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

[J Neil Schulman]

Perhaps pantheism can bridge the gap. Make God reality itself, in all its manifestations.

--Brant

anyway, I don't like "atheist" as any kind of word at all

Then why call it God?

To undercut religion. I respect reality, I don't worship it. The religionists worship God, which is silly. I'd not say I believed in God, I'd just say I was a pantheist.

--Brant

cutting the legs out from under

It's interesting that in one respect my experiences match up with ones described in the Bible. When I met God he was completely uninterested in being worshiped. I don't recall God demanding worship in conversations with Abraham, Noah, or Moses. The story of the demand for the sacrifice of Isaac has always struck me that God was hoping that Abraham would tell him to go fuck himself, but when Abraham appeared lacking in the moral integrity to do so, the story as I interpret it would mean that God had so far failed to cultivate a being with an independent mind ... and he had more work to do. Perhaps some indication of that moral advancement and independence of mind is when Abraham later on argues with God about the annihilation of two cities. Abraham didn't win that argument but at least he argued that time.

Later on, Moses not only argues with God, who wants to commit mass killing, but wins the argument and talks God out of it ... and remarkably Exodus 32:14 uses the phrase "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

The reason I'm bringing this up is that the Bible describes God as having a fully human personality, which was my experience as well, for what it's worth. The difference is the text of the Bible is written by authors anonymous and long gone, and I'm right here right now, writing under my own name.

I've only met one God as far as I know. If there are more, apparently I'm of no interest to them.

I think this kind of thing is merely justifying and re-enforcing patriarchy in an agriculture-based tribal society carried forward in time by custom and inertia as much as by any social and psychological need or necessity.

--Brant

Assuming it's fiction used as propaganda.

[Brant Gaede]

For me propaganda has a severely delimited locus. In regard to the Bible, there are too many interesting stories to collectively call them that. There must be a better word or phrase for your meaning, which I'm accepting, btw. I'd experiment with "cradle."

--Brant

[PDS]

Let's not forget that God can change. This is the explicit premise of Carl Jung's Answer to Job, and the implicit premise of Jack Miles' God: A Biography, both of which are extraordinary reads. There is also biblical warrant for this, although those verses make many Christians very unhappy. Some of the problems that typically arise when talking about "God" are a product of our assumption that the God who challenged Abraham is the "same" God--in every respect--as described by Mr. Schulman, or, more signficantly, who decided that Jesus was necessary.

I think that God having a learning curve is perhaps the most important character trait one can glean from reading the Bible. It not only means that God is capable of making mistakes and learning from them -- which makes God very human -- but it also means that God's type of consciousness is not categorically different from our own, which strongly suggests that being God-like in cognitive powers is what we get to be also if we work at it long enough.

Your point is confirmed by many of the writings of Jung. Our subconscious mind is the vast (and largely unexplored) place where such cognitive powers could be tapped.

[BaalChatzaf]

Your point is confirmed by many of the writings of Jung. Our subconscious mind is the vast (and largely unexplored) place where such cognitive powers could be tapped.

In which portion of the brain is the Subconscious Mind located?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[J Neil Schulman]

Your point is confirmed by many of the writings of Jung. Our subconscious mind is the vast (and largely unexplored) place where such cognitive powers could be tapped.

In which portion of the brain is the Subconscious Mind located?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I hesitate even to use terms like subconscious mind, since what I'm talking about isn't a lower consciousness limited to what is immediately available to the physical body's sensory organs, but a non-localized consciousness which the brain acts as a mediator to interpret. We already know that the brain has its own algorithms which regularly create symbols to "dumb down" a more complex set of data inputs. This is why, for example, there are optical illusions. I think a good way of looking at it is that we live in a far-more complex reality than the one our "conscious" mind shows us, and that the conscious mind can be looked at much like a high-level computer language that has been built up because we can't actually process (metaphorically) "binary code" that would be offered to our physical sense organs directly. Things we take for granted -- such as linear time lines with the time arrows all going in the same direction -- is, my experience leads me to believe, one of them.

So to answer your question, additional states of consciousness aren't actually "located" in the brain at all any more than external reality is -- they're just alternate programming languages we can sometimes train ourselves to use.

[George H. Smith]

I think that God having a learning curve is perhaps the most important character trait one can glean from reading the Bible. It not only means that God is capable of making mistakes and learning from them -- which makes God very human -- but it also means that God's type of consciousness is not categorically different from our own, which strongly suggests that being God-like in cognitive powers is what we get to be also if we work at it long enough.

