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

[J Neil Schulman]

Not nearly as profound as some questions I discuss in "Some Irreverant Questions Concerning God," a chapter in Why Atheism? -- especially "Can God Have an Orgasm?" Now that is truly profound.

We may have just stumbled upon the true cause of rain....

Ghs

I don't remember whether I wrote it in this thread or in a discussion on Facebook, but I recently wrote that if you want to piss off Christians start referring to the Big Bang as God's orgasm.

Edited January 11, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[Greybird]

There is a lesson to be learned here: Be extremely cautious before you ask to be touched by the hand of God, because you never know where that hand has been.

You'd think God would at least invest in a few gazillion pairs of latex gloves. Even the TSA manages to do that.

[George H. Smith]

I invited my good friend, psychologist Sharon Presley, to join this thread. Even if she doesn't do this immediately, you can be sure she will be reading the posts starting tomorrow.

So mind your manners, boys. You don't want to mess with The Prez. If you do, come equipped with a cast iron jock strap.

As if Neil didn't already have enough to worry about....

Seriously, since Sharon is a professor of psychology, I thought she might have some valuable input on the topics of hallucinations, psychosomatic manifestations, and the like. And she is a true lady...well, unless you piss her off. Then witches who steal penises will be the least of your worries.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Since I mentioned Sharon Presley, I want to plug her latest book, Standing Up to Experts and Authorities: How to Avoid Being Intimidated, Manipulated, and Abused. This is a very practical, down-to-Earth guide that people who have problems in the area will find especially useful. I highly recommend it -- and those who know me know that I don't recommend books unless I am enthusiastic about them.

You can find some reviews on Amazon here . For some reason the book is listed as not yet available, but I know you can get copies directly from Sharon. I will need to get the precise info, however.

I would like to start a separate thread on this topic, one that revolves around Sharon's book, if enough people are interested.

Ghs

[Starbuckle]

GHS writes: "You don't want to mess with The Prez. If you do, come equipped with a cast iron jock strap."

We'll be okay, so long as nobody mentions pronouns.

[J Neil Schulman]

Since I mentioned Sharon Presley, I want to plug her latest book, Standing Up to Experts and Authorities: How to Avoid Being Intimidated, Manipulated, and Abused. This is a very practical, down-to-Earth guide that people who have problems in the area will find especially useful. I highly recommend it -- and those who know me know that I don't recommend books unless I am enthusiastic about them.

You can find some reviews on Amazon here . For some reason the book is listed as not yet available, but I know you can get copies directly from Sharon. I will need to get the precise info, however.

I would like to start a separate thread on this topic, one that revolves around Sharon's book, if enough people are interested.

Ghs

Sharon, welcome to my Inquisition.

Keep in mind that the last time we met I bought your latest book and had you autograph it to my daughter.

Just sayin.' :-)

[J Neil Schulman]

Bill Maher on Tuesday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno called the National Rifle Association "the assassin's lobby," and called for a renewed Democratic Party to bring back gun control. On previous occasions he's derided anyone who opposes mandatory government health care. Man, it's at times like this I feel so blessed not to have to call this contemptible atheist totalitarian (except for smoking pot) shithead one of my own.

Edited January 12, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman

[Brant Gaede]

Bill Maher on Tuesday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno called the National Rifle Association "the assassin's lobby," and called for a renewed Democratic Party to bring back gun control. On previous occasions he's derided anyone who opposes mandatory government health care. Man, it's at times like this I feel so blessed not to have to call this contemptible atheist totalitarian (except for smoking pot) shithead one of my own.

We can use people like Bill, and do; they are walking, talking reductio ad absurdums.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Bill Maher on Tuesday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno called the National Rifle Association "the assassin's lobby," and called for a renewed Democratic Party to bring back gun control. On previous occasions he's derided anyone who opposes mandatory government health care. Man, it's at times like this I feel so blessed not to have to call this contemptible atheist totalitarian (except for smoking pot) shithead one of my own.

Maher is a pain in the arse. He has raised insufferability to a high art.

I think of him as the left wing Dennis Miller

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 12, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Greybird]

Sharon, welcome to my Inquisition. [...]

