wishes in your journey.

Adam

I also have great respect for George who I consider one of the more knowledgeable individuals that I have encountered in the fullness of my life's journey

[PDS]

Neil: I wish you the best as well. Again, I do not doubt the sincerity of your interpretation of your experience, so, should you find yourself in another mind-meld, and preferably one where God gives you insights worth sharing with others, please come back and share them.

[Xray]

For those of us who are not members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn:***

I still have a Crowley Tarot deck from the long bygone days of my youth when I dabbled somewhat in esoterics (I was also a theist, a Deist, was attracted to Buddhism for a while, then became an atheist, and currently am an agnostic leaning, belief-wise, more to the atheistic side of the fence), and just couldn't resist, for comic relief, taking out the deck now, shuffling the cards and selecting one blindly.

My question was: "What is Neil's problem? "Abundance" says the card.

"Interpreting" those cards is quite easy for anyone having a bit of psychological knowledge. There is no mystery to it at all. For can could interpret that card (as well as any other card from the deck) so it would fit Neil's sitution to a T. For example, one could say "abundance" indicates that his soul is exposed to many influences he has not really been able to sort out, etc, etc. In short it's all psychology. No mystery involved.

If you want to prove proving negatives address the philosophy of the logical construct, not butter in the fridge. Your name will go down in philosophical history.

--Brant

Lighten up, Brant, where's your sense of humor gone? I like 'down to earth' examples, and the "philosophy of the logical construct" of course applies to plain ol' butter in the fridge as well.

If A, then B.

Not B

Therefore, not A.

Another example:

If is raining /A/, then the road is wet /B/

The road is not wet /Not B/.

Therefore, it is not raining /not A/].

But far more interesting in the context of this "god" discussion is the argument from ignorance, a fallacy in which both theists and atheists can get caught.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Excerpt: bolding mine:

Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the Existence of God. This, both from the theistic side (e.g. "You don't have evidence that my God doesn't exist, so regardless of my evidence - he exists!") and from the atheistic side (e.g. "You don't have evidence that your God exists, therefore he doesn't exist, regardless of whether I actually possess Evidence of absence"). Again, it is important to note that it is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof. In other words, a complete lack of evidence either way results in agnosticism, thus each side must prove that they have satisfied their own burden for providing proof (evidence).

Edited January 8, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

George H. Smith has reduced himself to nothing more than a self-proclaimed mantle of superior scholarship and empty huffing; others just repeat denials of points I've already answered (I came here for an argument; not a contradiction); and I've already read the books being recommended to me, which just aren't all that good.

Once again I'm done here until someone presents a challenge I find more intelligent than Biff H. Smith's schoolyard taunts.

I don't think you are doing justice to Ghs here, Neil.

Ghs is a very seasoned debater, one has to give him that. He also has a razor-sharp mind and I think he is every bit as serious as you in his search for truth in the God question.

If he makes some scathing remarks now and then, so what? I recall having had some pretty controversial exchanges with Ghs at OL on other issues, but whenever he got angry or even insulting, I just shrugged it off as being part of a debate.

Also, one can learn more from one's debate opponents than from friends, for unlike friends (who can have problems with this), opponents won't hesitate to point out the weak points in one's argumentation.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

George H. Smith has reduced himself to nothing more than a self-proclaimed mantle of superior scholarship and empty huffing; others just repeat denials of points I've already answered (I came here for an argument; not a contradiction); and I've already read the books being recommended to me, which just aren't all that good.

Once again I'm done here until someone presents a challenge I find more intelligent than Biff H. Smith's schoolyard taunts.

Before you return for the umpteenth time. give some thought about what your "argument" is supposed to be.

As for the books, including mine, that "just aren't all that good," at least I don't have friends interview me and then call the transcript a "book." Did God teach you how to pad a resume, or did you figure out how to do pull off that scam on your own?

Ghs

[PDS]

George H. Smith has reduced himself to nothing more than a self-proclaimed mantle of superior scholarship and empty huffing; others just repeat denials of points I've already answered (I came here for an argument; not a contradiction); and I've already read the books being recommended to me, which just aren't all that good.

Once again I'm done here until someone presents a challenge I find more intelligent than Biff H. Smith's schoolyard taunts.

Before you return for the umpteenth time. give some thought about what your "argument" is supposed to be.

As for the books, including mine, that "just aren't all that good," at least I don't have friends interview me and then call the transcript a "book." Did God teach you how to pad a resume, or did you figure out how to do pull off that scam on your own?

Ghs

I was wondering when somebody was going to bring up the unfortunate references Neil kept making about his "book." Let's just say Neil "opened the door", and Ghs came in with his barn cleaning boots on.

[George H. Smith]

Before you return for the umpteenth time. give some thought about what your "argument" is supposed to be.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has become annoyed and frustrated by this problem. Here, in summary form, is my understanding of this issue:

Neil has repeatedly proclaimed that he doesn't expect anyone to accept his story about having met God; indeed, he said (in his book) that he wouldn't have believed his own story prior to the experience. And, sure enough, no one on OL seems to have believed his story. So what is Neil's problem? Having reported his experience for the consideration of others, there seems little more for Neil to say.

