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

[Brant Gaede]

I've been tenacious in resisting temptation — you can put your religious gloss on that, if you wish, and I don't mind — to take part in this intricate debate. Aside, that is, from one sidebar about who deserves civility. (In short, pretty much everyone.)

I learned a great deal, nonetheless, in reading it. About good and bad manners, about religious history, about the limitations of discussion forums ('twas e'er thus), about JNS, and about GHS.

I'll jump in again, though, as to this second sidebar:

From all of the exchanges in this thread, it appears to me that, in addition to writing entertaining novels, Neil is quite a character and, I am sure, would be a fascinating conversationalist [...]

I'll second that from a decade of personal experience, reinforced as recently as this past weekend — when I was fortunate enough to share a movie, supper, and conversation with both Neil Schulman and Brad Linaweaver.

You don't have to believe me, of course, but that doesn't change the fact of what I experienced {sardonic smile}

Anyway, one obviously eternal and utterly incontrovertible truth emerged from that evening, attested to by all three of us:

The only reasonable esthetic controversy about "The King's Speech" in regard to the 83rd annual Academy Awards will be whether Colin Firth or Geoffrey Rush is more likely to get the nomination, and the Oscar, for Best Actor. Because they both deserve to have a lock on it!

ENVY!!!

--Brant

human after all

[Jonathan]

If memory serves, I've spoke about my experience before two groups -- the Karl Hess Club and the Southern California C.S. Lewis Society, both of which were at least fifty percent personal friends, neither of which had more than two dozen people in the room. I've never asked for nor been offered to speak about my experiences for pay. I've never solicited any large speaking engagements on this topic. I spoke about it on an Internet radio show that I think maxed out at fifty listeners.

I maintain a website where people can buy the I Met God audiobook. I've never paid money to advertise the website beyond linking it from my other websites. I've sold six copies total since it was released -- not enough to pay the internet costs of maintaining the website. Did I solicit any sales here? Nope. I gave the link to the free text copy on my blog since I was asked for a more detailed account than was in the Gary York interview.

You won't find I Met God on Amazon.com.

Most people who perpetrate attention-seeking stunts don't ask to be paid for them, at least not directly. The purpose of such stunts is to create controversy and to attract attention as a means of promoting and selling something else. It's a form of advertising, and bringing up the issue of not getting paid for it would be like McDonald's reassuring us that they've never asked anyone to pay to view their television commercials.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

There is a basic epistemological problem here. There is no clear way for an uninvolved party to distinguish between a genuine encounter with the Almighty (assuming there is an Almighty) and a psychic dysfunction. For the person who "has met God" it is not clear whether he is bat-shit crazy or has been Touched by God. Even to that person. A crazy person will be just as convinced he met God as one who has genuinely (if that is possible) met God.

I have had experience with "the Still Small Voice Within" myself, but I am sure it was due to high fever.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

If memory serves, I've spoke about my experience before two groups -- the Karl Hess Club and the Southern California C.S. Lewis Society, both of which were at least fifty percent personal friends, neither of which had more than two dozen people in the room. I've never asked for nor been offered to speak about my experiences for pay. I've never solicited any large speaking engagements on this topic. I spoke about it on an Internet radio show that I think maxed out at fifty listeners.

I maintain a website where people can buy the I Met God audiobook. I've never paid money to advertise the website beyond linking it from my other websites. I've sold six copies total since it was released -- not enough to pay the internet costs of maintaining the website. Did I solicit any sales here? Nope. I gave the link to the free text copy on my blog since I was asked for a more detailed account than was in the Gary York interview.

You won't find I Met God on Amazon.com.

Most people who perpetrate attention-seeking stunts don't ask to be paid for them, at least not directly. The purpose of such stunts is to create controversy and to attract attention as a means of promoting and selling something else. It's a form of advertising, and bringing up the issue of not getting paid for it would be like McDonald's reassuring us that they've never asked anyone to pay to view their television commercials.

J

This is broadening out to general social interaction wherein almost everybody is selling themselves one way or the other for one thing or another. At its root it's not venal but physical and psychological survival. Even flourishing takes second place to this. By changing your target you've implicitly left Neil off your hook in lieu of a gigantic drift net sweeping the ocean of all humanity.

--Brant

Sea Shepherd

Edited December 30, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Mikee]

There is a basic epistemological problem here. There is no clear way for an uninvolved party to distinguish between a genuine encounter with the Almighty (assuming there is an Almighty) and a psychic dysfunction. For the person who "has met God" it is not clear whether he is bat-shit crazy or has been Touched by God. Even to that person. A crazy person will be just as convinced he met God as one who has genuinely (if that is possible) met God.

