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

[J Neil Schulman]

If a wanderer in a desert imagines an oasis that rehydrates him, what then?

You not only need to work on your analogies, you also need to check whether your premises are consistent with your conclsions.

If the oasis actually rehydrates him, then the oasis was real, which would expose the premise as false that the wanderer only imagined the oasis.

(That's a metaphor for the linguistically challenged among us; I'm referring to forensic proof I later encountered proving O.J.'s innocence.)

"If a wanderer in a desert imagines an oasis that rehydrates him, what then?" (NS)

Let's examine your "metaphor" applied to the Simpson case and see whether the oasis is real or an imagined one. It can't be be both.

So the 'oasis' you thirsty wanderer imagine is finding proof of OJ's inoncence - right?

First of all, one does not prove innoncence, one proves guilt. But since we are not in a courtroom, let's not be too nitpicking on that. I suppose you meant finding evidence which exonerates Simpson.

Since there exists a montain of evidence implicating Simpson in the murders, let's look at what you offer as 'exonerating' material:

a knife matching the forensic wounds in a trunk owned by Jason Simpson and bought from a storage locker Jason abandoned for lack of payment.

I've held this knife in my hand.

And what was (or had been) on that knife? I suppose Bill Dear did a luminol test - did the test show human blood had been wiped off? If yes, could there be found traces of that human blood which matched the victims' blood? That would constitute proof, instead of vague speculations that a knife allegedly matching the forensic wounds must have been the murder weapon. And who asserted that the knife matched the wounds? The two guys not involved in the investigation who looked at some of the autopsy pictures?

As for what type of knife was used in the murders, since the murder weapon has never been found, all kinds of speculations have been bandied about: was it a knife with one sharp edge or with two sharp edges, was it a stiletto knife or a Swiss Army knife, was more than one knife used, etc. etc.

In short, it is sheer chaos, and Jason Simpson's cooking knives being brought into play only add to that chaos.

There is not a scintalla of forensic evidence found at the crime scene which would tie Jason Simpson to the killings.

Instead we have OJ Simpson's blood found at the crime scene, with him even admitting that he cut himself on that night but claiming not to remember why. Not introducing into evidence the documemt of Simpson being questioned by Vanatter and Lange is among the biggest blunders the prosecuation made.

Now your guy Bill Dean is obviously smart enough not to deny the blood evidence against Simpson. Nor does he buy into any "blood was intentionally planted to frame OJ" nonsense theory.

Instead he constructs some other unsubstantiated scenario, according to which Jason allegedly called his father by phone, confessing to the crimes. But since no phone records of such call exist, all this is pulled out of thin air, which answers the question as to whether the "oasis of proof" you claim to have found really exists: It doesn't.

I'd enthusiastically debate Vincent Bugliosi on the evidence, both presented in court and not presented in court, on the Brown-Goldman murders. His entire book is nothing but an arrogant claim that he would have done a better job than Clark and Darden.

Bugliosi hardly ever lost a case, and how do you you think you would fare, Mr. Schulman, in in a debate on the evidence wit a man of Bugioisi's caliber?

Since you are having difficulty getting an epistemological foot on the ground even in that little 'cyber-tertulia' here, can you imagine what an evidentiary debate between you and Vincent Bugliosi would look like?

I've held this knife in my hand.

That this is what convinces you I could not have had a genuine contact with God may be the weakest challenge I've ever had to refute.

I'm afraid if it convinces me of anything, it is that you are having difficulty with separating fact from fiction.

And since epistemological discussions largely deal with establishing criteria by which facts can be separated from fiction, it explains your difficulties in trying to convince the posters here.

You claim to have been God for a while, that God promotes movies and books, that he likes to stay invisible because he values his privacy, that he told you he is a libertarian, and on and on. What do you expect people to think?

I don't think your arguments make sense. You don't believe in God but think Joan of Arc slaughtering people in battle makes a better case for divine revelation than God communicating his visions for human liberty through a well-known libertarian author/filmmaker.

But please, Mr. Schulman, what kind of argument is that? It boils down to "My God is the better one because use he just happens to have precisely the same values as I have."