The problem is that Neil does in fact want to argue for the authenticity of his experience, and he has used two primary arguments to accomplish this, without distinguishing between them or even clearly articulating what they are.

1)The first might be called the credibility argument. Even if Neil cannot "prove" to others that his experiences were authentic, he maintains that his account is at least credible, i.e.. that it deserves serious consideration by rational people. Neil then falls back on this approach to condemn his critics as closed-minded and to present himself as harbinger of enlightenment to benighted Randians. He is here to teach us new ways of looking at the world, to explore fresh possibilities without abandoning our commitment to reason.

There are two basic problems with this argument. First, Neil's story is not credible and so does not deserve to be taken seriously. Second, there is nothing new or fresh, philosophically speaking, about Neil's story. It is nothing more than the old baloney sliced once again. It is the same kind of irrationalism that religious hucksters have been peddling for many centuries.

2) Neil's second "argument" consists of the claim that he has proved the existence of God to himself, even if he cannot prove this to others. Neil, we are to believe, has been rigorously self-critical in assessing the cognitive value of his story, and he thereby proved to himself that he did indeed mind-meld with God.

Of course, since Neil has steadfastly refused to specify criteria by which he distinguishes true from false religious experiences, we are left in the dark about which criteria Neil supposedly used to assess his own claims. Nevertheless, Neil gets testy when critics suggest that he did not employ rational standards or reach a rational conclusion.

The main problem, here as elsewhere, is that Neil's "argument" could be (and has been) used to justify virtually any personal experience. "I have compelling reasons to believe x, even if I cannot prove my claim to others." What religious nut has not used some variant of this argument, and sincerely so?

Neil is playing fast and loose with the notion of "proof." At the very least, in claiming that he has proved the existence of God to himself, he should be saying that any rational person who had the same sort of experiences would also conclude that God exists. But this is far from the case. On the contrary, I suspect that almost every person on OL, if he or she had a similar experience, would not reach the same conclusion that Neil did. But does Neil even consider the philosophical implications of this possibility? Nope. He mere repeats, again and again, that he used reason, not faith, to justify his beliefs.

Neil attempts to make his beliefs distinctive and appealing by stamping them with a quasi-Randian imprimatur. He tells us that, in accepting the authenticity of his experiences, he is merely being a good Randian who grounds his knowledge on his perceptual experiences. Is Neil really so dense as not to understand the difference between the perception of, say, a color versus the supposed "perception" of a god? I frankly don't know; but in any case, Neil's claim that he is merely following Randian methodology is bullshit.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

When you say that "subsequent events" gave you benchmarks for testing the experience as real or unreal, can you say exactly what events these were and why they supported your conclusion?

Judith

Judith, it's a gestalt of my entire life's experiences. The 2/18/1997 event fits into the fabric of my life and weaves threads that made no sense to me otherwise. It explained to me things about myself that didn't fit together. No point my recounting them here because they're personal and meaningless to anyone else.

This is probably the most interesting thing Neil has said on this thread. Had he explored this subject earlier, instead of telling atheists how closed-minded they are, I would not have been nearly as hostile. Indeed, in Why Atheism? I made a similar observation about my early years as a Christian:

Such beliefs seemed to me incontrovertible, part of the warp and woof of my existence. I did not experience Christianity as a number of discrete beliefs, but as a worldview that unified my beliefs. My relationship with God did not manifest itself in different experiences, but was an interpretative framework that gave meaning to my experiences. I therefore felt no more need to prove the existence of God that to prove the existence of the ground on which I stood. For me to suppose that God did not exist would have been to imagine the unimaginable – a world turned inside out in which nothing made sense.

Although I now reject Christianity root and branch, I can nonetheless empathize with the Christian point of view. This empathetic understanding, however, is often missing in the natural atheist, i.e., the atheist who has never been a religious believer and so remains in his original condition of nonbelief. Although both types are religious outsiders, the personal atheist was once an insider, so he is more likely than the natural atheist to understand his Christian adversaries.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

George H. Smith has reduced himself to nothing more than a self-proclaimed mantle of superior scholarship and empty huffing; others just repeat denials of points I've already answered (I came here for an argument; not a contradiction); and I've already read the books being recommended to me, which just aren't all that good.

Once again I'm done here until someone presents a challenge I find more intelligent than Biff H. Smith's schoolyard taunts.

Before you return for the umpteenth time. give some thought about what your "argument" is supposed to be.

As for the books, including mine, that "just aren't all that good," at least I don't have friends interview me and then call the transcript a "book." Did God teach you how to pad a resume, or did you figure out how to do pull off that scam on your own?

Ghs

Atheism: The Case Against God was one of the seminal influences on my thinking about the issue of whether God could exist. I've never said otherwise. Apologies if my reference to books that "weren't all that good" splashed too broadly.