I have had experience with "the Still Small Voice Within" myself, but I am sure it was due to high fever.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

[BaalChatzaf]

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquesti...n%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

Generalize the problem. What if a person has seen (or perceived) something not seen by others. Something extra-ordinary or something new. Is he crazy or has he actually seen something completely out of the ordinary. How can he distinguish the two situations. One cannot deny the possibility of encountering something never encountered by anyone else before.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[J Neil Schulman]

If memory serves, I've spoke about my experience before two groups -- the Karl Hess Club and the Southern California C.S. Lewis Society, both of which were at least fifty percent personal friends, neither of which had more than two dozen people in the room. I've never asked for nor been offered to speak about my experiences for pay. I've never solicited any large speaking engagements on this topic. I spoke about it on an Internet radio show that I think maxed out at fifty listeners.

I maintain a website where people can buy the I Met God audiobook. I've never paid money to advertise the website beyond linking it from my other websites. I've sold six copies total since it was released -- not enough to pay the internet costs of maintaining the website. Did I solicit any sales here? Nope. I gave the link to the free text copy on my blog since I was asked for a more detailed account than was in the Gary York interview.

You won't find I Met God on Amazon.com.

Most people who perpetrate attention-seeking stunts don't ask to be paid for them, at least not directly. The purpose of such stunts is to create controversy and to attract attention as a means of promoting and selling something else. It's a form of advertising, and bringing up the issue of not getting paid for it would be like McDonald's reassuring us that they've never asked anyone to pay to view their television commercials.

J

Yeah, it must have been my God-given psychic powers that influenced Starbuckle to start this discussion and draw me into a flame war instead of spending that time on something that might actually make me money.

[Mikee]

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquesti...n%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

Generalize the problem. What if a person has seen (or perceived) something not seen by others. Something extra-ordinary or something new. Is he crazy or has he actually seen something completely out of the ordinary. How can he distinguish the two situations. One cannot deny the possibility of encountering something never encountered by anyone else before.

Ba'al Chatzaf

One can have this sort of experience and still maintain objectivity. Allow me to tell a story about my uncle. In his early forties, married with a 4yo daughter, he had a severe heart attack. This was in 1952 in St. Anthony, Idaho. He was not expected to survive, but he did survive, though a significant portion of his heart did not. He told this story: He saw a bright white light, from out of this white light came his Mother, who had passed away a year or so before. She said, "Come with me Floyd, it's time to go home". He said "No, I'm not ready. Please let me stay and raise my daughter". I believe this story tells a lot about his motivation for staying alive and explains his survival. But it was purely a personal experience in his own mind. He did not use this personal experience as a way to convince anyone of the existence of God. Though my aunt certainly did. But my uncle certainly experienced what he experienced. It was as real to him as anything in his life. He was as honest and hard working a man as any I've known, not an exaggerator or a blowhard, but thoughtful. But the experience was internal. It revealed to him his reason and purpose for living. Aren't all of these experiences of the same nature? Internal experience that says nothing about external reality?

[J Neil Schulman]

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquesti...n%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

Generalize the problem. What if a person has seen (or perceived) something not seen by others. Something extra-ordinary or something new. Is he crazy or has he actually seen something completely out of the ordinary. How can he distinguish the two situations. One cannot deny the possibility of encountering something never encountered by anyone else before.

Ba'al Chatzaf

One can have this sort of experience and still maintain objectivity. Allow me to tell a story about my uncle. In his early forties, married with a 4yo daughter, he had a severe heart attack. This was in 1952 in St. Anthony, Idaho. He was not expected to survive, but he did survive, though a significant portion of his heart did not. He told this story: He saw a bright white light, from out of this white light came his Mother, who had passed away a year or so before. She said, "Come with me Floyd, it's time to go home". He said "No, I'm not ready. Please let me stay and raise my daughter". I believe this story tells a lot about his motivation for staying alive and explains his survival. But it was purely a personal experience in his own mind. He did not use this personal experience as a way to convince anyone of the existence of God. Though my aunt certainly did. But my uncle certainly experienced what he experienced. It was as real to him as anything in his life. He was as honest and hard working a man as any I've known, not an exaggerator or a blowhard, but thoughtful. But the experience was internal. It revealed to him his reason and purpose for living. Aren't all of these experiences of the same nature? Internal experience that says nothing about external reality?

If experiences from multiple observers are of the same "nature," then that implies it's not just something internal but reflects external reality. It's not a certainty but the implication is worth examining further.

If experiences from multiple observers are of a different "nature" but contain common referents, that also suggests observation of an external reality. Again, not a certainty but the suggestion is on the table as a possible reflection of an external reality.

The willingness or unwillingness to talk about an experience says nothing about whether the experience is entirely internal or reflective of an external reality. Does a hit-and-run not happen because a witness decides not to come forward?

Edited December 30, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[Mikee]

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquesti...n%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

Generalize the problem. What if a person has seen (or perceived) something not seen by others. Something extra-ordinary or something new. Is he crazy or has he actually seen something completely out of the ordinary. How can he distinguish the two situations. One cannot deny the possibility of encountering something never encountered by anyone else before.