Why do you think that a god or gods had anything to do with the Bible? As people become more civilized, so (usually) do their gods. You've got the tail wagging the dog.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

I think that God having a learning curve is perhaps the most important character trait one can glean from reading the Bible. It not only means that God is capable of making mistakes and learning from them -- which makes God very human -- but it also means that God's type of consciousness is not categorically different from our own, which strongly suggests that being God-like in cognitive powers is what we get to be also if we work at it long enough.

Why do you think that a god or gods had anything to do with the Bible? As people become more civilized, so (usually) do their gods. You've got the tail wagging the dog.

Ghs

George, of course I have no direct evidence that God had anything to do with the stories in the Bible. But we're talking about very old stories, old enough that any events described in them become historically problematic to prove or disprove with hard evidence. I'm fairly confident that the time periods usually ascribed to a lot of the stories are wildly inaccurate. I'm also well aware of echoes in Judeo-Christian scripture from earlier stories.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is God described as human in the Bible (as well as gods described in Greek and Norse stories) because the stories were written by humans? Or because beings with a human-like consciousness precede our own species and we've had contact with them?

My personal experience preferences the latter explanation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In which portion of the brain is the Subconscious Mind located?

Bob,

Most of it probably inhabits the membranes of nerve and brain cells--and even other cells for that matter. Cell membranes seem to be where the bulk of memory resides.

I got this notion from the work of Bruce Lipton (a cell biologist who is, let's say, a bit unorthodox). Way back before stem cell stuff was a meme, Lipton was cloning cells. He also performed experiments where he removed the DNA from some cells and watched them perform perfectly over months.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Why do you think that a god or gods had anything to do with the Bible? As people become more civilized, so (usually) do their gods. You've got the tail wagging the dog.

George, of course I have no direct evidence that God had anything to do with the stories in the Bible. But we're talking about very old stories, old enough that any events described in them become historically problematic to prove or disprove with hard evidence. I'm fairly confident that the time periods usually ascribed to a lot of the stories are wildly inaccurate. I'm also well aware of echoes in Judeo-Christian scripture from earlier stories.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is God described as human in the Bible (as well as gods described in Greek and Norse stories) because the stories were written by humans? Or because beings with a human-like consciousness precede our own species and we've had contact with them?

My personal experience preferences the latter explanation.

No offense, Neil, but one's personal experience preferences count for zilch when analyzing historical records. This is not a chicken/egg problem. It is a matter of which explanation is more credible.

Countless people throughout history have claimed to have experienced a god in some fashion, so unless you are willing to accept every account at face value, you will need some kind of criterion to distinguish the veridical from the false. For example, when an NFL player claims that God helped him to score a touchdown, do you believe him? When the sole survival of a plane crash claims that his survival was owing to divine intervention (i.e., a miracle), do you accept this explanation? If not, why not? What criterion do you use to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy accounts?

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

Why do you think that a god or gods had anything to do with the Bible? As people become more civilized, so (usually) do their gods. You've got the tail wagging the dog.

George, of course I have no direct evidence that God had anything to do with the stories in the Bible. But we're talking about very old stories, old enough that any events described in them become historically problematic to prove or disprove with hard evidence. I'm fairly confident that the time periods usually ascribed to a lot of the stories are wildly inaccurate. I'm also well aware of echoes in Judeo-Christian scripture from earlier stories.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is God described as human in the Bible (as well as gods described in Greek and Norse stories) because the stories were written by humans? Or because beings with a human-like consciousness precede our own species and we've had contact with them?

My personal experience preferences the latter explanation.

No offense, Neil, but one's personal experience preferences count for zilch when analyzing historical records. This is not a chicken/egg problem. It is a matter of which explanation is more credible.

Countless people throughout history have claimed to have experienced a god in some fashion, so unless you are willing to accept every account at face value, you will need some kind of criterion to distinguish the veridical from the false. For example, when an NFL player claims that God helped him to score a touchdown, do you believe him? When the sole survival of a plane crash claims that his survival was owing to divine intervention (i.e., a miracle), do you accept this explanation? If not, why not? What criterion do you use to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy accounts?

Ghs

The exact same criteria I'd have to use on a jury when evaluating the testimony of any witness.

[George H. Smith]

No offense, Neil, but one's personal experience preferences count for zilch when analyzing historical records. This is not a chicken/egg problem. It is a matter of which explanation is more credible.

Countless people throughout history have claimed to have experienced a god in some fashion, so unless you are willing to accept every account at face value, you will need some kind of criterion to distinguish the veridical from the false. For example, when an NFL player claims that God helped him to score a touchdown, do you believe him? When the sole survival of a plane crash claims that his survival was owing to divine intervention (i.e., a miracle), do you accept this explanation? If not, why not? What criterion do you use to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy accounts?