In which sense do you mean this, Neil? One you're conducting, or one you're enduring?

If the former, it's not at all successful, to say the least. If the latter, well, you brought figurative popcorn and soda and settled down willingly into participating.

Neither sense is becoming to you.

[Greybird]

Neil's allusion to Bill Maher is not the out-of-left-field sally that it appears to be. In a current Facebook discussion (not linked here, as only Neil's contacts over there can read it), the original topic has drifted or devolved into discussing Maher's film "Religulous."

Neil compares Maher's presentation and argumentation tactics to those shown toward him in this thread. He said that Scherk's quoted, lurid example of a God-delusion from the news was being likened to Neil's own viewpoints. And that this was dishonest, and akin to what Neil says is Maher's dishonesty. (About Neil's "own," as he notes above — that is, theists generally.)

I'll post here my own replies thus far to Neil about this.

* * *

[someone describing himself as "an atheist" didn't like it that Neil thought Scherk was doing a smear job about theists by selective news examples, and chose to un-friend Neil (remove him as a Facebook contact).]

This non-theist thinks such de-friending makes little sense — either at Facebook or in RealLife. Even though [the un-friender] could well be annoyed at how, in fact, Neil has misconstrued what he alludes to about Scherk. Yet that Objectivist Living thread has been an invective-fest from all sides, providing little genuine understanding.

[Maher's film "Religulous" was brought up as, supposedly, a selective "cheap hit piece" on theists in general.]

[...] Maher is no libertarian, despite some moments of standing up to authoritarians. (For that should come from broader principle.) And "Religulous" is one of the best skewerings of irrationality and hypocrisy I've ever seen.

[...] If one goes into seeing "Religulous" expecting a Maher stand-up session or HBO talk-talk, it'll look, superficially, like a cheap hit piece. It's nothing of the kind, with his less-than-obvious drawing of some of his parallels, but I didn't grasp all of what he was doing on first viewing. (A bad second-run-theater print. I bought a DVD.)

His aim is satire and not documentary, his targets are legitimate, his method is arch but rarely unfair. If anything, he's far too EASY on religion.

His tropes also remind me of many [used by Neil in his second novel] "The Rainbow Cadenza" ... chew on that one, Neil. I wonder if you fear seeing Maher run as far as he does with some rhetorical balls (you can put multiple meanings on THAT noun) that you decided to drop.

[...] For someone who avers that his god doesn't involve religion or faith, you seem to be bending over backwards these days to defend the broadest expanses and dankest corners of, well, religion and faith. I find that exceedingly curious.

I'm not outraged by it, as are most at Objectivist Living. Perplexed, perhaps, given your more judicious (and satirical) temperament in limning Joan Darris [the heroine protagonist of "Rainbow"] and her bollixed-up future world. But that was created before your [divine] "meetings" took place.

[Neil contended I took words of his, about assembling examples, out of context.]

I read what you wrote, Neil. I then expressed MY bemusement or perplexity as to why you're so concerned about that process. When you disdain religious practice, why should it matter so much to you who someone like Maher highlights in his film?

Whether Maher's FAIR in what he says, and whether he's properly REPRESENTATIVE about what he selects, are related but distinct matters. I don't see him being notably unfair. Every point of belief and its abuse (of other people or of principles of rational discourse) that he highlights deserves, in full, the scorn he dumps upon it.

But being representative? To me that isn't material, to any significant degree, in judging something that's not a documentary. Which "Religulous" is not. It's a satire-laden personal indictment, not a case proved in court — even the less rigorous one of public opinion.

[...] I don't expect you to like Maher's satire, but with how your second novel tweaked societal preconceptions about faith, sex, and power (THIS society's) in imagining a World Federation of two centuries hence, I had thought you'd better appreciate his impulses.

Appreciating Maher's satirical achievement as to religion isn't any endorsement of his having taken authoritarian stands in other areas.

I'll give him this much, though: He's forthright about them and doesn't back down from them. That's easier to deal with than any number of Tea Party GOPers who don't plan to actually act on, in Congress, anything they've told the electorate they profess.

