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

[George H. Smith]

Ninth:

Re: The Trippy Cat video.

I am far from being a PETA type, but I don't understand how anyone could do that to a cat. I could barely watch the video. It must have been a very large dose of LSD relative to the size of the animal.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Ghs wrote: "It took a personal experience with God before you abandoned your atheism. You didn't accept the second-hand accounts of religious experiences reported by others. So why do you expect me to behave any differently? Why do you expect me to do what you were unwilling to do? I simply view your report in the same light that you viewed (and still view) the reports of others."

This is the nub of the matter. Second hand accounts generally will not do for most people, and absent direct revelation or some form of mind meld, that is all there is when it comes to the existence of God. Unfortunately, absent some reasonable criteria for judging such revelations/melds, the person who experienced God is left with, in effect, an argument from authority.

Quite honestly, I was more inclined to credit Neil's interpretation of his subjective experience with God before I learned he thought OJ was innocent. Anybody who has read Vincent Bugliosi's book on this subject, or seen his arguments, is going to have trouble believing that God implied to Neil that OJ is innocent.

A classic analysis of second-hand reports was written by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651).

[To say that God has spoken to a man in a dream] is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win belief from any man, that knows dreams are for the most part natural, and may proceed from former thoughts: as such dreams as that, from self-deceit, and foolish arrogance, and false opinion of a man’s own godliness, or other virtue , by which he thinks he hath merited the favour of extraordinary revelation. To say he hath seen a vision, or heard a voice, is to say, that he hath dreamed between sleeping and waking: for in such manner a man doth many times take his dream for a vision, as not well observed his own slumbering. To say he speaks by supernatural inspiration, is to say he finds an ardent desire to speak, or some strong opinion of himself, for which he can allege no natural and sufficient reason. So that though God Almighty can speak to a man by dreams, vision, voice, and inspiration; yet he obliges no man to believe he hath so done to him that pretends it; who, being a man, may err, and, which is more, may lie.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Yeah, I've done both mushrooms and acid. The experiences I had on those drugs were nothing like my earlier religious experiences. I never had anything like a transcendental experience on any kind of drug. I never heard voices, saw visions, etc., etc.

No common elements, like, say, time dilation or tunnel vision? Or the smoke alarm going off and you find that there’s a pizza burnt to charcoal in the oven that you absolutely cannot remember putting there? You must have put it in before putting on Sgt. Pepper, but now you’re halfway through Kind of Blue, so how long is that? Fuck, and now you’re really hungry.

Anybody who has read Vincent Bugliosi's book on this subject, or seen his arguments, is going to have trouble believing that God implied to Neil that OJ is innocent.

He works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform...

I am far from being a PETA type, but I don't understand how anyone could do that to a cat. I could barely watch the video. It must have been a very large dose of LSD relative to the size of the animal.

It was back in the 1950’s, LSD was still a new thing. I don’t know what to say except that, out of respect, I’m going to refrain from posting any videos of Draize testing. Rhetorical question: how many bunnies going blind are too many, so that one 13 year old girl doesn’t?

[George H. Smith]

Yeah, I've done both mushrooms and acid. The experiences I had on those drugs were nothing like my earlier religious experiences. I never had anything like a transcendental experience on any kind of drug. I never heard voices, saw visions, etc., etc.

No common elements, like, say, time dilation or tunnel vision? Or the smoke alarm going off and you find that there’s a pizza burnt to charcoal in the oven that you absolutely cannot remember putting there? You must have put it in before putting on Sgt. Pepper, but now you’re halfway through Kind of Blue, so how long is that? Fuck, and now you’re really hungry.

One day in 1986, while I was living in the Franklin West Towers in Hollywood, I went downstairs and popped in on an LP meeting that was being held in the same building. After the meeting was over, someone brought out a bag of mushrooms. Around an hour after imbibing, eight of us walked a couple blocks to the Mann Chinese Theater on Hollywood Blvd. to see "Song of the South," which had recently been rereleased. This scene in particular had all of us in stitches. It was as close to a religious experience as anything I have ever experienced on drugs.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFd3ekLXVI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFd3ekLXVI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFd3ekLXVI?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

I'm disappointed by Neil's ad hominesh blasting of GHS. I don't think all of Smith's comments have been equally effective, but they have not been willfully diversionary. Neil has not really made any case that his psychological experience, foremost the mindmeld, are both a] real (which no one has disputed) and b] a manifestion of god and the supernatural.