Oh, my. What could one call it? Would Believer's Bubble fit?

"Believer's bubble" is what I observe in abundance in this thread.

[J Neil Schulman]

and Jason Simpson's cooking knives being brought into play

It wasn't a cooking knife -- which you would have known if you gave a shit.

[J Neil Schulman]

Rand wrote something about casting pearls before swine without getting a pork chop in return.

I don't waste my energy arguing with people who have no interest in discovering truth but only in ridiculing anyone who doesn't hew to their dogma.

I know this will be used in a dozen smug posts about how J. Neil Schulman can't distinguish his own fantasies from reality, can't offer any hard evidence, and we're all so much smarter and scientific.

I'll accept you all having the last words. But I don't respect your minds enough to bother with you anymore.

[George H. Smith]

You obviously have not looked into Randi's challenge. From Randi's website, with my italics:

...

Ghs

So what evidence can you present me that the above is true?

You just read the evidence.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

There are two possible reasons why someone fails to convince someone else of something. The first party fails to muster an adequate proof. Or the second party is pre-judiced to the point that no offer of proof could be sufficient.

Haven't you repeatedly said that you had no intention of attempting to convince anyone of the truth of your religious experience? Well, you didn't convince anyone. So what's your beef?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Third, if I had an experience similar to yours, one that again convinced me that God exists, I would handle how I related my experience to others much differently than you have.

I've been looking back over the many contributions to this thread from the past several days and this one caught my eye.

George, I'm curious what exactly you would do differently if you had a first-hand experience that convinced you of the existence of God. How would you handle reporting it?

Judith

I would not go public with my experience (except, possibly, for telling a few friends) until I had developed a plausible version of the Argument from Religious Experience. I would also comb the literature on religious experiences in search of common elements, instead of assuming that reported experiences that differ from mine are bogus.

Moreover, I would not call people who disagreed with me closed-minded. On the contrary, I would expect atheists to respond to my claim in exactly the same manner as they have responded to Neil's. Why should they react any differently? Why should they overthrow their entire worldviews on my testimony alone, rather than suspect that I have misinterpreted my experience? The latter assumption is clearly more reasonable.

If a god were to communicate to me but not to others, I would assume that this communication was for my personal spiritual edification. If this god wanted others to believe as I do, he could easily communicate to them as well. I would therefore not take on the mission of convincing others, especially knowing that they would have no good reason to believe me, unless (as stated above) I could develop a broader philosophical case that transcended my personal subjective experience. In short, I would attempt to keep my ego out of the discussion as much as possible.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Obviously, God wants George to be a skeptic and an atheist.

--Brant

me too (piggy-backing)

[J Neil Schulman]

One claim is as epistemologically worthless as the next, until and unless you specify criteria that can be used to test the veracity of your claims. The fact that your beliefs may be sincere has no more relevance to the truth of your claims than the sincerity of a Muslim has to the truth of Islam.

Ghs

1) Accept nothing from religion or scripture on faith as a definitive basis for accepting any fact as valid.

2) Aristotle's axioms of Existence, Non-Contradiction, and Identity are axiomatically true in examining all possible understandings of what Existence and Existents are or are not.

3) In any case where one's perception provides one with information not available through conventional experience, this information must be tested for being true before claiming it as knowledge.

4) Unless one is pathologically neurologically or psychologically disabled, one's own experience is a primary basis for determining the truth or falsehood of what the nature of reality is.

5) A report from someone you know to be an honest reporter of conventional matters is not a basis for accepting that person's report on unconventional matters as true on the basis of faith, but first-hand knowledge of the person's character and life experience may be used as a reason to experiment with one's own perceptions to test additional paradigms other than conventional ones.

5) Creating an appearance of a phenomenon by trickery does not test whether the phenomenon is possible or real, and it is a logical fallacy to use such duplication of appearance as negating reports or claims on its reality.

6) If real things, events and processes not perceptible through the conventional five senses do exist, logic dictates that the perception of such things, events, and processes may only be perceived either through unconventional perception or unconventional interpretation of perceptions.

7) To deny something as possibly real because one denies the only means by which one could perceive it and initiate a process of testing the perception for validity is what Rand called the "blank out."