* * *

I guess I've jumped into this La Brea Tar Pit now, haven't I? After managing to avoid anything more than an occasional aside for the first 38 pages? Very well, then, bring it on.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Greybird

[J Neil Schulman]

Sharon, welcome to my Inquisition. [...]

In which sense do you mean this, Neil? One you're conducting, or one you're enduring?

If the former, it's not at all successful, to say the least. If the latter, well, you brought figurative popcorn and soda and settled down willingly into participating.

Neither sense is becoming to you.

Endured.

[william.scherk]

I guess I've jumped into this La Brea Tar Pit now, haven't I? After managing to avoid anything more than an occasional aside for the first 38 pages? Very well, then, bring it on.

I am glad you jumped into the pit, Steve. I was surprised to hear of a Facebook discussion where OLers were named and excoriated off premises, but understand why Neil would want a gated alternative to The Spanish Inquisition, where he could expect more support and less dogpile.

It can't be easy being billed as the only libertarian writer alloyed with The Prime Mover.

[J Neil Schulman]

I guess I've jumped into this La Brea Tar Pit now, haven't I? After managing to avoid anything more than an occasional aside for the first 38 pages? Very well, then, bring it on.

I am glad you jumped into the pit, Steve. I was surprised to hear of a Facebook discussion where OLers were named and excoriated off premises, but understand why Neil would want a gated alternative to The Spanish Inquisition, where he could expect more support and less dogpile.

It can't be easy being billed as the only libertarian writer alloyed with The Prime Mover.

"Alloyed" with?

Hmmm.

Neilium. Rhymes with Helium. A noble gas, by all accounts.

Jayneiluminum. (Jayneiluminium in the UK) Used in the construction of astral passenger aircraft.

[PDS]

Neil: it would appear that F.Lee Bailey does not seem to share your views on possible further reasonable doubts surrounding the OJ's guilt. Thoughts?

[Xray]

Neil has had a much easier time of it on OL than he would on many forums. This is because he is unlikely to find on OL people with competing theistic and supernaturalistic claims. If Neil were to join, say, a good Christian forum, he would find himself trumped again and again by people who have also talked to God (many more times than Neil has), and who would inform Neil that he is a mere novice in this realm who doesn't understand his encounter with God. They would then proceed to instruct Neil on a correct understanding of God, as Neil has attempted to instruct us.

In forums populated by believers, Neil would soon find himself entangled in fights about the true religion/true belief etc.

He would never get out of that "Believer's Maze" as I call it, where they err around, with the various belief systems based on epistemological fallacies fighting each other.

If Neil were to join, say, a good Christian forum, he would find himself trumped again and again by people who have also talked to God (many more times than Neil has), and who would inform Neil that he is a mere novice in this realm who doesn't understand his encounter with God. They would then proceed to instruct Neil on a correct understanding of God, as Neil has attempted to instruct us.

And since Neil believes that his subjective feeling of having had a god encounter proves the existence of a god, he can't very well deny the other believers' similar claims. He thus deprives himself of using the sharpest weapon against "god encounterers" of whatever religios belief: arguing form a strictly epistemological standpoint, which exposes their thinking error.

The error consists in not separating belief from empirical knowledge.

Here on this thread, Neil is continually handed epistemological life lines which if he took them would help him to scramble out of the swamp, but he does not want to grasp those lines. The price is too high for him, at least at the stage he is currently in: it could result in abandoning his belief.

The thread title btw does not address the premises of the belief itself. It merely says if Neil is "logically" justified in believing in God.

Is little Johnny justified (logically) in believing in Santa Claus? If Johnny accepts the premise as true that Santa Claus comes through the chimney and is also told by his parents that Santa filled the stockings with goodies, Johny's belief is logically justified. He may even regard the filled stockings as "proof" of Santa's existence.

Is Neil S. Shulman justified (logically) in believing in God? Yes, if he accepts premises as true like e. g. that Christ rose from the grave on the third day. (Neil really believes this).

"Is Neil justified in accepting such premises as true?" is the more radical approach to the issue.