Ba'al Chatzaf

One can have this sort of experience and still maintain objectivity. Allow me to tell a story about my uncle. In his early forties, married with a 4yo daughter, he had a severe heart attack. This was in 1952 in St. Anthony, Idaho. He was not expected to survive, but he did survive, though a significant portion of his heart did not. He told this story: He saw a bright white light, from out of this white light came his Mother, who had passed away a year or so before. She said, "Come with me Floyd, it's time to go home". He said "No, I'm not ready. Please let me stay and raise my daughter". I believe this story tells a lot about his motivation for staying alive and explains his survival. But it was purely a personal experience in his own mind. He did not use this personal experience as a way to convince anyone of the existence of God. Though my aunt certainly did. But my uncle certainly experienced what he experienced. It was as real to him as anything in his life. He was as honest and hard working a man as any I've known, not an exaggerator or a blowhard, but thoughtful. But the experience was internal. It revealed to him his reason and purpose for living. Aren't all of these experiences of the same nature? Internal experience that says nothing about external reality?

If experiences from multiple observers are of the same "nature," then that implies it's not just something internal but reflects external reality.

If experiences from multiple observers are of a different "nature" but contain common referents, that also suggests observation of an external reality.

The willingness of unwillingness to talk about an experience says nothing about whether the experience is internal or of an external reality. Does a hit-and-run not happen because a witness decides not to come forward?

Are you familiar with emergent systems and schooling behavior in fish? http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2008/files/olson.pdf

In particular:

"Schooling behavior is an emergent property. Fish are not intelligent enough to

create these regular patterns by choice. Further, the high density of many schools

prevents them from even seeing most of the other fish in the school, so they lack the

information to know their place in the larger structure. The fish are driven simply to be

near each other. It is simple behavioral rules which guide each fish and these result in

such fascinating and complex emergent structures."

[J Neil Schulman]

Suppose there was a history of people who claimed to see extra colors that others could not see. They're dismissed as mystics by materialists and as blasphemers by dogmatic religionists.

Then, some scientist decides to test these people by projecting infrared and ultraviolet frequencies onto a screen and seeing if there is any correlation with the extra colors they claim to see. The results of these tests are uniformly negative. These people are again dismissed as cranks, mystics, and religious outcasts.

Later on, another scientist decides to test these people to see whether the extra colors they claim to see are related to any other phenomena, and eventually discovers that the "extra" colors are more frequently reported at high tide than low tide. They're brought to labs which study gravity waves and a positive correlation is made between their reports of extra colors and generated higher intensities of gravity waves.

The assumption that their "internal" experiences have no external cause can only be tested when science reaches the point to know what to test for and design tests that can measure what they're looking for.

I submit paranormal phenomena can only be measured once we know what they are and how they work. The failure to be able to initiate these abilities on demand under laboratory conditions tells us only that much of the time they are not under the conscious control of the test subjects. But then again, neither are the content of dreams, and who denies that dreams are real -- and common -- phenomena?

Edited December 30, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquesti...n%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

Generalize the problem. What if a person has seen (or perceived) something not seen by others. Something extra-ordinary or something new. Is he crazy or has he actually seen something completely out of the ordinary. How can he distinguish the two situations. One cannot deny the possibility of encountering something never encountered by anyone else before.

Ba'al Chatzaf

One can have this sort of experience and still maintain objectivity. Allow me to tell a story about my uncle. In his early forties, married with a 4yo daughter, he had a severe heart attack. This was in 1952 in St. Anthony, Idaho. He was not expected to survive, but he did survive, though a significant portion of his heart did not. He told this story: He saw a bright white light, from out of this white light came his Mother, who had passed away a year or so before. She said, "Come with me Floyd, it's time to go home". He said "No, I'm not ready. Please let me stay and raise my daughter". I believe this story tells a lot about his motivation for staying alive and explains his survival. But it was purely a personal experience in his own mind. He did not use this personal experience as a way to convince anyone of the existence of God. Though my aunt certainly did. But my uncle certainly experienced what he experienced. It was as real to him as anything in his life. He was as honest and hard working a man as any I've known, not an exaggerator or a blowhard, but thoughtful. But the experience was internal. It revealed to him his reason and purpose for living. Aren't all of these experiences of the same nature? Internal experience that says nothing about external reality?

If experiences from multiple observers are of the same "nature," then that implies it's not just something internal but reflects external reality.

If experiences from multiple observers are of a different "nature" but contain common referents, that also suggests observation of an external reality.

The willingness of unwillingness to talk about an experience says nothing about whether the experience is internal or of an external reality. Does a hit-and-run not happen because a witness decides not to come forward?

Are you familiar with emergent systems and schooling behavior in fish? http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2008/files/olson.pdf

In particular:

"Schooling behavior is an emergent property. Fish are not intelligent enough to

create these regular patterns by choice. Further, the high density of many schools

prevents them from even seeing most of the other fish in the school, so they lack the

information to know their place in the larger structure. The fish are driven simply to be

near each other. It is simple behavioral rules which guide each fish and these result in

such fascinating and complex emergent structures."

That's quite a bit of hand-waving in an attempt to explain the cause of a phenomenon when the cause is not immediately apparent.

If I was studying this I'd be looking for subtle means of communication either among the fish or in reaction to some as-yet unidentified external trigger.