A theistic understanding of the universe can't stand if it is metaphysically contradictory or arbitrary. In his memoir, Neil very thoroughly documents philosophical evolution, creative braintorming, and certain physical and psychological experiences. He does not make any clear argument that his psychological experiences are evidence that he has met a god, and I don't see any fundamental grappling with that issue in this thread. His experiences are per se supposed to be demonstrative of the validity of his conclusions. They're not.

That's entirely circular reasoning. "Neil Schulman's experience is different from other people's experience therefore Neil's reporting on his experience requires additional proof."

If I am an regarded as an honest reporter in other ways, my honest reporting of my experience is whole. It can be taken as a report of an experience, equal to other people's reports on experiences they've had which are not witnessed by second parties.

It is only the disbelief that what I report is already within the recipient's belief system of what is possible that casts dobt on my report. I am being demanded to provide a higher degree of proof than would be expected if the recipient of my report did not doubt such events were possible.

That's not my problem. I've done my job by reporting what I experienced. If it has value to others, they are free to profit by it. If not, then not.

But for someone to whom there is an actual open question about whether God exists, or even whether the description of such a being is reasonably possible, a direct contact -- even if not showable to others -- is anecdotal evidence. I do not believe anecdotal evidence is as worthless as most others make it out to be.

Edited December 22, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

JNS wrote of GHS: "Neither of you [George H. Smith or Dennis Prager] strike me as having much genuine intellectual curiosity."

This strikes me as condescending and even a little priggish to say of an intellectually curious fellow like GHS.

Okay, let me immediately withdraw that characterization; I said it only because Neil, earlier in the thread, had called me condescending and priggish for wondering why he accepted the least reasonable of the explanations of his experiences allegedly encountering God. (I never suggested, as Neil asserted, that he had not given any consideration to alternative explanations.)

Anyway, I still have the same c&p impulses, inasmuch as it still seems to me that Neil's insistence on believing in a deity and in the supernatural (which, however, according to Neil, do not contradict the law of identity that is the hallmark of the natural realm, however much they may be apparently unconstrained by the identities of things) cannot be rationally justified.

I don't mean that Neil's interpretation of his experiences cannot be rationally justified by others, although that also is true; he's said several times that others may well be reasonable in declining to accept his claims. I mean that the answer posed in the title of this thread is No: Neil himself is not logically justified in believing in God, his God or any other. That he suffered a fugue-like state brought on in part by physical deprivation, in part by his previous speculation and theorizing, constitutes no evidence that a semi-all-powerful (but invisible) deity suffused his being. That Neil has a firm conviction that this is what happened is no evidence that it did either.

Neil's affliction-based theology has the virtue, like Marxism or other self-feeding concepts, of being infinitely elastic, such that any objection whatever may be countered in the theory's own terms, however implausible and unverifiable those terms may be. Neil himself has not and cannot verify the assumptions underlying his theory--not even to himself. He is convinced, yes. Rationally convinced? No.

Neil's protestations that he is still a rationalist, just as much a rationalist as ever, fall flat unless rationalism has nothing particular to do with going by facts, nothing particular to do with deriving theoretical conclusions from those facts rather than with simply casting an antecedent theory out like a net to willy-nilly snag and incorporate any of the more inconvenient and obstreperous ones. If Neil's conceptions of "God" and the "supernatural" don't contradict the identity-bound natural world, what are they? How would they be defined?

Men create gods in their own image, with traits that are sympathetic and utilitarian with respect to the human believer's purposes. The king likes a god with the inclination and power to push people around and get them to fall in line; he likes a god who delegates to him the divine right to act as the god's representative on earth (the divine right to do what he wants to do anyway). The Calvinist bully who wants nobody to do anything of his own free will employs a god whose creations are entirely predestined. Flower children have the Jesus version of god with the long hair and beard, more relaxed and forgiving (except with respect to bankers) than his uptight and war-mongering father-god.

What kind of god does the fiction writer have? The god who wants aesthetic satisfaction and who has an sf-spin on the myths of the Bible. The God who points out that Adam and Eve were computer hackers, for instance.

Neil confuses the subconscious and the creative process with revelation and god-power. That his theology is often interesting is a tribute to his creative abilities, not to his openness as a receptacle to his new-and-improved God's words of wisdom.