Ghs

The exact same criteria I'd have to use on a jury when evaluating the testimony of any witness.

In the case of the Bible, you first have to be reasonably certain that the writer in question was actually a "witness" to what he reports. This wasn't the case in many cases. No reputable biblical scholar since the mid-19th century, for example, has believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Indeed, this traditional belief got big holes poked in it during the 12th century by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, and the coup de grace was delivered by Richard Simon, Thomas Hobbes, Spinoza, and others during the 17th century.

Likewise, outside of fundamentalist circles, virtually no biblical scholar would claim any longer that Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew, or that Mark wrote the Book of Mark, or that Luke wrote the Book of Luke. Many of the epistles attributed to Paul, however, were probably written by him.

In short, in most biblical accounts you are dealing with accounts that are far removed, whether by decades or by centuries, from real witnesses. You would never get a chance to evaluate the credibility of such "witnesses" in court, because they would never be permitted to testify in the first place. It's called "hearsay."

Ghs

[PDS]

Einstein weighs in here.

[PDS]

George, appropos of nothing in particular, isn't most of what we consider history "hearsay?"

[George H. Smith]

George, appropos of nothing in particular, isn't most of what we consider history "hearsay?"

This depends on what period of history we are talking about. Generally speaking, the further back in time we go, the more hearsay comes into play.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

What criterion do you use to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy accounts?

The hard question, especially when applied to one's own accounts, even more so when applied to the experience of meeting the master of the universe, good old grand old god.

In a world that contains ecstatic religious hallucinations from every faith, I simply add Neil to the list of claimants.

A big month at OL -- an Intelligent Design crank, an I Met God crank, an anti-Muslim crank and now a Dianetics crank.

Engrams, holy spirits, immortal beings, fingers of creation! Onward, upward, Objectivists!

[J Neil Schulman]

No offense, Neil, but one's personal experience preferences count for zilch when analyzing historical records. This is not a chicken/egg problem. It is a matter of which explanation is more credible.

Countless people throughout history have claimed to have experienced a god in some fashion, so unless you are willing to accept every account at face value, you will need some kind of criterion to distinguish the veridical from the false. For example, when an NFL player claims that God helped him to score a touchdown, do you believe him? When the sole survival of a plane crash claims that his survival was owing to divine intervention (i.e., a miracle), do you accept this explanation? If not, why not? What criterion do you use to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy accounts?

Ghs

The exact same criteria I'd have to use on a jury when evaluating the testimony of any witness.

In the case of the Bible, you first have to be reasonably certain that the writer in question was actually a "witness" to what he reports. This wasn't the case in many cases. No reputable biblical scholar since the mid-19th century, for example, has believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Indeed, this traditional belief got big holes poked in it during the 12th century by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, and the coup de grace was delivered by Richard Simon, Thomas Hobbes, Spinoza, and others during the 17th century.

Likewise, outside of fundamentalist circles, virtually no biblical scholar would claim any longer that Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew, or that Mark wrote the Book of Mark, or that Luke wrote the Book of Luke. Many of the epistles attributed to Paul, however, were probably written by him.

In short, in most biblical accounts you are dealing with accounts that are far removed, whether by decades or by centuries, from real witnesses. You would never get a chance to evaluate the credibility of such "witnesses" in court, because they would never be permitted to testify in the first place. It's called "hearsay."

Ghs

George, nowhere will you find me saying that anything in scripture is to be taken on face value as either historical or "true." But nonetheless even fiction tells us a lot about reality. In the case of scripture I think there are kernels of truth that can be found, separating wheat from chaff. And I find stories in scripture that parallel some of my own experiences, so I examine them more closely and use them for whatever value I can get out of them.

Going back to your statement that "one's personal experience preferences count for zilch when analyzing historical records," I'd say that one's personal experiences are the only basis for building up a set of criteria which can analyze the external world, its accounts, stories, and records -- and that includes what premises of scientific inquiry one regards as definitive. For example, I believe that while the principle of parsimony -- Occam's Razor -- is useful, reality is messy enough to give us lots of cases where the simplest explanation is wrong. Likewise, just because the principles of positivism require falsifiability in testing facts, I'm confident that non-falsifiable facts play a central role in trying to figure out what is and isn't. Lots of cases boil down to "preferencing" one interpretation over another with nothing else to go on than what one's total life experience brings to the analysis.

[PDS]

What criterion do you use to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy accounts?

The hard question, especially when applied to one's own accounts, even more so when applied to the experience of meeting the master of the universe, good old grand old god.