Edited December 30, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[Mikee]

Suppose there was a history of people who claimed to see extra colors that others could not see. They're dismissed as mystics by materialists and as blasphemers by dogmatic religionists.

Then, some scientist decides to test these people by projecting infrared and ultraviolet frequencies onto a screen and seeing if there is any correlation with the extra colors they claim to see. The results of these tests are uniformly negative. These people are again dismissed as cranks, mystics, and religious outcasts.

Later on, another scientist decides to test these people to see whether the extra colors they claim to see are related to any other phenomena, and evenntually discovers that the "extra" colors are more frequently reported at high tide than low tide. They're brought to labs which study gravity waves and a positive correlation is made between their reports of extra colors and generated higher intensities of gravity waves.

The assumption that their "internal" experiences have no external cause can only be tested when science reaches the point to know what to test for and design tests that can measure what they're looking for.

I submit paranormal phenomena can only be measured once we know what they are and how they work. The failure to be able to initiate these abilities on demand under laboratory conditions tells us only that much of the time they are not under the conscious control of the test subjects. But then again, neither are the content of dreams, and who denies that dreams are real -- and common -- phenomena?

Of course there exists phenomenon unexplained ["paranormal"] by human science and that will always be true. That does not constitute proof of an alternate reality or the existence of god or anything supernatural. As far as I've known in my lifetime, nothing said by any "believer" stands as evidence of the existence of god, let alone proof.

I don't deny dreams are real or my uncle's experience was real. What I deny is their relevance to anyone but the dreamer.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, it must have been my God-given psychic powers that influenced Starbuckle to start this discussion and draw me into a flame war instead of spending that time on something that might actually make me money.

There's no need to consider "psychic powers" as an explanation. When running any kind of publicity stunt, one needn't be able to predict ahead of time exactly how it will play out, who will be lured in, and which opportunities might present themselves to be taken advantage of. When one goes around promoting the idea that he interacted with God after having been an atheist, and confesses to having the expectation of changing the world with his testimony, it should come as no surprise to him that someone, somewhere, would end up discussing it in one public medium or another. You happened to catch Mr. Atheism commenting on it. That's a pretty big fish.

You could have done worse, and, who knows, you might still do better as far as exposure is concerned. If, say, Glenn Beck -- who you report as having raved about your Alongside Night -- were to suddenly take an interest in your Conversion and your heroic battles with George and his "douche bag" atheist minions, and decided to give your story some national television air time, we wouldn't need to posit your "psychic powers" as having influenced Beck, but just your promotional maneuverings in going after free advertising and a much larger market.

J

[Xray]

There is a basic epistemological problem here. There is no clear way for an uninvolved party to distinguish between a genuine encounter with the Almighty (assuming there is an Almighty) and a psychic dysfunction. For the person who "has met God" it is not clear whether he is bat-shit crazy or has been Touched by God. Even to that person. A crazy person will be just as convinced he met God as one who has genuinely (if that is possible) met God.

What further complicates matters: If a God exists, this God could appear to 'crazy' persons as well. Which would add the variant that a person coud be both be 'crazy' (psychotic) and have had God encounter.

In which case the opposition "Person P either had a God encounter or is/was crazy (or had a psychotic break) would not exist anymore.

Based on the premise (for discussion's sake only) that a god exists, one gets the following combinations:

+psychotic +God encounter

-psychotic +God encounter

+psychotic -God encounter

-psychotic -God encounter

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

The epistemological problems in discussions about religion are manifold because one will often encounter people who refuse to separate fact from fiction, being so convinced they have "met God" that they react very touchy to epistemological challenge which places the burden of proof on them - a proof they cannot offer due to the nature of such 'experiences'.

The approach of Neil Schulman's discussion opponents was strictly empistemological, and as the debate progressed, Neil found himself more and more struggling with this challenge:

"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)

Neil tried to counter but only got deeper in quicksand because the nature of his counter-attacks did not meet even basic epistemological standards.

One example of many:

"god is no pacifist." (NS) (making the mistake of presnting a mere belief as fact)

"Because I present my reasons why I regard God's existence as a real person as not violating Aristotle's and Rand's axioms, nor violating of a reasoned understanding of natural law." (NS)

Neil believes that his subjective idea of a God (= "a real person") reflects reality.

One could as well claim (I'll borrow George's "invisible elves" for that purpose) that one regards them as "real persons" and delude onself into thinking one's imagination reflects reality.

Especially detrimental to Neil's argumentation is that he tries to cling to Aristotle's and Rand's axioms during it all.

That's why he resorts to speaking of god a "a real person" and an "entity", and that's why he denies that the supernatural is unreal.

He seems to believe that if the supernatural is declared as "real", then Objectivists will have to accept it as such.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Yeah, it must have been my God-given psychic powers that influenced Starbuckle to start this discussion and draw me into a flame war instead of spending that time on something that might actually make me money.