Do all the veteran writers and beginning writers who come up with either mundane or provocative and engaging twists on the tale of Adam and Eve believe that they have received a clarifying memo, via mind meld or whatever imposing mechanism, from the Almighty Himself? I do not know for sure, but my suspicion is that most do not believe this, not literally; although some writers sometimes vaguely speak as if their creativity entailed delivering messages from the beyond, not having much deep insight into the human mind and its creative workings.

What is the difference, then, with respect to J. Neil Schulman's riffs on religious mythology in Escape from Heaven (outlined and excerpted in Neil's memoir) and the riffs of all other artists who have come up with theological variations in fiction or sermons?

It has something to do with the final revisions of Neil's novel, Escape from Heaven. The revision was a substantial re-envisioning. He implemented massive changes in a very short time. I gather from the memoir that the novel is still a novel, not just a report of information relayed by God; but a novel which in Neil's view has been radically informed by God's input. Thus, in his view, the novel includes both his own fictional web-spinning and something more akin to a transcription of details about heaven ops and God-nature conveyed by God himself during the mind-meld.

However...it is more plausible, especially in light of the fact that the proposed alternative is impossible, that Neil had the mind-meld with himself, with the result that he ended up replacing an unsatisfatory approach to the novel with something much more satisfactory and persuasive.

That may well be the case--if by persuasive we mean literarily persuasive. I, for one, am happy to give Neil full credit for his own work, even if the author is too modest to accept that full credit.

Anyway, I still have the same c&p impulses, inasmuch as it still seems to me that Neil's insistence on believing in a deity and in the supernatural (which, however, according to Neil, do not contradict the law of identity that is the hallmark of the natural realm, however much they may be apparently unconstrained by the identities of things) cannot be rationally justified.

I'm happy to clear this up. If by supernatural you're using a definition that means things not constrained by the Law of Identity, then I deny that anything including God is supernatural. If by supernatural you mean agencies and events that act from a starting point outside this particular continuum's with its physical laws (for example, law of thermodynamics or motion or chemical reactions) -- but within the constraints of the Law of Identity and a wider context of natural laws that includes multiple continua with varying physical laws -- then the word supernatural could be meaningful.

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.

Escape from Heaven is a fictional representation of things I know from experience, things I extrapolate from my experience, and other things which I don't know but invented to tell a good story. Check with me about which is which.

Edited December 22, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

Frankly, Neil, I have devoted a lot more time investigating the existence of God than you have or ever will

Ah. Labor theory of value.

Nope. Merely an indication that I am more interested in the question of God's existence than you are. The fact that I have reached a different conclusion than you have is irrelevant.

Ghs

When I was an atheist I did not have a lot of curiosity to investigate the existence of a God I did not believe was possible, because I regarded the very concept as impossible within my understanding of the Law of Identity and natural law. A lot of the arguments that made me think this way came from reading Ayn Rand and George H. Smith. Once I found those arguments diminished to the point I had doubt, and was no longer an atheist but an agnostic, I engaged in a process of investigation of "thoughts" that I started to regard as possibly coming into my mind from an external source. When I reached a point where I was able to validate to a level of satisfaction overcoming my skepticism that these communications were both external and from a source with a signature of "God," I revised my viewpoint on this question.

The labor and length of time put in to investigating the existence of God is not necessarily fruitful of results. One must also use techniques that are productive of positive results.

Edited December 22, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[George H. Smith]

Martin Luther had his most intense encounter with God -- the so-called "tower experience" -- while he was sitting on the can. In the words of one recent biographer, Richard Marius, "Luther's release from the constricting bondage of fear corresponded to the release of his bowels." This experience, which eventually led Luther to post his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, proved to be one of the most significant events in the history of western civilization.

If God hangs out in latrines, I see no reason to think that he doesn't visit libraries as well.

In the interest of historical accuracy, I should mention that some historians dispute the claim that Martin Luther was actually on the can when he experienced his life-changing encounter with God. They interpret Luther's account of this remarkable incident as meaning that he was near the latrine in his study, and that he called attention to this fact to emphasize that God can appear in the most unlikely places.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

Nope. Merely an indication that I am more interested in the question of God's existence than you are. The fact that I have reached a different conclusion than you have is irrelevant.

Ghs

Actually the existence or non-existence of the deity of your choosing is not particularly relevant except when practicioners of a religion force themselves on others.