8) An objectivist does not deny one's own knowledge as valid merely because others do not accept it. To do so would be adopting what Nathaniel Branden termed "social metaphysics."

9) Accepting someone's reports as truthful merely because one is prejudiced in favor of their conclusions is as dogmatic as any religious acolyte. Corollary: denying someone's reports as truthful merely because one is prejudiced against their conclusions is likewise just as dogmatic.

10) Human behavior is not reducible to binary "true" or false." Liars can make true statements; generally truthful people someetimes lie. No one is 100% either way, and using a quote from a person known to be untruthful is not an adequate basis to act like a prick toward the quoter.

Edited December 26, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

If a god were to communicate to me but not to others, I would assume that this communication was for my personal spiritual edification. If this god wanted others to believe as I do, he could easily communicate to them as well.

Ghs

The first statement contains the assumption that the subject was not discussed during the communication and a decision was agreed to otherwise.

The second statement contains a bundle of naive assumptions about why one person might choose communicating with one person in preference to another.

[J Neil Schulman]

Obviously, God wants George to be a skeptic and an atheist.

--Brant

me too (piggy-backing)

God prefers an honest and intelligent atheist to a dishonest acolyte.

But God also preferences people with an open desire to explore the new over people whose worldview is so tightly wrapped they easily and habitually dismiss anything that doesn't reify their prejudices.

Edited December 26, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

There are two possible reasons why someone fails to convince someone else of something. The first party fails to muster an adequate proof. Or the second party is pre-judiced to the point that no offer of proof could be sufficient.

Haven't you repeatedly said that you had no intention of attempting to convince anyone of the truth of your religious experience? Well, you didn't convince anyone. So what's your beef?

Ghs

Bad manners.

[J Neil Schulman]

You obviously have not looked into Randi's challenge. From Randi's website, with my italics:

...

Ghs

So what evidence can you present me that the above is true?

You just read the evidence.

Ghs

I see. "James Randi said it. I believe it. That ends it."

[George H. Smith]

5) Creating an appearance of a phenomenon by trickery does not test whether the phenomenon is possible or real, and it is a logical fallacy to use such duplication of appearance as negating reports or claims on its reality.

To speak of "duplication of appearance" presupposes that the unusual phenomenon in question was real to begin with, i.e., not brought about by trickery. So if you have any credible evidence that John Edward has ever talked to "dead" people, let's see it. Saying that you can relate to his sensitivity as a kid won't cut the mustard.

Moreover, in the case of Edward, it is he who is duplicating the same procedures (asking the same questions that we find in every cold reading technique) that magicians have been using for years. If Edward also did standard card and coin tricks, while claiming that he is not employing sleight-of-hand, would you believe him? Or would you say, in effect, "Well, just because magicians can duplicate his feats doesn't mean that Edward isn't really making coins and cards disappear." Are you truly this much of a fool?

When we have an obvious "normal" explanation for an event, we don't need to posit a "paranormal" explanation. Testing Edward's paranormal claims in controlled conditions would be a relatively simple thing to do, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he would never submit to such a test.

Your defense of con men isn't helping your case for God. It makes you appear extremely gullible.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

You obviously have not looked into Randi's challenge. From Randi's website, with my italics:

...

Ghs

So what evidence can you present me that the above is true?

You just read the evidence.

Ghs

I see. "James Randi said it. I believe it. That ends it."

You asked for evidence, so I gave you evidence. You said nothing about conclusive proof, so I didn't attempt to give you conclusive proof.

I informed you of some of Randi's conditions for testing psychics, including the proviso that the claimant agrees beforehand to those conditions and may even participate in the designing of the test. I have seen no indication that this is not how the tests are actually conducted. Have you?

Should Randi ever claim that he has mind-melded with God, then I will be as skeptical of his claim as I am of yours, until and unless I see some evidence.

In short, there is a vast difference between saying "These are the conditions of my test" and saying "I mind-melded with God." If you do not understand this difference -- if, for example, you regard a report that I had turkey for Xmas dinner yesterday as on an epistemological par with a report that I played poker with real angels yesterday -- then I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help you.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If a god were to communicate to me but not to others, I would assume that this communication was for my personal spiritual edification. If this god wanted others to believe as I do, he could easily communicate to them as well.