Like Ba'al wrote on another thread:

Logic cannot determine if the premises of an argument are true or not.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Xray

[Starbuckle]

Greybird writes (or quotes): "Yet that Objectivist Living thread has been an invective-fest from all sides, providing little genuine understanding."

It's hard to tell who said this from the large block of text Greybird pastes and/or quotes and/or comments on from the Facebook thread, but the above statement, despite the stretches of vituperation and counter-vituperation that can be found in this OL thread, is simply false.

I can point to probably a few dozen, at least, of posts by GHS that are substantive and illuminating; some of which are very neat epistemological commentaries. And Neil, far from residing continuously in splenetic mode, has merely dropped in and out of it, and has indeed provided much sturdy and robust material for an expanded understanding of how little evidentiary support he can muster for his fantastical conclusions, and how little justified (logically) he is in making his illogical leaps. (I hope that my calm and detached, rational, just and indisputable observation here is not set down as mere "invective.")

Of course, whether understanding is to be derived from any particular argument or exposition depends not only upon the argument and the strength of its logic and observations, but also upon the effort of the reader.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Starbuckle

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil: it would appear that F.Lee Bailey does not seem to share your views on possible further reasonable doubts surrounding the OJ's guilt. Thoughts?

I'm confused. I think O.J. Simpson was innocent of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. F. Lee Bailey thinks O.J. Simpson was innocent of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. What views are Bailey and I not sharing?

[J Neil Schulman]

Is little Johnny justified (logically) in believing in Santa Claus? If Johnny accepts the premise as true that Santa Claus comes through the chimney and is also told by his parents that Santa filled the stockings with goodies, Johny's belief is logically justified. He may even regard the filled stockings as "proof" of Santa's existence.

Is Neil S. Shulman justified (logically) in believing in God? Yes, if he accepts premises as true like e. g. that Christ rose from the grave on the third day. (Neil really believes this).

I accept on faith the Christian dogma that Christ rose on the third day? Thanks for telling me that since it's news to me.

"Is Neil justified in accepting such premises as true?" is the more radical approach to the issue.

Like Ba'al wrote on another thread:

Logic cannot determine if the premises of an argument are true or not.

Santa would need to lose his pot belly to come down most chimneys.

On the other hand, I don't have a theoretical problem with a being not having any neutrons or protons bulking him up making his way through a black hole.

[PDS]

Neil: it would appear that F.Lee Bailey does not seem to share your views on possible further reasonable doubts surrounding the OJ's guilt. Thoughts?

I'm confused. I think O.J. Simpson was innocent of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. F. Lee Bailey thinks O.J. Simpson was innocent of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. What views are Bailey and I not sharing?

His theory of innocence seems different that yours.

He talks about the defense calling 4 witnesses who could have further helped OJ's case, and none of them (seem to) fit with your theory of innocence. In other words, the source of his reasonable doubts are different than yours. The question was not a quibble or an accusation--I was simply wondering what you thought about his recently published insights, and whether they actually fit with your theory.

[sorry for the clumsy question. I am a former prosecutor and have tried murder cases, and predicted OJ's acquittal at the time...I was trying not to be too technical with my language.]

[J Neil Schulman]

Greybird writes (or quotes): "Yet that Objectivist Living thread has been an invective-fest from all sides, providing little genuine understanding."

It's hard to tell who said this from the large block of text Greybird pastes and/or quotes and/or comments on from the Facebook thread, but the above statement, despite the stretches of vituperation and counter-vituperation that can be found in this OL thread, is simply false.

I can point to probably a few dozen, at least, of posts by GHS that are substantive and illuminating; some of which are very neat epistemological commentaries. And Neil, far from residing continuously in splenetic mode, has merely dropped in and out of it, and has indeed provided much sturdy and robust material for an expanded understanding of how little evidentiary support he can muster for his fantastical conclusions, and how little justified (logically) he is in making his illogical leaps. (I hope that my calm and detached, rational, just and indisputable observation here is not set down as mere "invective.")

Of course, whether understanding is to be derived from any particular argument or exposition depends not only upon the argument and the strength of its logic and observations, but also upon the effort of the reader.