As a philosophical issue it is rather vapid. I consider theology or its deconstruction as one of the greater wastes of time. I would much rather prove theorems or do physical experiments.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Listen to yourself. You assume the existence of God has no other reality than as a function of religion. But if God is real, living, and potent actor, knowing that fact is as crucially important as knowing whether someone you're challenging to a bar fight has a concealed gun.

[J Neil Schulman]

But how can you be an atheist while at the same time regarding your God experience as real? This is like saying A is non-A.

Since I don't regard God's existence and actual identity as in any way conditional upon human scripture, stories, dogma, traditions, or religious institutions, I can deny any and all of these as sources of reliable and accurate knowledge about God -- and aside from reporting on my personal experience which convince me of God's reality, I'm still without any "theology."

It looks like you use the label "atheist" to indicate that you don't believe in traditional, organized religion.

On another thread, a Scientology member called herself an atheist too, although the belief Scientologists have in the "Thetan" thing is clearly a transdendent concept.

Other believers call themselves atheists because they don't believe in a personal god.

Since language is in a constant process of evolvement, I ask myself whether the term "atheist" might be undergoing a change of meaning.

If this is the case and all kinds of believers in transcendece now call themselves "atheists" as well, what shall we call here - for differentiation purposes - those who don't believe in any kind of transcendence? Any suggestions?

Maybe George H. Smith has an idea?

Your experience was actually quite typical of mystical experiences reported by others.

But what is untypical is the long duration of N. Schulman's experience (8 (!) hours).

It looks like it was something else than a unio mystica.

Mystics belonging to different religions have experienced a state transcending all the differences between those religions.

To conceive of god as the "Pure Nothing" transcends the Christian tradition in that it resembles other mystic concepts like e. g. "Shunyata".

Whereas whoever spoke to N. Schulman is as far removed from the "Pure Nothing" (Eckhart called God this) as it can get.

As luck would have it, I invited God over to my place 10 minutes ago, and he actually stopped by.

Did you discuss your books with him? ;)

A believer once told me atheists do an important job since they throroughly clean God's face from the overpaintings of the various religions.

Re O. J. Simpson's alleged "innocence":

I almost fell off my chair when it was suggested here by N. Schulman that God believes O.J. Simpson was framed.

Now we are entering the realm of hard evidence and it looks like God has never studied this criminal case.

I suggest Vincent Bugliosi's book Outrage which will give God a dramatic insight into the lousy job the prosecution did, which resulted in Simpson's getting away with murder.

Vincent Bugliosi, whose only claim to fame is prosecuting Charles Manson in a case that a first-year law student could have won, wrote one of the most prosecution-biased and uninteresting books on the Brown/Goldman murders, that only reported on evidence presented in trial.

I read every published book on these murders, did my own independent journalistic investigation, and regard detective Bill Dear's investigation to have proved a far more compelling case against Jason Simpson than either the criminal trial that acquitted O.J. Simpson or the civil trial that found him liable.

I don't think any case in the history of American jurisprudence is more indicative of how mass media incompetence, tunnel-vision, celebrity obsession, lazinesss and various political biases can mold a public opinion to a "conventional" conclusion based on two incompetent trials -- unless it was the hysterical McMartin pre-school trial.

[George H. Smith]

The labor and length of time put in to investigating the existence of God is not necessarily fruitful of results. One must also use techniques that are productive of positive results.

You are playing with a rigged deck. No matter how much serious thought a person devotes to this subject, if he remains an atheist, you will claim that he wasn't using the proper techniques.

This raises the question: Exactly what are the techniques that will be "productive of positive results"? How can other people replicate the experience that you had? If you experienced God because he went looking for you, then I see no way I can experience what you experienced unless God also comes looking for me. You will be the first to know if that ever happens. Until then, I will remain an atheist.

I assume your god will forgive me using using the reason he gave me, even if I arrived at the wrong conclusion. I also assume that he doesn't believe in a power higher than himself, which would make him an atheist. As I wrote in Why Atheism?

If theism is loosely defined as belief in a higher power, a mysterious being whose essential nature cannot be understood (whether in whole or in part) by the believer, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a power higher than himself, nor can there be anything which he fails to understand, for nothing can be unknown or unknowable to an omniscient being.

If theism is defined as the belief in a supernatural being, then God is an atheist. His own powers, though supernatural from a human point of view, are comprehensible to himself. Everything is “natural” from God’s perspective.

If theism involves a relationship of subordination and dependence between a theist and her object of veneration, then God is an atheist. He is a self-sufficient Being who disbelieves in any power greater than himself. He worships nothing, never prays, never seeks forgiveness, and never acknowledges his own errors.