In a world that contains ecstatic religious hallucinations from every faith, I simply add Neil to the list of claimants.

A big month at OL -- an Intelligent Design crank, an I Met God crank, an anti-Muslim crank and now a Dianetics crank.

Engrams, holy spirits, immortal beings, fingers of creation! Onward, upward, Objectivists!

Don't forget the "if consenting adults do something I disagree with, one must be a Nazi Doctor crank." Oh wait, he's been around longer than a month, hasn't he?

I will say this: I never expected to run into a self-proclaimed Objectivist-Scientologist...

[George H. Smith]

Einstein weighs in here.

From the article:

In a 1997 issue of Skeptic magazine (Vol 5, No. 2), one of my contributing editors, Michael Gilmore, published an article on Einstein’s God based on a series of letters that he obtained from a World War II U.S. Navy veteran named Guy H. Raner, who corresponded with Einstein on the God question. We republished those letters in their entirety for the first time anywhere. In the first letter, dated June 14, 1945, sent from the USS Bougainville in the Pacific Ocean, Raner recounts a conversation he had on the ship with a Jesuit-educated Catholic officer who claimed that Einstein converted from atheism to theism when he was confronted by a Jesuit priest with three irrefutable syllogisms: “The syllogisms were: A design demands a designer; The universe is a design; therefore there must have been a designer.”

This story sounds like bunk to me. For one thing, I don't think Einstein was ever an atheist --though his Spinoza-style pantheism came pretty close. For another thing, it is difficult to believe that Einstein would fall for such simplistic pap as the reported version of the Design Argument, or that he hadn't heard the same argument many times before.

The story reminds of the many death-bed conversion stories that circulated for decades after the deaths of famous unbelievers. Christians looking to make names for themselves told stories about having converted Voltaire and Thomas Paine from Deism to Christianity, and Robert Ingersoll from agnosticism to Christianity. (Ingersoll, the "Great Infidel," once remarked, correctly, that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between agnosticism and atheism.)

For those who would like to familiarize themselves with the literature of freethought, I wrote a lengthy bibliographical essay on this subject for Libertarian Review in 1977. It can be found here. (Scroll down to page 12.) My essay contains a section on "Jesus Revisionism" -- a substantial body of literature that questions or denies the historical reality of Jesus.

My essay was reprinted, with some minor corrections, in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

What criterion do you use to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy accounts?

The hard question, especially when applied to one's own accounts, even more so when applied to the experience of meeting the master of the universe, good old grand old god.

In a world that contains ecstatic religious hallucinations from every faith, I simply add Neil to the list of claimants.

A big month at OL -- an Intelligent Design crank, an I Met God crank, an anti-Muslim crank and now a Dianetics crank.

Engrams, holy spirits, immortal beings, fingers of creation! Onward, upward, Objectivists!

And at least one crank whose demand to satisfy his skepticism is always, "If I can't do it then you can't either."

[Selene]

What criterion do you use to distinguish trustworthy from untrustworthy accounts?

The hard question, especially when applied to one's own accounts, even more so when applied to the experience of meeting the master of the universe, good old grand old god.

In a world that contains ecstatic religious hallucinations from every faith, I simply add Neil to the list of claimants.

A big month at OL -- an Intelligent Design crank, an I Met God crank, an anti-Muslim crank and now a Dianetics crank.

Engrams, holy spirits, immortal beings, fingers of creation! Onward, upward, Objectivists!

William:

I do not think she has established any "crankiness."

Adam

[PDS]

Einstein weighs in here.

From the article:

In a 1997 issue of Skeptic magazine (Vol 5, No. 2), one of my contributing editors, Michael Gilmore, published an article on Einstein’s God based on a series of letters that he obtained from a World War II U.S. Navy veteran named Guy H. Raner, who corresponded with Einstein on the God question. We republished those letters in their entirety for the first time anywhere. In the first letter, dated June 14, 1945, sent from the USS Bougainville in the Pacific Ocean, Raner recounts a conversation he had on the ship with a Jesuit-educated Catholic officer who claimed that Einstein converted from atheism to theism when he was confronted by a Jesuit priest with three irrefutable syllogisms: “The syllogisms were: A design demands a designer; The universe is a design; therefore there must have been a designer.”

This story sounds like bunk to me. For one thing, I don't think Einstein was ever an atheist --though his Spinoza-style pantheism came pretty close. For another thing, it is difficult to believe that Einstein would fall for such simplistic pap as the reported version of the Design Argument, or that he hadn't heard the same argument many times before.