Again, I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion of what evidence I could offer to support my assertion of a mind-meld with God, since every documentary account I have affixed my byline to on this subject has repeatedly denied that I have any to offer anyone else. All I have ever said is that I found validations of the experience enough to overcome my own skepticism. These validations carry no weight for anyone else. Therefore I relate my experiences as raw anecdotal data, with no reasonable expectation of convincing anyone else of their truth. But I do suggest that when others of a rational mindset -- including George H. Smith -- relate personal experiences of what have sometimes been tagged "the supernatural," the assumption of hallucination as an explanation of such phenomena is weakened.

Starbuckle, you never answered this question when I posed it earlier in this discussion: what was it you hoped to accomplish when you started this discussion? If it's just to make fun of me and make yourself feel more secure in your worldview, I think a lot of people including atheists could agree that's just pathetic.

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil: it would appear that F.Lee Bailey does not seem to share your views on possible further reasonable doubts surrounding the OJ's guilt. Thoughts?

I'm confused. I think O.J. Simpson was innocent of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. F. Lee Bailey thinks O.J. Simpson was innocent of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. What views are Bailey and I not sharing?

His theory of innocence seems different that yours.

He talks about the defense calling 4 witnesses who could have further helped OJ's case, and none of them (seem to) fit with your theory of innocence. In other words, the source of his reasonable doubts are different than yours. The question was not a quibble or an accusation--I was simply wondering what you thought about his recently published insights, and whether they actually fit with your theory.

[sorry for the clumsy question. I am a former prosecutor and have tried murder cases, and predicted OJ's acquittal at the time...I was trying not to be too technical with my language.]

I read every published book on the Brown-Goldman murders when I was researching my own book on the murders, The Frame of the Century?, published online in 1997 and an expanded and finalized version published in trade paperback in 1999. I was aware of Bailey's uncalled witnesses from one of those books back then, Schiller and Willwerth's American Tragedy.

[william.scherk]

For those who would like a snapshot of Neil's beliefs, I have excerpted a few stand-alone comments from this long thread. The context of each of the remarks can be found in the hyperlinks at the edge of the quote box:

Now, is there any reason to take multiple continua seriously? Sure, because the best science we have does.

I believe most such contacts are either entirely unreal, or are unreal by the point at which someone tries to explain them, inasmuch as a multi-dimensional cognitive experience does not translate easily into language presupposing singular body identities, three-dimensional perception, linear time, and other data challenging for the average human brain system software to interpret. Most people can't even remember their dreams, much less learn to navigate an out-of-body experience well enough to read signs and landmarks to verify the experience.

The nature of the experience I had -- having God merge his identity and multidimensional view of human psyches, sharing information with me via "mindmeld," -- is as different from other descriptions of "mystical" contacts with God as between falling off a ladder and three orbits around the earth.

I suggest that prior to a multiplicity of conscious beings there was a single Primal Existent which encompassed everything, and it was conscious, therefore self-conscious, therefore omniscient of all that existed, omnipotent over all that existed, and omnipresent in all that existed.

Either someone objectively real who thinks he's God was in extraordinary communication with me and temporarily provided me with supercognition, or the experience was objectively not real -- a medically caused break with reality, a hallucination, a waking dream, a failure of my mind to distinguish between reality and the completely imaginary.

God's identity as an original consciousness -- occupying and acting within a single Universe before the creation of additional continua and independent consciences -- would be a unique case of the Law of Identity in which there is a single Identity and a single Existent. The instant additional continua and beings with independent consciousness came into existence the Law of Identity as we now undertand it would apply to all existents, including the formerly omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent God.

My most powerful communication was during a state of shallow breathing due to nasal and broncchial congestion, physical dehydration, and ketosis -- in my case these last two caused by months of weight-loss dieting.

My observation of the high-profile psychic readers is that their abilities are real but like a porn star they can't always get it up, and there's not yet a Viagra for psychics.

Any thing that exists is not magical.

On more than a few occasions I believe I've been in communication with those we call dead because their bodies have died, but who manage to remain conscious and in possession of their conscious minds afterward.