Ghs

The first statement contains the assumption that the subject was not discussed during the communication and a decision was agreed to otherwise.

What does this mean? That God asked you, and that you agreed, to spread your gospel to others? So now you are God's missionary?

The second statement contains a bundle of naive assumptions about why one person might choose communicating with one person in preference to another.

Yes, Neil, we already know that you are oh-so-special that God selected you, and you alone, out of nearly seven billion people on planet Earth. Too bad he didn't give you any tips on how to argue better.

If my posts appear to be getting more sarcastic, that's because they are. My patience for this nonsense has pretty much come to an end.

<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/sarcasm/Brendadorame/Sarcastic/s.jpg?o=31" target="_blank"><img src="http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h124/Brendadorame/Sarcastic/s.jpg" border="0"></a>

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

You obviously have not looked into Randi's challenge. From Randi's website, with my italics:

...

Ghs

So what evidence can you present me that the above is true?

You just read the evidence.

Ghs

I see. "James Randi said it. I believe it. That ends it."

You asked for evidence, so I gave you evidence. You said nothing about conclusive proof, so I didn't attempt to give you conclusive proof.

I informed you of some of Randi's conditions for testing psychics, including the proviso that the claimant agrees beforehand to those conditions and may even participate in the designing of the test. I have seen no indication that this is not how the tests are actually conducted. Have you?

Should Randi ever claim that he has mind-melded with God, then I will be as skeptical of his claim as I am of yours, until and unless I see some evidence.

In short, there is a vast difference between saying "These are the conditions of my test" and saying "I mind-melded with God." If you do not understand this difference -- if, for example, you regard a report that I had turkey for Xmas dinner yesterday as on an epistemological par with a report that I played poker with real angels yesterday -- then I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help you.

Ghs

In short, there is a vast difference between saying "These are the conditions of my test" and saying "I mind-melded with God." If you do not understand this difference -- if, for example, you regard a report that I had turkey for Xmas dinner yesterday as on an epistemological par with a report that I played poker with real angels yesterday -- then I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help you.

In short, your prejudgment of what is possible within your worldview filters out reports of things you consider impossible. And you never consider that this "spam" filter is itself the reason you never receive any useful communications?

That's what I consider epistemological self-crippling. That's what I consider dogmatic blindness. That's what I consider as pitiful an excuse for atheism as someone else accepting the existence of God with no better reason than being born into a religion and accepting a dogma on faith.

Because of your absolute right to control what you choose to look at, much less believe, you're surprised when Someone whose characteristic mode of communication is by methods to which you've blinded yourself might find someone else more receptive better worth the effort to reach out?

Edited December 26, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

If a god were to communicate to me but not to others, I would assume that this communication was for my personal spiritual edification. If this god wanted others to believe as I do, he could easily communicate to them as well.

Ghs

The first statement contains the assumption that the subject was not discussed during the communication and a decision was agreed to otherwise.

What does this mean? That God asked you, and that you agreed, to spread your gospel to others? So now you are God's missionary?

The second statement contains a bundle of naive assumptions about why one person might choose communicating with one person in preference to another.

Yes, Neil, we already know that you are oh-so-special that God selected you, and you alone, out of nearly seven billion people on planet Earth. Too bad he didn't give you any tips on how to argue better.

If my posts appear to be getting more sarcastic, that's because they are. My patience for this nonsense has pretty much come to an end.

<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/sarcasm/Brendadorame/Sarcastic/s.jpg?o=31" target="_blank"><img src="http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h124/Brendadorame/Sarcastic/s.jpg" border="0"></a>

Ghs

If my opinion of bad-mannered atheists as the garlic breath explaining why the libertarian movement has been marginalized for decades among the larger population whose fundamental beliefs you snarl at has become evident, well, don't let the door hit your ass on the way back to your little cult.

Edited December 26, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

5) Creating an appearance of a phenomenon by trickery does not test whether the phenomenon is possible or real, and it is a logical fallacy to use such duplication of appearance as negating reports or claims on its reality.