[J Neil Schulman]

Before you return for the umpteenth time. give some thought about what your "argument" is supposed to be.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has become annoyed and frustrated by this problem. Here, in summary form, is my understanding of this issue:

Neil has repeatedly proclaimed that he doesn't expect anyone to accept his story about having met God; indeed, he said (in his book) that he wouldn't have believed his own story prior to the experience. And, sure enough, no one on OL seems to have believed his story. So what is Neil's problem? Having reported his experience for the consideration of others, there seems little more for Neil to say.

The problem is that Neil does in fact want to argue for the authenticity of his experience, and he has used two primary arguments to accomplish this, without distinguishing between them or even clearly articulating what they are.

1)The first might be called the credibility argument. Even if Neil cannot "prove" to others that his experiences were authentic, he maintains that his account is at least credible, i.e.. that it deserves serious consideration by rational people. Neil then falls back on this approach to condemn his critics as closed-minded and to present himself as harbinger of enlightenment to benighted Randians. He is here to teach us new ways of looking at the world, to explore fresh possibilities without abandoning our commitment to reason.

There are two basic problems with this argument. First, Neil's story is not credible and so does not deserve to be taken seriously. Second, there is nothing new or fresh, philosophically speaking, about Neil's story. It is nothing more than the old baloney sliced once again. It is the same kind of irrationalism that religious hucksters have been peddling for many centuries.

2) Neil's second "argument" consists of the claim that he has proved the existence of God to himself, even if he cannot prove this to others. Neil, we are to believe, has been rigorously self-critical in assessing the cognitive value of his story, and he thereby proved to himself that he did indeed mind-meld with God.

Of course, since Neil has steadfastly refused to specify criteria by which he distinguishes true from false religious experiences, we are left in the dark about which criteria Neil supposedly used to assess his own claims. Nevertheless, Neil gets testy when critics suggest that he did not employ rational standards or reach a rational conclusion.

The main problem, here as elsewhere, is that Neil's "argument" could be (and has been) used to justify virtually any personal experience. "I have compelling reasons to believe x, even if I cannot prove my claim to others." What religious nut has not used some variant of this argument, and sincerely so?

Neil is playing fast and loose with the notion of "proof." At the very least, in claiming that he has proved the existence of God to himself, he should be saying that any rational person who had the same sort of experiences would also conclude that God exists. But this is far from the case. On the contrary, I suspect that almost every person on OL, if he or she had a similar experience, would not reach the same conclusion that Neil did. But does Neil even consider the philosophical implications of this possibility? Nope. He mere repeats, again and again, that he used reason, not faith, to justify his beliefs.

Neil attempts to make his beliefs distinctive and appealing by stamping them with a quasi-Randian imprimatur. He tells us that, in accepting the authenticity of his experiences, he is merely being a good Randian who grounds his knowledge on his perceptual experiences. Is Neil really so dense as not to understand the difference between the perception of, say, a color versus the supposed "perception" of a god? I frankly don't know; but in any case, Neil's claim that he is merely following Randian methodology is bullshit.

Ghs

George H. Smith and only George H. Smith:

If you believed God existed but that God only rarely entered into communication with human beings using an inner voice, as Joan of Arc claimed, would you still find my claim to be incredible?

Edited January 8, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[william.scherk]

If you believed God existed but that God only rarely entered into communication with human beings using an inner voice, as Joan of Arc claimed, would you still find my claim to be incredible?

What is the use of this triple-patty hypothetical -- besides showing us you are familiar with Schopenhauer's 38?

If you, Neil, did not believe god existed and so believed that god did not enter into communication with human beings, would you find a claim of god communication credible?

If you, Neil, believed Pixies existed but that Pixies only rarely entered into communications with human beings using an inner voice, as William Scherk claims, would you still find a claim of Pixie-Meld to be credible?

Yes or no only, please, Mr Pixie-Meld.

[George H. Smith]

If you believed God existed but that God only rarely entered into communication with human beings using an inner voice, as Joan of Arc claimed, would you still find my claim to be incredible?

If I believed that God exists and that he sometimes, if rarely, communicates with human beings, I would not necessarily reject your claim outright, but I would be very, very skeptical.

Btw, I don't think Joan claimed to hear an inner voice. The voices she heard, like the visions she saw, appeared to have an external origin.

Ghs

[anthony]

Mr Shulman,

Excuse my butting in here, and going over any ground already covered.

Now, there is nothing like an 'argument from personal experience' (if you like) to throw me off my stride, and that's not a bad thing.

Not knowing your past as many here do, I've impartially come to the conclusions that you are no grandstander, and are highly rational - up to this point of contention.

I accept unreservedly that you believe what you believe, and you believe you experienced something extraordinary.

But,of course, this kind of claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Question:

How, on this type of forum, did you think you could prove your claim, or impart your experience?

Second, why? Have you a desire to spread the word, despite the opposition you knew you'd get?

Whatever - personally, I respect the courage it took.

Also, I thank you for this challenge to re-check my atheistic fundamentals; I had to dig deeper than I have done for a while...

All the best to you,

Tony