If theism is the belief in a creator, or first cause, who is ultimately responsible for one’s own existence, then God is an atheist. He believes himself to have existed eternally -- though, as Kant suggested, even God must occasionally wonder where he came from.

If theism involves the belief an external moral authority, a being whose moral law is obligatory for his creatures, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a higher law, nor does he think himself capable of doing wrong. He does not regard himself bound to respect the rights of any other being. God is morally autonomous, a law unto himself.

God is therefore an atheist. Moreover, he is a positive atheist of the most dogmatic variety, for he claims to know with absolute certainty that there exists no being superior to himself. He is never troubled by doubt, never re-examines any of his beliefs, and never feels obliged to justify them.

This raises some further questions: Why, if God is himself an atheist, should we suppose that that he disapproves of atheism among his creatures? Is not a benevolent father pleased when his children grow up to be like him? And how can Christians condemn atheism per se without also condemning their atheistic God? Is not the atheist who strives to be like God more admirable than the Christian who merely believes in him?

In short, Neil, you merely believe in God, whereas I emulate him. If atheism is good enough for God, then it is good enough for me.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

I have repeatedly asked you for criteria by which we can test the veracity of your "rare and extraordinary" experiences, but you have repeatedly failed to do so. You haven't even made a serious attempt. So what do you expect me to do? If someone claimed that an invisible elf is tap dancing on his head, and that he knows this to be true because he can feel its tiny feet and can hear the elf singing "Puttin' on the Ritz," should I abandon my cognitive standards and take his word for it?

Frankly, George, I don't think you give a damn about learning the truth about whether God exists or not, and if he exists what he's like.

It looks like you are struggling with Ghs's epistemological challenge, Mr. Schulman.

Claiming that God exists while failing to meet the burden of proof "merely communicates to others that one has a particular mental attitude known as belief".

(Ghs, Why Atheism, p. 32)

No more so than the "belief" that I ate at Denny's last night. I have a recollection of an experience I regard as real.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Neil,

Take out the word "consciousness" and your description here perfectly fits a presumed event/reality that science calls the "singularity" (gravitational, not mathematic).

Since consciousness, according to science, eventually emerged from that singularity, the seed of consciousness, at least had to have been part of it.

This is where my musings loose all sense of certainty.

Michael

[J Neil Schulman]

The labor and length of time put in to investigating the existence of God is not necessarily fruitful of results. One must also use techniques that are productive of positive results.

You are playing with a rigged deck. No matter how much serious thought a person devotes to this subject, if he remains an atheist, you will claim that he wasn't using the proper techniques.

This raises the question: Exactly what are the techniques that will be "productive of positive results"? How can other people replicate the experience that you had? If you experienced God because he went looking for you, then I see no way I can experience what you experienced unless God also comes looking for me. You will be the first to know if that ever happens. Until then, I will remain an atheist.

I assume your god will forgive me using using the reason he gave me, even if I arrived at the wrong conclusion. I also assume that he doesn't believe in a power higher than himself, which would make him an atheist. As I wrote in Why Atheism?

If theism is loosely defined as belief in a higher power, a mysterious being whose essential nature cannot be understood (whether in whole or in part) by the believer, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a power higher than himself, nor can there be anything which he fails to understand, for nothing can be unknown or unknowable to an omniscient being.

If theism is defined as the belief in a supernatural being, then God is an atheist. His own powers, though supernatural from a human point of view, are comprehensible to himself. Everything is “natural” from God’s perspective.

If theism involves a relationship of subordination and dependence between a theist and her object of veneration, then God is an atheist. He is a self-sufficient Being who disbelieves in any power greater than himself. He worships nothing, never prays, never seeks forgiveness, and never acknowledges his own errors.

If theism is the belief in a creator, or first cause, who is ultimately responsible for one’s own existence, then God is an atheist. He believes himself to have existed eternally -- though, as Kant suggested, even God must occasionally wonder where he came from.

If theism involves the belief an external moral authority, a being whose moral law is obligatory for his creatures, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a higher law, nor does he think himself capable of doing wrong. He does not regard himself bound to respect the rights of any other being. God is morally autonomous, a law unto himself.

God is therefore an atheist. Moreover, he is a positive atheist of the most dogmatic variety, for he claims to know with absolute certainty that there exists no being superior to himself. He is never troubled by doubt, never re-examines any of his beliefs, and never feels obliged to justify them.