To speak of "duplication of appearance" presupposes that the unusual phenomenon in question was real to begin with, i.e., not brought about by trickery. So if you have any credible evidence that John Edward has ever talked to "dead" people, let's see it. Saying that you can relate to his sensitivity as a kid won't cut the mustard.

Moreover, in the case of Edward, it is he who is duplicating the same procedures (asking the same questions that we find in every cold reading technique) that magicians have been using for years. If Edward also did standard card and coin tricks, while claiming that he is not employing sleight-of-hand, would you believe him? Or would you say, in effect, "Well, just because magicians can duplicate his feats doesn't mean that Edward isn't really making coins and cards disappear." Are you truly this much of a fool?

When we have an obvious "normal" explanation for an event, we don't need to posit a "paranormal" explanation. Testing Edward's paranormal claims in controlled conditions would be a relatively simple thing to do, but you can bet your bottom dollar that he would never submit to such a test.

Your defense of con men isn't helping your case for God. It makes you appear extremely gullible.

Ghs

So the only real flavor is vanilla. Got it. That's the libertarianism that will sweep the world.

[George H. Smith]

In short, your prejudgment of what is possible within your worldview filters out reports of things you consider impossible. And you never consider that this "spam" filter is itself the reason you never receive any useful communications?

That's what I consider epistemological self-crippling. That's what I consider dogmatic blindness. That's what I consider as pitiful an excuse for atheism as someone else accepting the existence of God with no better reason than being born into a religion and accepting a dogma on faith.

Because of your absolute right to control what you choose to look at, much less believe, you're surprised when Someone whose characteristic mode of communication is by methods to which you've blinded yourself might find someone else more receptive better worth the effort to reach out?

So you have no filters at all, Neil? Do you accept anything that anyone tells you without prejudice and treat each report as equally possible?

Funny, I recall that you reject the visions reported by Joan of Arc and other supposed encounters with God that don't conform to your own. Why would want to subject yourself to this kind of "epistemological self-crippling" and "dogmatic blindness"? Why not welcome all comers, from Gypsy fortune tellers to Christian faith healers? Why have you blinded yourself?

I assume that you, like most of us, have gotten your fair share of offers from Nigerian "princes" who offer to pay you a hefty sum for helping them transfer millions of dollars to the U.S.. All you have to do is give them your confidential bank info, or possibly send them a few thousand bucks to cover initial expenses.

Most people would spurn all such offers as scams, but I presume you, with your open mind, would not. After all, even if 99 percent of these offers are scams, this doesn't mean that 1 percent might not be genuine. Or maybe there is a Nigerian prince part-time-scammer who actually gives people a million dollars from time to time. Maybe he was a very sensitive kid.

Yesterday on Fox News, I saw a Christian author interviewed who has compiled accounts of people who have talked to angels. I don't recall his name offhand, but I can probably locate the book if you would like to purchase it. I'm sure you would not be so dogmatically blind as to reject such accounts out of hand.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

In short, your prejudgment of what is possible within your worldview filters out reports of things you consider impossible. And you never consider that this "spam" filter is itself the reason you never receive any useful communications?

This is sad and funny and awe-inspiring.

The 'spam filter' on Neil seems to exclude from consideration any notion that he himself could be mistaken about anything he believes to be true.

The most useful communications that Neil excludes are those that posit a plausible psychological explanation for his mystical experience. He rules it out, pushes that possibility off the table, and then lashes out at anyone who questions his filter.

Neil has made it clear -- it is impossible that his interpretation could be wrong. Within his worldview there is no possibility whatsoever that his ketosis/starvation/dehydration/insomnia could explain his mental state at the time of the mind-meld.

But the rest of us are the dogmatic, close-minded, crippled, authoritarian, cultist monsters.

Yikes.

Neil, I suggest that you are building a high wall between yourself and some reasonable options, that you are heading down a path that will lead only to self-exclusion, loneliness and pain.

Please allow that some of us here -- at least George and PDS and Michael -- are trying to help you keep a door open to consensual reality, to give you a passage to the world outside your self-built cell of delusion. Don't wall yourself away from everyone. There will be no benefits either short or long term.