There's no need to consider "psychic powers" as an explanation. When running any kind of publicity stunt, one needn't be able to predict ahead of time exactly how it will play out, who will be lured in, and which opportunities might present themselves to be taken advantage of. When one goes around promoting the idea that he interacted with God after having been an atheist, and confesses to having the expectation of changing the world with his testimony, it should come as no surprise to him that someone, somewhere, would end up discussing it in one public medium or another. You happened to catch Mr. Atheism commenting on it. That's a pretty big fish.

You could have done worse, and, who knows, you might still do better as far as exposure is concerned. If, say, Glenn Beck -- who you report as having raved about your Alongside Night -- were to suddenly take an interest in your Conversion and your heroic battles with George and his "douche bag" atheist minions, and decided to give your story some national television air time, we wouldn't need to posit your "psychic powers" as having influenced Beck, but just your promotional maneuverings in going after free advertising and a much larger market.

J

I do publish with the expectation of interest. However given that the interest in I Met God has been far less than many of my other books, I haven't been sanguine about its commercial prospects for quite some time. I moved on to other projects and came here because Starbuckle's specific complaint was the lack of follow-up questions to an interview with me done years ago. I came here to answer follow up questions to one of my books. I would have done that for any of my books.

"Mr. Atheism" trashing my book as entirely unconvincing and preposterous isn't the sort of endorsement that will improve its sales prospects.

Glenn Beck claims to be ecumenical, but I doubt that includes people like me who are not only not members of his church, but of any established and respected "faith." My denial of faith and criticism of people who accept the existence of God only because of faith would be a negative to him, not a positive.

But we do have a test. As a follow-up to my Alongside Night which Glenn Beck read and liked, I recently sent him a copy of Escape from Heaven. I'm not holding my breath either that he'll read it, or having read it like it, or having read and liked it decide it's worthy of his public endorsement, but you never know.

Edited December 30, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[Mikee]

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquesti...n%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

Generalize the problem. What if a person has seen (or perceived) something not seen by others. Something extra-ordinary or something new. Is he crazy or has he actually seen something completely out of the ordinary. How can he distinguish the two situations. One cannot deny the possibility of encountering something never encountered by anyone else before.

Ba'al Chatzaf

One can have this sort of experience and still maintain objectivity. Allow me to tell a story about my uncle. In his early forties, married with a 4yo daughter, he had a severe heart attack. This was in 1952 in St. Anthony, Idaho. He was not expected to survive, but he did survive, though a significant portion of his heart did not. He told this story: He saw a bright white light, from out of this white light came his Mother, who had passed away a year or so before. She said, "Come with me Floyd, it's time to go home". He said "No, I'm not ready. Please let me stay and raise my daughter". I believe this story tells a lot about his motivation for staying alive and explains his survival. But it was purely a personal experience in his own mind. He did not use this personal experience as a way to convince anyone of the existence of God. Though my aunt certainly did. But my uncle certainly experienced what he experienced. It was as real to him as anything in his life. He was as honest and hard working a man as any I've known, not an exaggerator or a blowhard, but thoughtful. But the experience was internal. It revealed to him his reason and purpose for living. Aren't all of these experiences of the same nature? Internal experience that says nothing about external reality?

If experiences from multiple observers are of the same "nature," then that implies it's not just something internal but reflects external reality.

If experiences from multiple observers are of a different "nature" but contain common referents, that also suggests observation of an external reality.

The willingness of unwillingness to talk about an experience says nothing about whether the experience is internal or of an external reality. Does a hit-and-run not happen because a witness decides not to come forward?

Are you familiar with emergent systems and schooling behavior in fish? http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2008/files/olson.pdf

In particular:

"Schooling behavior is an emergent property. Fish are not intelligent enough to

create these regular patterns by choice. Further, the high density of many schools

prevents them from even seeing most of the other fish in the school, so they lack the

information to know their place in the larger structure. The fish are driven simply to be

near each other. It is simple behavioral rules which guide each fish and these result in

such fascinating and complex emergent structures."

That's quite a bit of hand-waving in an attempt to explain the cause of a phenomenon when the cause is not immediately apparent.

If I was studying this I'd be looking for subtle means of communication either among the fish or in reaction to some as-yet unidentified external trigger.

Not hand-waving at all. The behavioral rules were identified to be quite simple and were simulated: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100916121320.htm

[George H. Smith]

Suppose there was a history of people who claimed to see extra colors that others could not see. They're dismissed as mystics by materialists and as blasphemers by dogmatic religionists.

Have them mix some paint until they arrive at the combination that correlates with what they see. There is nothing inherently problematic about what these people perceive. Some people are color blind, deaf people typically have more acute hearing than sighted people, sounds cause some people to experience colors, and trained radiologists can see things on a xray that others cannot.

In short, your example is merely a case of variations in a sensory faulty that all sighted people possess. Moreover, we have seen different colors ourselves, so we know what the people in your example mean when they speak of seeing an unusual color. There is a vast difference between the claim to see an unusual color and the claim to see God.

Then, some scientist decides to test these people by projecting infrared and ultraviolet frequencies onto a screen and seeing if there is any correlation with the extra colors they claim to see. The results of these tests are uniformly negative. These people are again dismissed as cranks, mystics, and religious outcasts.

For what possible reason would such people be stigmatized in this manner? Again, they are merely claiming to see a variant of something (i.e., color) that all sighted people can perceive. Their claim is no more inherently improbable than, say, than the visual experiences of people with dyslexia.

The assumption that their "internal" experiences have no external cause can only be tested when science reaches the point to know what to test for and design tests that can measure what they're looking for.

I submit paranormal phenomena can only be measured once we know what they are and how they work. The failure to be able to initiate these abilities on demand under laboratory conditions tells us only that much of the time they are not under the conscious control of the test subjects. But then again, neither are the content of dreams, and who denies that dreams are real -- and common -- phenomena?

This is the kind of "argument for all occasions" that one commonly finds with mystics and people who claim to possess paranormal powers. It can be applied to virtually any claim, no matter how fantastic and absurd. A person who claims to see dancing fairies at twilight, or who claims to be in telepathic communication with beings on another planet (as Geller does), or who claims to be the reincarnation of Napoleon, or who claims to be able to inhabit the bodies of other people, and so on without end, can make exactly the same argument that you do, viz, that science has not yet advanced to the point where their claims can be fairly tested, and it would therefore be sheer dogmatism to dismiss such claims.

This argument is worthless, and it shouldn't be too difficult for you to figure out why, given your claim to have read extensively in the field of epistemology. Even a modest knowledge of Rand's epistemology would be sufficient in this case.

Lastly, to say that dreams are "real" is not to say that dreams are anything more than a subjective experience. Of course, this does not mean that external factors do not play a role; anyone who has fallen asleep with the television on has probably noticed how a program can weave its way into a dream.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

"Mr. Atheism" trashing my book as entirely unconvincing and preposterous isn't the sort of endorsement that will improve its sales prospects.

If you're target market is Believers, then Mr. Atheism's negative appraisal is probably exactly what they'd want to hear.

Glenn Beck claims to be ecumenical, but I doubt that includes people like me who are not only not members of his church, but of any established and respected "faith." My denial of faith and criticism of people who accept the existence of God only because of faith would be a negative to him, not a positive.

I don't think that Beck is a subtle enough thinker to make those distinctions and judgments. I think that if he heard of an atheist turned Believer, that would be enough for him. His curiosity would end there. I don't think he'd even try to get his mind around your criticism of people accepting God on faith, or why you'd label his and others' experiences of feeling God's presence inside them (to one extent or another) as being based in faith where you categorize your own experiences as something other than faith.

J

[J Neil Schulman]

I did expect people who have read Thomas S. Szasz not to be so quick as to play doctor and start issuing diagnoses of psychosis for no better reason that someone reported events outside their dogma of what is possible.

There has been no such diagnosis. Psychosis is one half of the false dilemma you set up for yourself. In several posts I pointed out that you haven't considered a third possibility: that you were mistaken in your interpretation of an unusual state of mind.

But before I even posted for the first time here you decided to ridicule and sneer at my accounts of my experience. You've called me insane because I no longer accept my former Godless worldview. For an old friend who knows me as scrupulously accurate in trying to represent my experience, that's just fucking rude.

George posted twice before your appearance. In each of the two posts he was rather light-hearted. Starbuckle did not sneer or ridicule, and neither did Ninth Doctor.

Nobody has called you insane. No one. You are utterly wrong to insist on this. It is dishonest to keep banging that drum.

Here's what Starbuckle asked: "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."

That was a good faith question. You have dodged that question in every single post. What makes other alternatives unreasonable?

All you have to do is consider the possibility that your old atheist buddy didn't suffer a psychotic break with reality but discovered that reality was of a different nature than his previous understanding allowed for.

Nobody set the only alternative explanation of your experience as a psychotic break with reality. Nobody but you. Only you have set up this false dilemma.

Your refusal to consider the possibility of another explanation is the crux of your communication problem. Do you show good faith insisting that there is no third possibility? Is it good faith to insist that other people have set the false dilemma -- when only you have set up the alternatives?

++++++++++++++++

If I was forced to choose from the buffet of god stories, I would probably choose Neil's confection: his god doesn't actually do much, doesn't actively hurt anyone, doesn't raise a superstructure of loathsome religion, does not make lightning strike, does not intrude on the world or make anything of importance happen. An inert, distant, uninvolved and low-power god seems a lot more palatable than the other offerings.

Neil's god seems to have set everything in motion and then had a series of long naps.

So, I can provisionally accept that Neil's god is the one gem amongst all others.

Now what? Neil's god doesn't seem to have anything more to say to anyone on any subject. He has no awesome powers and no control over events. He neither causes disasters nor is able to avert them. He gives no map to salvation and has no particular beef with anyone or anything.

About the only thing we can take away from this concept of god is that life is eternal, that we humans live on in some way after 'death.'

That's a good deal, I figure. No rules, no expectations, no punishment, no anger, no hell, no nothing.