The story reminds of the many death-bed conversion stories that circulated for decades after the deaths of famous unbelievers. Christians looking to make names for themselves told stories about having converted Voltaire and Thomas Paine from Deism to Christianity, and Robert Ingersoll from agnosticism to Christianity. (Ingersoll, the "Great Infidel," once remarked, correctly, that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between agnosticism and atheism.)

For those who would like to familiarize themselves with the literature of freethought, I wrote a lengthy bibliographical essay on this subject for Libertarian Review in 1977. It can be found here. (Scroll down to page 12.) My essay contains a section of "Jesus Revisionism" -- a substantial body of literature that questions or denies the historical reality of Jesus.

My essay was reprinted, with some minor corrections, in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.

Ghs

George: According to the article, Einstein himself called the story bunk: "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere — childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world — as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."

And, re the Ingersoll quote, I still love the phrase that "an atheist is an agnostic with his sleeves rolled up."

[bmacwilliam]

[william.scherk]

I do not think she has established any "crankiness."

Have you yourself gagged your way through the establishing text of Scientology, Adam?

Here's some lines that set my BS meter pinging, from SOLO:

I don't really think Hubbard made any claims that are that strange

[ . . . ]

The core of Scientology is not its metaphysical views (though LRH developed Dianetics based on his investigations in this area), the point of Dianetics is to use Tech to clear the mind and to become Non-Reactive

[ . . . ]

[W]

e are energetic beings which make use of physiological processes (such as human bodies) and bond with them.

I have a low bar for woo, is all. There is no reason a bright, friendly, talented person cannot be a crank on some topics -- or be otherwise deluded, obsessed or delimited by spiritist zeal. I can appreciate that person but discount the bunk.

That said, I think Chu-hua is the best of the bunch. She might be crankish on Dianetics, but she is neither crabby nor arrogant nor smug -- as the others on my shortlist seem to be. I have no doubt that her reason will lead her to abandon Scientology in the long run. The other guys are probably doomed to be married to their faith.

The word crank has sting but does its job. I love the way Wikipedians introduce their page on Crank:

A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.

Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term however does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.

[George H. Smith]

George: According to the article, Einstein himself called the story bunk: "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere — childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world — as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."

Sorry -- I stopped reading the article to post the passage but got distracted and never returned to it. At least my instincts were correct.

And, re the Ingersoll quote, I still love the phrase that "an atheist is an agnostic with his sleeves rolled up."

One of my favorite Ingersoll lines runs something like this: With a little soap, baptism is a good thing.

I first read this line while a sophomore in high school. I thought it was hilarious, but some people I quoted the line to didn't seem to agree.

Ingersoll, though not generally well-known today, was a very big deal in 19th century America. His speeches attracted thousands of people, and, in the pre-microphone age, the voice of the great orator carried far enough for all to hear.

From the Wiki article on Ingersoll:

His radical views on religion, slavery, woman's suffrage, and other issues of the day effectively prevented him from ever pursuing or holding political offices higher than that of state attorney general. Illinois Republicans tried to pressure him into running for governor on the condition that Ingersoll conceal his agnosticism during the campaign, which he refused on the basis that concealing information from the public was immoral.

A bio of Ingersoll that I read many years ago told the following story: When a reporter visited Ingersoll at his home, Ingersoll asked the reporter if he would like to see the world's most expensive library. Of course, the reporter said Yes, so Ingersoll took him into another room. The library, which contained many freethought volumes, was impressive, but the reporter was skeptical, saying that he had seen larger and more expensive libraries before. "This library cost me the presidency," Ingersoll replied.

Ghs

[Selene]

I do not think she has established any "crankiness."

Have you yourself gagged your way through the establishing text of Scientology, Adam?

I have a low bar for woo, is all. There is no reason a bright, friendly, talented person cannot be a crank on some topics -- or be otherwise deluded, obsessed or delimited by spiritist zeal. I can appreciate that person but discount the bunk.

That said, I think Chu-hua is the best of the bunch. She might be crankish on Dianetics, but she is neither crabby nor arrogant nor smug -- as the others on my shortlist seem to be. I have no doubt that her reason will lead her to abandon Scientology in the long run. The other guys are probably doomed to be married to their faith.

William:

Yes, I have unfortunately have read some of Dianetics. I shuddered to think that I would have to read through the refutations that she was going to encounter here because that would mean that I would have to re read the dianetics screed again.

Your qualification is fine. I do not regularly visit, or regularly read any of the other forums in Rand land except when they are linked from here, so I have not read any of her other posts.

You know that I respect your opinions and that one seemed a little premature. No biggy.

Adam

Edited December 15, 2010 by Selene