This raises some further questions: Why, if God is himself an atheist, should we suppose that that he disapproves of atheism among his creatures? Is not a benevolent father pleased when his children grow up to be like him? And how can the Christian condemn atheism per se without also condemning their atheistic God? Is not the atheist who strives to be like God more admirable than the [theist] who merely believes in him?

In short, Neil, you merely believe in God, whereas I emulate him.

Ghs

Exactly what are the techniques that will be "productive of positive results"? How can other people replicate the experience that you had? If you experienced God because he went looking for you, then I see no way I can experience what you experienced unless God also comes looking for me. You will be the first to know if that ever happens. Until then, I will remain an atheist.

I will acknowledge the possibility that God uses a triage to decide who is a priority for his initiating communication. But I do not eliminate as possible that serious attempts to establish communication can be initiated by a human being.

Let me describe techniques that based on my own experiences I think might produce results. I don't know which of these is necessary or sufficient, and can not guarantee results because God maintains the free-will option to answer or not according to his own values, but here's how to "dial the call" or "send the text message".

I believe cognitive sensitivity needs to be trained up because the method of communication is direct mind-to-mind, bypassing the external sensory apparatus. I think healthy human brains contain the innate capacity to participate in such direct communication. By healthy I mean not having suffered a birth defect or later disease or trauma that might impair such communication, much the same way birth defect, disease, or trauma can impair other sensory functions. I also believe the wrong foods, alcohol and sometimes caffeine, and various pharmaceuticals and recreational drugs can also impair these centers of the brain.

I think one common method of communication is the triggering of memory images already stored in your brain to establish a symbolic vocabulary by repetitively associating an image or sequence of images with a referent. This happens a lot in "dream" states, where a recurring dream can establish a discernible meaning -- and be careful not to be distracted by Freudian or even Jungian "standard" interpretations. Psychic John Edward reports this as a vocabulary he uses when receiving messages from the "dead." The symbolic vocabulary will likely create a code or language unique to each user because it's drawn from that user's own memories. So, get into the habit of recording your dreams to retain the images, even if absurd and non-realistic. For example, the use of a cartoon or fictitious character is no less a usable symbol as anything drawn from normal waking life. And don't assume such imagery needs to be a static and unchanging graphic image. It might be something like a mini-movie.

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. Various mystical accounts report on having occurred after time spent at high altitudes (gods in a lot of traditions live on mountains or are met on mountains, where oxygen content is reduced) and yoga teaches "shallow" breathing techniques. Various reports from various mystic traditions (Jesus in the desert for 40 days before he starts his ministry, as reported in three out of the four gospels; Native American vision quests; Australian aboriginal walkabouts) are of depriving oneself of food and water for extended periods, often in the desert where dehydration would combine with adding ketones to the blood by food deprivation. I believe these techniques might activate the portions of the brain hard-wired to respond to mind-to-mind communication during "waking" states.

I've found that I can create a blank "window" onto which imagery can be viewed (and possibly even jumped in to) by getting into an entirely blacked out room (as close to zero available photons in the visible spectrum) then closing ones eyes and "imagining" (recalling the image of) blindingly brilliant and dazzling light. It sometimes works for me to "pull" the light from around the back of my head until it's in front of my eyes. Sometimes this works so well I've had to open my eyes to believe that there wasn't actual sunlight entering the room. But that interrupted the process and I had to start again.

This worked best for me when I'm tired --it makes seeking alpha states (meditative states) easier. Sometimes it also allows for going into theta (directed or lucid "dream") states -- but if one is too tired one can just fall asleep and lose conscious control of the process. But if you do see something possibly verifiable -- a landmark, anything on a sign, a physical place with distinctive characteristics, anything with a place name -- write it down before you forget and do an Internet search on it to see if it's something you can verify as real.

Finally, I adopted daily "praying" as a self-conscious means of opening myself up to divine communication -- in essence making it clear such communication was welcomed and would not be considered an invasion of my privacy. I suspect it might work best to write your own unique prayer with your own signature on it and use it repetitiously over an extended period of time. Since you're not of any particular "communion" I'll leave it to your own judgment whether you want to use these prayers for anything utilitarian, such as asking for something or giving thanks for anything. A simple request for communication will be most focused to this quest. You don't need to get on your knees or anything traditional. You don't need to label it as a "prayer" -- the word "pray" is just an old word for "ask." You don't need to praise, worship, or otherwise suck up -- I'd just avoid putting "Fuck you" into it. :-)

That's what I have to offer by way of method and technique, George. It requires many attempts and a dedication to process.

Good hunting!

Neil

Edited December 22, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[william.scherk]

Claiming that God exists while failing to meet the burden of proof "merely communicates to others that one has a particular mental attitude known as belief".

(Ghs, Why Atheism, p. 32)

No more so than the "belief" that I ate at Denny's last night. I have a recollection of an experience I regard as real.

Are you claiming that you ate at Denny's last night, then, Neil? A Denny's close to Pahrump, NV?

If so, we can check that and confirm that, and your claim will meet the burden of proof. We will find witnesses to your attendance. We will find a bill that corresponds to your Big Boy 1/2 Turkey dinner order to table 23. We will find your DNA in the booger you stuck under the table. We can find other forensic evidence.

How would we go about gaining similar evidence that the lord of the universe spoke in a voice inside your head?

Additionally, if you claim that no one else has ever eaten the exact same 1/2 Turkey Dinner with Clam Sauce, Homefries and Buttermilk Pancakes with exactly the same appreciation of the meal's ineffable qualities . . . you are simply moving the goal posts.

Joan of Arc did not claim to have eaten the Big Boy Dinner.

But she did eat.

Just like you.

On another related subject, you seem to ask us to believe that your investigation of the OJ case trumps all other investigations, that yours was the finest and best and most thoroughgoing investigative journalism ever applied to the case.

Here, a question:

-- did you double-check your notion that a Dr Frankenstein could have made up a simulacra of OJ's blood?**

___________

** from page 93 of Neil's Ur-crackpot book: "If you didn't have enough of OJ's blood, Dr Frankenstein could make more for you."

[George H. Smith]

Psychic John Edward reports this as a vocabulary he uses when receiving messages from the "dead."

Are you serious? That guy is an outright fraud. I've seen honest magicians do better cold readings than he does. I suppose you will be citing Uri Geller next.

If you are truly this gullible, we don't have much to talk about.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Psychic John Edward reports this as a vocabulary he uses when receiving messages from the "dead."

Are you serious? That guy is an outright fraud. I've seen honest magicians do better cold readings than he does. I suppose you will be citing Uri Geller next.

If you are truly this gullible, we don't have much to talk about.

Ghs

Uri? My hero, Uri Geller?

--Brant

this is sooo wrong!! OL is a horrible place!

[9thdoctor]

Psychic John Edward reports this as a vocabulary he uses when receiving messages from the "dead."

Are you serious? That guy is an outright fraud.

But he's won such major awards!

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:103512" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s06e15-the-biggest-douche-in-the-universe">The Biggest Douche in the Universe</a></b><br/>Tags: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s06e15-the-biggest-douche-in-the-universe">more...</a></p></div></div>

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:153791" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s06e15-the-biggest-douche-in-the-universe">The Biggest Douche in the Universe</a></b><br/>Tags: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s06e15-the-biggest-douche-in-the-universe">more...</a></p></div></div>

Next you'll probably pick on Nobel winners like Al Gore and Barack Obama...

[George H. Smith]

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. Various mystical accounts report on having occurred after time spent at high altitudes (gods in a lot of traditions live on mountains or are met on mountains, where oxygen content is reduced) and yoga teaches "shallow" breathing techniques. Various reports from various mystic traditions (Jesus in the desert for 40 days before he starts his ministry, as reported in three out of the four gospels; Native American vision quests; Australian aboriginal walkabouts) are of depriving oneself of food and water for extended periods, often in the desert where dehydration would combine with adding ketones to the blood by food deprivation. I believe these techniques might activate the portions of the brain hard-wired to respond to mind-to-mind communication during "waking" states.

Many early Christian ascetics fled to the desert and became famous for their religious visions. St. Macarius of Alexandria (d. 395) slept naked in a marsh and lugged 80 pounds of iron around with him. His disciple, St. Eusebius, upped the ante to 150 pounds of iron and lived for 3 years in a dry well. St. Besarion spent 40 days in thorn bushes and didn't lie down for 40 years, even while sleeping. But the grand champion was St. Simeon Stylites (c. 390-459). After binding a rope around his waist so tight that it became embedded in his putrefied flesh, and after spending many days and nights in wells, he decided to try something new. Simeon spent 30 years on a 60-foot pillar with a circumference of around 36 inches. He was frequently seen bending his body in prayer in rapid movements; one observer stopped counting at 1,244.

If your techniques don't work for me, maybe I should try one of these. I don't know if there are any wells in my neighborhood, but I can always dig a deep hole in my backyard. Maybe God can find me there.

Ghs

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[J Neil Schulman]

Psychic John Edward reports this as a vocabulary he uses when receiving messages from the "dead."

Are you serious? That guy is an outright fraud. I've seen honest magicians do better cold readings than he does. I suppose you will be citing Uri Geller next.

If you are truly this gullible, we don't have much to talk about.

Ghs

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. So you put commercial performance pressures on one of them -- make them perform in front of an audience on a night when the abilities are off-line -- and they'll use stage magic techniques to keep their reputation up among a gullible audience.

But what your response indicates is far more important, George. If I press a button on something or someone you've already dismissed, you look for any excuse to dismiss an entire field of study and kneejerk react to cut off discussion.

That would be like saying "I think Velikovsky's theories of planetary catastrophe are shit so I'm not going to read Carl Sagan either."

Edited December 22, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

Could those dogmatic douche bags who are in this thread only to sneer please go fuck off and leave this discussion for the grown ups?

[George H. Smith]

Psychic John Edward reports this as a vocabulary he uses when receiving messages from the "dead."

Are you serious? That guy is an outright fraud. I've seen honest magicians do better cold readings than he does. I suppose you will be citing Uri Geller next.

If you are truly this gullible, we don't have much to talk about.

Ghs

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. So you put commercial performance pressures on one of them -- make them perform in front of an audience on a night when the abilities are off-line -- and they'll use stage magic techniques to keep their reputation up among a gullible audience.

But what your response indicates is far more important, George. If I press a button on something or someone you've already dismissed, you look for any excuse to dismiss an entire field of study and kneejerk react to cut off discussion.

That would be like saying "I think Velikovsky's theories of planetary catastrophe are shit so I'm not going to read Carl Sagan either."

Oh, for crying out loud. John Edward does a standard "psychic" trick that magicians have been doing for a long, long time. I suppose if he pulled a rabbit out of a hat and claimed that a dead person put it there, or if he sawed a woman in half and claimed that he restored her with his psychic powers, you would believe that crap as well.

My knee-jerk reaction is called common-fucking-sense.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18NfN76bAs&feature=related

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Could those dogmatic douche bags who are in this thread only to sneer please go fuck off and leave this discussion for the grown ups?

You complained earlier that GHS wasn’t taking you seriously, so, who should be sticking around? When you start praising TV psychics you can’t expect the howls of laughter not to reach your ears. Oh, and who’s being dogmatic? How about unconvinced, isn’t that a more accurate word?

This cold reading thing made me think of an old James Randi segment, watch for Dr. House in the audience.

Next up, will it be Marjoe, Ms. Cleo, or Peter Popoff? Stay tuned.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Starbuckle]

Neil wrote: "It is only the disbelief that what I report is already within the recipient's belief system of what is possible that casts dobt on my report. I am being demanded to provide a higher degree of proof than would be expected if the recipient of my report did not doubt such events were possible."

It's not just an issue of my belief or disbelief, but what is objectively possible. What is the nature of the god you met and the supernatural realm which you suggest he has some ability to control? How is the supernatural different from the natural? If supernatural powers do not entail any ability to violate the law of identity, how is the entity you say you met able to do the things you say he does? What is the process? What are the mechanisms?

Edited December 23, 2010 by Starbuckle

[George H. Smith]

There are numerous YouTube videos with James Randi debunking Uri Geller; these are two of the best. The first shows Geller flopping on the Johnny Carson show. Carson, a former magician, consulted Randi, and together they set up a scenario where Geller was unable to cheat.

The second video reveals how utterly simple Geller's methods are. His cheating is so brazen that we are led to wonder how anyone could have fallen for this charlatan. But a lot of magic tricks are remarkably simple. The reason people are fooled is because of misdirection and patter. In Geller's case, true believers don't believe that this wonderful "psychic" would ever cheat, so they aren't even looking for anything suspicious.

Both parts of this video are worth watching for the broader lesson they convey, namely, how easily people can be fooled.

Ghs

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrvxl3BU-wg?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrvxl3BU-wg?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrvxl3BU-wg?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz4xltEGGOM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz4xltEGGOM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz4xltEGGOM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>