Edited December 26, 2010 by william.scherk

[George H. Smith]

Your defense of con men isn't helping your case for God. It makes you appear extremely gullible.

Ghs

So the only real flavor is vanilla. Got it. That's the libertarianism that will sweep the world.

Better vanilla ice cream than an empty cone.

Your turn.

Ghs

[J Neil Schulman]

In short, your prejudgment of what is possible within your worldview filters out reports of things you consider impossible. And you never consider that this "spam" filter is itself the reason you never receive any useful communications?

That's what I consider epistemological self-crippling. That's what I consider dogmatic blindness. That's what I consider as pitiful an excuse for atheism as someone else accepting the existence of God with no better reason than being born into a religion and accepting a dogma on faith.

Because of your absolute right to control what you choose to look at, much less believe, you're surprised when Someone whose characteristic mode of communication is by methods to which you've blinded yourself might find someone else more receptive better worth the effort to reach out?

So you have no filters at all, Neil? Do you accept anything that anyone tells you without prejudice and treat each report as equally possible?

Funny, I recall that you reject the visions reported by Joan of Arc and other supposed encounters with God that don't conform to your own. Why would want to subject yourself to this kind of "epistemological self-crippling" and "dogmatic blindness"? Why not welcome all comers, from Gypsy fortune tellers to Christian faith healers? Why have you blinded yourself?

I assume that you, like most of us, have gotten your fair share of offers from Nigerian "princes" who offer to pay you a hefty sum for helping them transfer millions of dollars to the U.S.. All you have to do is give them your confidential bank info, or possibly send them a few thousand bucks to cover initial expenses.

Most people would spurn all such offers as scams, but I presume you, with your open mind, would not. After all, even if 99 percent of these offers are scams, this doesn't mean that 1 percent might not be genuine. Or maybe there is a Nigerian prince part-time-scammer who actually gives people a million dollars from time to time. Maybe he was a very sensitive kid.

Yesterday on Fox News, I saw a Christian author interviewed who has compiled accounts of people who have talked to angels. I don't recall his name offhand, but I can probably locate the book if you would like to purchase it. I'm sure you would not be so dogmatically blind as to reject such accounts out of hand.

Ghs

Your memory is as poor as your reading comprehension. I never dismissed Joan of Arc's revelations. I merely refused to dismiss mine because God didn't tell me to apply to the Pentagon for a job as a general.

But in the Gospel According to George, anybody who submits that God has an agenda other than bloodthirsty slaughter is a madman.

[George H. Smith]

The 'spam filter' on Neil seems to exclude from consideration any notion that he himself could be mistaken about anything he believes to be true.

The most useful communications that Neil excludes are those that posit a plausible psychological explanation for his mystical experience. He rules it out, pushes that possibility off the table, and then lashes out at anyone who questions his filter.

Hence my earlier remark, when I was explaining what I would do in Neil's situation: "I would attempt to keep my ego out of the discussion as much as possible."

I quote this in order to show that I am diplomatic from time to time. Those occasions are admittedly rare, but they do happen.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Your memory is as poor as your reading comprehension. I never dismissed Joan of Arc's revelations. I merely refused to dismiss mine because God didn't tell me to apply to the Pentagon for a job as a general.

Our discussion arose in the context of my asking you for criteria by which you distinguish authentic from inauthentic reports of mystical experiences. On at least one occasion you clearly stated that you don't accept reports that differ significantly from your experience. You even talked of the need for reports to conform "in every detail" to your own. This sure looks like a "spam" filter to me.

But let's assume that I misunderstood you. Okay, fine. Are you now saying that you do believe in the authenticity of Joan's reports? Are you saying that you believe that the Virgin Mary and sundry saints actually appeared to Joan in visions, and that God instructed her to fight the English?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Obviously, God wants George to be a skeptic and an atheist.

--Brant

me too (piggy-backing)

God prefers an honest and intelligent atheist to a dishonest acolyte.

But God also preferences people with an open desire to explore the new over people whose worldview is so tightly wrapped they easily and habitually dismiss anything that doesn't reify their prejudices.

A universal, one-size fits all, God?

--Brant

and the cattle, too!

the devil is in the details