So, Neil, I can provisionally give a nod to your concept of god as the least monstrous.

Now what? What do you think I should do with this general acceptance of your god as Best In Show?

A good-faith question is one where the questioner's viewpoint can potentially be altered by the answer.

In a dispute the question of whether any given answer is sufficient to negate the assumptions of the questioner requires an objective third party to mediate. Good luck finding one who isn't ridiculed by one side or the other the moment he rules against one of the sides.

The acceptance of biblical stories as a measure of who God is and what he's done by people who don't believe the Bible is anything but politically-motivated fiction strikes me as a case of what Rand called the "stolen concept." If you don't believe in scripture as historically accurate then using any of its stories to negate a non-scriptural description of God is absurd.

You also make a lot of assumptions with respect to my presentation about God that's not warranted by what I've written or said. I never asserted, as do Deists, that God plays no active role in what happens within our plane of existence. I merely assert his powerlessness when it comes to our own free-will decision-making. We don't decide on whether or not to have earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, extreme weather, solar flares, volcanic eruptions, asteroid fly-bys, and a gazillion other things. That certainly leaves plenty for God to act if he found there was a reason that satisfied his purposes. I don't know why God acting has to be classified as miraculous any more than when any other intelligent actor makes a decision that effects a change. The Deists were just taking one narrow position in a dilemma of religious choices about an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God-- Christianity's living God who gives a shit, or their living God who's so indifferent he might as well be dead.

Regarding psychosis. That's an establishment psychological diagnosis to describe people whose behavior regularly pisses off others.

Here is the alternative as I see it:

1) I experienced something externally real.

2) I did not experience something externally real.

That's pretty binary.

I maintain 1) because my experiences satisfied pre-conditions I'd set for myself to negate my skepticism.

I maintain others are reasonable in not accepting 1) until it happens to them.

Out of loneliness I encourage others to make the experiment.

Edited December 30, 2010 by J. Neil Schulman

[J Neil Schulman]

"Mr. Atheism" trashing my book as entirely unconvincing and preposterous isn't the sort of endorsement that will improve its sales prospects.

If you're target market is Believers, then Mr. Atheism's negative appraisal is probably exactly what they'd want to hear.

Glenn Beck claims to be ecumenical, but I doubt that includes people like me who are not only not members of his church, but of any established and respected "faith." My denial of faith and criticism of people who accept the existence of God only because of faith would be a negative to him, not a positive.

I don't think that Beck is a subtle enough thinker to make those distinctions and judgments. I think that if he heard of an atheist turned Believer, that would be enough for him. His curiosity would end there. I don't think he'd even try to get his mind around your criticism of people accepting God on faith, or why you'd label his and others' experiences of feeling God's presence inside them (to one extent or another) as being based in faith where you categorize your own experiences as something other than faith.

J

You don't watch Glenn Beck enough. He is very specific in what hobby horse he promotes.

And the lack of interest suggests to me that "believers" believe something else.

[william.scherk]

Are you familiar with emergent systems and schooling behavior in fish?

That's quite a bit of hand-waving in an attempt to explain the cause of a phenomenon when the cause is not immediately apparent.

If I was studying this I'd be looking for subtle means of communication either among the fish or in reaction to some as-yet unidentified external trigger.

Not hand-waving at all. The behavioral rules were identified to be quite simple and were simulated: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100916121320.htm

Very strange line of inquiry from Neil. You asked if he was familiar with fish schooling. He dodges the question and ignores the reference ('hand waving') and then suggests that the best way to proceed is to disregard all previous inquiry and leap immediately into the spirit world.

That stance boggles my mind. It appears that Neil is predisposed to a mystical explanation of any intriguing phenomena, without taking the time to even glance over more prosaic explanations.

Mike: Are you familiar with the science of crossing the road, which attempts to explain how people get from one side of the road to the other without being mashed like sardines? Much of the work concentrates on vision, sound and 'pedestrian signalling' infrastructure. Basically, the behaviour is an emergent property of Look Both Ways and/or wait for a 'safe crossing' light.

Neil: A lot of hand-waving nonsense. I would start with psychic emanations from the eleventh dimension and stir in multiple continua that we aren't able to measure yet.

Mike: Um, why would you posit invisible mystical possibilities rather than respond to the empirical work first?

Neil: You are a fucking dogmatic asshole.

[Mikee]

Hmm. I see why this thread is so long. I'm going to go watch a Zatoichi movie on Hulu.

[william.scherk]

Here is the alternative as I see it:

1) I experienced something externally real.

2) I did not experience something externally real.

Okay. How about this . . .

1.) Neil experienced something externally real

2.) Neil did not experience something externally real (he had a

psychotic break with reality

).

3.) Neil did not experience something externally real (he did not have a

psychotic break with reality

)

I am asking you to consider that the ketosis/paranoia/dehydration/starvation/insomnia may have led to the experience. As far as I can tell, you do not consider this a reasonable possibility.

[J Neil Schulman]

There is a basic epistemological problem here. There is no clear way for an uninvolved party to distinguish between a genuine encounter with the Almighty (assuming there is an Almighty) and a psychic dysfunction. For the person who "has met God" it is not clear whether he is bat-shit crazy or has been Touched by God. Even to that person. A crazy person will be just as convinced he met God as one who has genuinely (if that is possible) met God.

What further complicates matters: If a God exists, this God could appear to 'crazy' persons as well. Which would add the variant that a person coud be both be 'crazy' (psychotic) and have had God encounter.

In which case the opposition "Person P either had a God encounter or is/was crazy (or had a psychotic break) would not exist anymore.

Based on the premise (for discussion's sake only) that a god exists, one gets the following combinations:

+psychotic +God encounter

-psychotic +God encounter

+psychotic -God encounter

-psychotic -God encounter

I have never believed in "God". By the age of nine I dismissed the idea as irrelevant, that is, it explains nothing. Einstein explains it best: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/einstein%E2%80%99s-god

I don't see an epistemological problem.

The epistemological problems in discussions about religion are manifold because one will often encounter people who refuse to separate fact from fiction, being so convinced they have "met God" that they react very touchy to epistemological challenge which places the burden of proof on them - a proof they cannot offer due to the nature of such 'experiences'.

The approach of Neil Schulman's discussion opponents was strictly empistemological, and as the debate progressed, Neil found himself more and more struggling with this challenge:

"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)

Neil tried to counter but only got deeper in quicksand because the nature of his counter-attacks did not meet even basic epistemological standards.

One example of many:

"god is no pacifist." (NS) (making the mistake of presnting a mere belief as fact)

"Because I present my reasons why I regard God's existence as a real person as not violating Aristotle's and Rand's axioms, nor violating of a reasoned understanding of natural law." (NS)

Neil believes that his subjective idea of a God (= "a real person") reflects reality.

One could as well claim (I'll borrow George's "invisible elves" for that purpose) that one regards them as "real persons" and delude onself into thinking one's imagination reflects reality.

Especially detrimental to Neil's argumentation is that he tries to cling to Aristotle's and Rand's axioms during it all.

That's why he resorts to speaking of god a "a real person" and an "entity", and that's why he denies that the supernatural is unreal.

He seems to believe that if the supernatural is declared as "real", then Objectivists will have to accept it as such.

Neil tried to counter but only got deeper in quicksand because the nature of his counter-attacks did not meet even basic epistemological standards.

One example of many:

"god is no pacifist." (NS) (making the mistake of presnting a mere belief as fact)

If it was God communicating with me then what I learned during the communication is a valid basis for this statement. Only if the communication did not happen in the first place would the conclusion be baseless.

"Because I present my reasons why I regard God's existence as a real person as not violating Aristotle's and Rand's axioms, nor violating of a reasoned understanding of natural law." (NS)

Neil believes that his subjective idea of a God (= "a real person") reflects reality.

One could as well claim (I'll borrow George's "invisible elves" for that purpose) that one regards them as "real persons" and delude onself into thinking one's imagination reflects reality.

No, it's not because I claim that the concept of God does not violate Aristotle and Rand's three axioms of Existence, Non-Contradiction, and Identity, but because I do not claim things about God that violate those axioms. I do not claim that God is "omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent." I do not assert that God has an impossible-to-know undefinable and unspecific nature. I assert, based on my experience of him, that God is limited by the nature of his existence as an existent subject to the Law of Identity. In fact, I assert, based on my experience of him, that God is with one fundamental exception the same sort of conscious being that we are: a conscious soul that may enter into a biological body and does not terminate with that body but merely exits it upon its death. The distinguishing difference is that God is the First Existing Conscious Entity and like existence itself his consciousness Exists -- while our consciousnesses have beginnings defined when they became independent of his.

This, alone, distinguishes what I learned from many other teleology which have as its purpose to end that separation from God, while the teleology I learned from communication with God is to develop and evolve our own independent consciousnesses rather than abandon our distinct individual identities in favor of losing our selves back into the One we came out of. That makes God pro-free-will and pro-individualist -- a libertarian.

Especially detrimental to Neil's argumentation is that he tries to cling to Aristotle's and Rand's axioms during it all. That's why he resorts to speaking of god a "a real person" and an "entity", and that's why he denies that the supernatural is unreal. He seems to believe that if the supernatural is declared as "real", then Objectivists will have to accept it as such.

If my experience of God was real then God is real. If God is real he is a real thing, subject to the three axioms of Existence, Non-Contradiction, and Identity. If I had a communication with someone real and with a consciousness of the same nature as our own then referring to God as a person is sensible. That's what I experienced: communication with an eternal consciousness of the same nature as our own. I don't "cling" to the Axioms. I merely encountered nothing that negates them, nor how could anything real exist that does?

If my experience had been of something that violated the axioms -- if I'd encountered things that contradicted them -- then that would have been an immediate proof to me negating my experience as real. It is because my encounter was of an entity that does not contradict the axioms that I was willing further to pursue validations of that experience as real.