I've frequently both directly experienced and directly observed genuine psychic phenomena, therefore Occam's Razor would lead me to the conclusion that James Randi is a liar when he states never to have encountered it.

I have presented a definition of God within a cosmology that neither fails to satisfy Aristotle's axioms adopted by Rand, and a cosmology that is in line with current scientific paradigms about multiple "universes."

If a bounded universe exists between a big bang and a big crunch, then repeats, then there are multiple universes. Since T is a function only within one of those iterations, an observer from within any of these iterations would be able to conceive of any of the other iterations as existing simultaneously, and existence is a standing wave of multiple continua.

I only get belligerent when what I write is misrepresented.

Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes

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

Since life has never been created in a lab out of non-life, and human-level self-consciousness has never been duplicated in a lab, the assertion that consciousness is a product of evolution rests where it was when first offered well over a century ago: untested and unproved.

Evidence is not proof. Evidence is what scientists use to justify exploring a theory looking for proof or attempting to disprove a theory. Usually this process leads to another theory.

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

My mom and I know what we heard, and we both heard the same thing: an unknown violin concerto in the style of a 19th century composer -- the exact sort of violin repertoire my dad most loved to play, and which sounded like him playing -- coming out of a CD player that the owner's claim -- and the immediate evidence -- could not have been playing.

One doesn't have to have a prior belief system to have had experiences that can open the mind to the possibility that there are modes of existence beyond what we normally experience, and that what we are by nature makes it possible for us to perceive them by means we can't yet pin down in a laboratory.

Look at the work of UC Irvine cognitive scientist Donald D. Hoffman, PhD: http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ and http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/HoffmanPubs.html

Given how real scientists change their paradigms as often as their socks, I try not to rule anything out of court. I grew up with the hallmark of science being the uniformity and homogeneity of physical laws throughout the universe.

But why "orgone" should be more ridiculous than all the extra forces subatomic physicists change their views on every couple of years is puzzling to me. The science of chemistry grew out of alchemy. To me, that means that there were seeds of chemistry already in alchemy, waiting for someone to water them.

There used to be three dimensions; now there are eleven.

I've lost track how many new particles there are.

[william.scherk]

Again, I wonder what Starbuckle's point was in inviting me into a discussion of what evidence I could offer to support my assertion of a mind-meld with God, since every documentary account I have affixed my byline to on this subject has repeatedly denied that I have any to offer anyone else.

Here is what you wrote on your blog:

I maintain Google alerts to send me email whenever there’s online discussion of my works, my projects, or my web presence. On December 11th Google sent me an email that a discussion had been started on the website “Objectivist Living” with the title, “Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?”

In the same queue was an even earlier email from David M. Brown, a fellow libertarian novelist and long-time correspondent, suggesting I participate in the discussion.

Starbuckle, you never answered this question when I posed it earlier in this discussion: what was it you hoped to accomplish when you started this discussion?

If Starbuckle is the same person you outed as a longtime correspondent, then your answer is to be found in the invitation itself. Have another gander at that fateful email and quit poisoning the well.

If it's just to make fun of me and make yourself feel more secure in your worldview, I think a lot of people including atheists could agree that's just pathetic.

If you have a look at the initial post, Starbuckle asks a few questions. If your increasingly loony answers led to making fun, so what? You expected folks to think you were crazy anyway . . . did you expect that OL folk would not make fun of your pretensions -- once they eyed your heaping selections from the Buffet Of Woo?

But my main question here is whether accepting the existence of God or accepting that he had had a "psychotic break" with reality were really Schulman's only reasonable alternatives when he experienced whatever it was that he experienced. Does a strong feeling that God (whatever his nature is said to be) is communicating with you constitute evidence for a God? Or does it mean only that you are experiencing something that you can't yet explain?

Edited January 13, 2011 by william.scherk

[J Neil Schulman]

If Starbuckle is the same person you outed as a longtime correspondent, then your answer is to be found in the invitation itself. Have another gander at that fateful email and quit poisoning the well.

Is Starbuckle David M. Brown?

Edited January 13, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman