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

[Brant Gaede]

George, you need a massage.

--Brant

Not from you I don't. I never get massages from anything with a penis.

Ah. I see you remember that scene from The Godfather.

--Brant

I don't see a connection between a penis and being shot in the eye. Well, yes, there is a possible connection via porn, but I would rather not think about that now.

Ghs

Later, then.

--Brant

[Selene]

When Michael is having his son baptized in the church and the assassinations are going on, Moe Green is on the massage table and he picks up his glasses to see who just came in and he is shot through the eye.

The actor was actually hurt doing that scene, but he kept acting and they kept filming.

--Brant

Brant:

Really...how was he hurt?

Adam

hoping he is not walking into a Brant baited word trap...lol

[Xray]

Neil: how do you know I'm not already a convert, albeit one without the benefit of God having entered my body?

A convert to what?

Isn't that the grand question of this thread: i.e., if I have become a Neil convert, what exactly have I converted to?

Since the OJ Simpson discussion was also going on when you wrote that, I was not sure whether you meant Neil had succeeded in 'converting' you to believe in Simpson's innocence. ;)

It looks like Nei wasn't sure either, since he too asked you: "A convert to what?"

Neil: how do you know I'm not already a convert, albeit one without the benefit of God having entered my body?

A convert to what?

Xray says: "For atheists too can fall into the trap of the 'Ontological Argument' when they want to disprove any existence of a god by criticizing the traits of God as contradictory and then conclude God cannot exist. Just as the theist (using the Ontological Argument) imagines God as a perfect being and concludes (which is a thinking error) that this being must exist - doesn't the atheist operating from the other side of the fence, when he points out that God is presented as a contradictory being in the various religious texts, and from that concludes this being cannot exist, make the same thinking error?"

What "thinking error" is that? Thinking based on acceptance of the fact that contradictions can't exist in reality?

But quite a few contradictions can exist in reality. For example, an erratic person can be both friendly and unkind. People can promise something and not keep it, which makes their behavior a contradiction to their words.

Therefore an atheist walks on very thin ice when he thinks he can reject a god as nonexistent merely because the concept of the being includes contradictory character traits like e. g. being both relentless and mercifiul, irate and mild, ordering the murders of certain individuals while resurrecting others, etc.

The axiom that metaphysical contradictions can't exist is just a restatement of the law of identity. Without implicitly recognizing that all entities are bounded by their own nature, i.e., that things are what they are and only that, no intelligible thinking can be done at all. If a person asserts both that "x is true" and "x is not true," one is thinking clearly to conclude that both statements cannot be true, that only one at most can be true.

Just like human individuals, a god can e. g. be both merciful and merciless.

As for the contradiction of a god concept which posits god as both all-powerful and all-good, a theist can avoid it by dropping the "all-powerful".

If a person states, explicitly or even unbeknownst to himself, that a posited super-being both has attribute X and does not have attribute X, one is thinking clearly to conclude that such a being cannot exist. Gods are always presented as being outside the natural realm and unbounded by the considerations of cause and effect that circumscribe and inhibit mere natural entities.

See above. A god can have certain attributes and not have them, like e. g. irate and mild.

Of course, theists like to pretend that logic and reality are irrelevant to assessing their mystical presumptions and experiences.

In the realm of pure imagination, the law of identity is indeed irrelevant.

And, of course, they also insist on the validity of the law of identity when it suits them and drop it like a hot potato when it doesn't suit them.

When they try to apply the law of identity, the best way to counter is to tell them they can spare themselves the effort of adjusting their god to any law of identity since every concept of a god is purely imaginative anyway.

They won't like this answer of course, since they think of their God as real (often using terms like e. g. "divine reality") instead of imagined.

In case they downright claim that "God exists" or "I met God" (as Neil has done here), you can get them in an epistemological corner from which there is no escape. For they are of course unable to meet the burden of proof.

This was the strictly epistemological approach George H. Smith took with Neil. That Ghs got Neil into that corner right from the start and kept him there was the main reason why he has won this debate against NS hands down.

Neil, being more aware than other theists of the obvious metaphysical objection to his posited natural-realm-transcending entity, contends that his uber-being does not suffer from any of these self-contradictions. But if one presses him on the matter, one will learn that "Well, you really had to be there!" One can learn nothing, for example, about how it is possible for the Neil-God to be "everlasting" or purely spiritual in form; or how Neil knows these features of Neil-God; you really had to be there and partake of the invisible mystic communion yourself to get any inkling. Such mysteries are incommunicable. It all comes down to a Jerry-Lewis version of epistemology: "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, none will do."

That sums it up pretty well.

Another commentator averred somewhere in this thread that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This statement is too compact. It would be more precise to say that absence of persistent and observable evidence is not evidence of absence of what that evidence, had it remained available, would have shown.

This was in connection to Rand asserting in an interview that, because one cannot prove the existence of a god, it means that god does not exist.

That's quite an epistemological blunder Rand made here. Too bad the interviewer let her run with it.

For Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. For example, it would be a non-sequitur if a fish deep down in the ocean concluded that just because he can't see any evidence of a sky and cannot prove existence of a such sky, this sky does not exist.

Like Ghs said in his book, failure to prove the positive does not automatically establish the negative. All that talk about "you don't prove a negative" does not justify epistemological non-sequiturs like claiming non-existence of something just because our limited mind may not be able to grasp it.

In a "god" discussion, the argument from ignorance is a fallacy in which both theists and atheists can get caught.

http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance

Excerpt:

Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the Existence of God. This, both from the theistic side (e.g. "You don't have evidence that my God doesn't exist, so regardless of my evidence - he exists!") and from the atheistic side (e.g. "You don't have evidence that your God exists, therefore he doesn't exist, regardless of whether I actually possess Evidence of absence"). Again, it is important to note that it is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof. In other words, a complete lack of evidence either way results in agnosticism, thus each side must prove that they have satisfied their own burden for providing proof (evidence).

That's why I'm a religious agnostic (currently leaning, belief-wise, more to the atheistic side of the fence).

If religious thought systems contradict established facts of reality, it is easy to refute them. A theist claiming that god created the world in seven days and that the earth is a mere 6000 yeras old has no scientific leg to stand on today.

As soon as the theists claim something of their imagined world to correspond to reality, they tread on ground so dangerous that the basis of their faith can collapse.

Gods, however, are among those peculiar kinds of entities which cannot be observed either directly or indirectly, anyway, anyhow, when they're "there" and when they're not there, except insofar as allegedly manifested in dream, delusion, imagination or hallucination. Even specks of dust are more metaphysically potent than that.

I would hesitate to call "God" an 'entity' at all, since it is a concept having no objective referent.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The idea that contradictions can exist is merely the severance of metaphysics from epistemology allowing anything. The idea that a human being can be both merciful and merciless ignores in the same time and in the same respect, for instance. One can be good to mom and bad to dad.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

This was in connection to Rand asserting in an interview that, because one cannot prove the existence of a god, it means that god does not exist.

I couldn't find where she said that. Some of the sound quality is very poor.

--Brant

[Starbuckle]

I came across an interesting discussion of perceptual blindness and conceptual blindness on a radio show called "Fast Track" with Steve Dorn. The audio is here: http://bit.ly/gElAhK

It's about how the mind often fills in the blanks when one has perceived only scattered and incomplete information. Sometimes one's expectations about what the missing bits would add up to are accurate, sometimes not. The guest notes that many persons who regard themselves as "well-trained observers" aren't that well-trained. They do a lot of blank-filling like everybody else, and believe they've observed what they're only supposing they've observed.

I bring the topic up in this thread because it has been my contention that Schulman prepped himself mentally for quite a long time for his God-experience time. The physical deprivation that triggered his funky state of consciousness (the Nimoyesque "mind-meld" with God) was only a proximate cause. Much of Schulman's argument in this thread amounts to strenuous blank-filling that serves to render his experience intelligible in theistic terms (as well as pseudo-rationalistic and science-fictional terms). If all the assumptions and leaps of faith and logic and strained analogies and so forth were stripped away, the only thing Schulman could claim to have "perceived" during the eight hours would be the effects on his consciousness of a bad trip.

[kiaer.ts]

Oh, God no.

[caroljane]

Oh, God no.

Thought this thread was dead..Exterminate! Exterminate!

[Starbuckle]

Hyperlinks don't auto-click.

[kiaer.ts]

Oh, God no.

Thought this thread was dead..Exterminate! Exterminate!

[9thdoctor]

Oh, God no.

Thought this thread was dead..Exterminate! Exterminate!

I haven't seen this movie in decades, but I distinctly remember Jason had a pinker complexion in this shot, when he jumps out of the water at the end of the first film. Scared the crap out of me when I was maybe 10, it's burned into memory. This looks like a joke, someone swapped Jason out for a Wookie on a diet.

[caroljane]

Oh, God no.

Thought this thread was dead..Exterminate! Exterminate!

Which one is the disguised Dalek?

[Xray]

I couldn't find where she said that. Some of the sound quality is very poor.

At the very beginning (0:25), the interviewer says to Rand:

"There is no proof that there [is a god], so therefore you have concluded that there isn't one."

Rand: "That's right." (Link to the interview in post # 878).

This so-called "argument from ignorance" is a fallacy.

Oh, God no.

One would think you have already made funeral arrangements for this thread which has unexpectedly been revived by its founder. ;)

I have mostly enjoyed this thread since it has shown how easily theistic claims collapse if one gets the theists in the epistemological corner. So if in the future any other theists should for some reason land here at OL, this is the thread to invite them to.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Xray

[caroljane]

And we'll check out their finances.

-Goldie

still digging

Edited February 12, 2011 by daunce lynam

[BaalChatzaf]

Is that from a movie? What movie?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[J Neil Schulman]

I couldn't find where she said that. Some of the sound quality is very poor.

At the very beginning (0:25), the interviewer says to Rand:

"There is no proof that there [is a god], so therefore you have concluded that there isn't one."

Rand: "That's right." (Link to the interview in post # 878).

This so-called "argument from ignorance" is a fallacy.

Oh, God no.

One would think you have already made funeral arrangements for this thread which has unexpectedly been revived by its founder. ;)

I have mostly enjoyed this thread since it has shown how easily theistic claims collapse if one gets the theists in the epistemological corner. So if in the future any other theists should for some reason land here at OL, this is the thread to invite them to.

Xray, once again raising her hands in a boxer's victory, but unfortunately with no one but her own cheering section to join her, since there is no impartial referee to make an objective decision.

[Brant Gaede]

I couldn't find where she said that. Some of the sound quality is very poor.

At the very beginning (0:25), the interviewer says to Rand:

"There is no proof that there [is a god], so therefore you have concluded that there isn't one."

Rand: "That's right." (Link to the interview in post # 878).

This so-called "argument from ignorance" is a fallacy.

Well, fallacy or not, if you substitute "the moon is made of green cheese" for "God" in the interview, her meaning is clear enough. The moon isn't made of that for there is no evidence of that. If you believe it is it's a matter of faith. There is no "proof." However, in the future we may discover that not far below the surface it's nothing but green cheese. Then we'll have to go with that, but not on faith.

--Brant

Edited February 12, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[J Neil Schulman]

I couldn't find where she said that. Some of the sound quality is very poor.

At the very beginning (0:25), the interviewer says to Rand:

"There is no proof that there [is a god], so therefore you have concluded that there isn't one."

Rand: "That's right." (Link to the interview in post # 878).

This so-called "argument from ignorance" is a fallacy.

Well, fallacy or not, if you substitute "the moon is made of green cheese" for "God" in the interview, her meaning is clear enough. The moon isn't made of that for there is no evidence of that. If you believe it is it's a matter of faith. There is no "proof." However, in the future we may discover that not far below the surface it's nothing but green cheese. Then we'll have to go with that, but not on faith.

--Brant

I'm inclined to give Rand, speaking in a second language she mastered only as an adult, the benefit of the doubt when she was being interviewed in real time and not having the benefit of editing what she wrote. She did not find proof of the existence of God so she concluded there wasn't one. She thought it was myth, unsubstantiated rumor, or a con game.

All of which is beside the point for this particular thread, which is about a guy who had that exact same view as Rand: I did not find proof of the existence of God so I concluded there wasn't one until I had experiences I considered proof and changed my mind. In neither Ayn Rand's case nor my case were either of us ever willing to accept the existence of God on faith.

[Xray]

-Goldie

still digging

Good pun.

Well, fallacy or not, if you subsitute "the moon is made of green cheese" for "God" in the interview, her meaning is clear enough. The moon isn't made of that for there is no evidence of that. If you believe it is it's a matter of faith. There is no "proof."

This example does not fit because we do have proof here - of the contrary.

For not only do we possess hard evidence proving the moon's existence, we also possess hard evidence proving what its material is made of.

So all one would need to do in that case: confront the 'green cheesers' with this evidence disproving their belief.

As for "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence":

For example, it would be a non-sequitur if a fish deep down in the ocean concluded that just because it can't see any evidence of a sky and cannot prove existence of such sky, this sky does not exist.

Like Ghs said in his book, failure to prove the positive does not automatically establish the negative. All that talk about "you don't prove a negative" does not justify epistemological non-sequiturs like claiming non-existence of something just because our limited mind cannot 'see' evidence.

Xray, once again raising her hands in a boxer's victory, but unfortunately with no one but her own cheering section to join her, since there is no impartial referee to make an objective decision.

This is not about wanting to be "cheered". Cheers are emotional outbursts and unsuitable as tools of cognition anyway.

As for the "objective" part: It is an objective fact that the existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproved. And no impartial referee is needed to make a decision on that.

I'm inclined to give Rand, speaking in a second language she mastered only as an adult, the benefit of the doubt when she was being interviewed in real time and not having the benefit of editing what she wrote.

With regard to the god question, Rand was clear as a bell on other occasions too, when she enough time to place her words carefully.

In the foreword to The Fountainhead, page ix, she verbatim wrote (bolding mine):

"But such [religious] concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists;" (Rand)

This is stating a mere belief as if it were a proven fact.

But we cannot claim to know whether or not a supernatural dimension exists.

All of which is beside the point for this particular thread, which is about a guy who had that exact same view as Rand: I did not find proof of the existence of God so I concluded there wasn't one until I had experiences I considered proof and changed my mind. In neither Ayn Rand's case nor my case were either of us ever willing to accept the existence of God on faith.

But your alleged encounter with a god does remain in the realm of faith. For what you call "proof" is actually a mere belief on your part.

Now, I know Bach's work intimately, and the violin concerto my mom and I were hearing was not Bach. You can't mistake baroque era violin for the romantic-era violin concerto my mom and I were hearing. I said so and asked to see the CD they were playing. He said he was just watching the table until the owner came back and if I returned in a half hour I could ask him.

So, a half hour later I returned to the table and asked the owner what the CD was that was playing when my mom and I walked by their table for the first time. He said, "Bach." I said something like, "Look, we know what we heard and it couldn't be Bach. Could I look through your CD's?" He said yes.

The CD in the player was Bach.

When you approached the owner after that half-hour, what music was playing then?

And how could the owner know which CD was playing when you and your mom walked by their table for the first time if he was not there?

Edited February 13, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

-Goldie

still digging

Good pun.

Well, fallacy or not, if you subsitute "the moon is made of green cheese" for "God" in the interview, her meaning is clear enough. The moon isn't made of that for there is no evidence of that. If you believe it is it's a matter of faith. There is no "proof."

This example does not fit because we do have proof here - of the contrary.

For not only do we possess hard evidence proving the moon's existence, we also possess hard evidence proving what its material is made of.

So all one would need to do in that case: confront the 'green cheesers' with this evidence disproving their belief.

As for "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence":

For example, it would be a non-sequitur if a fish deep down in the ocean concluded that just because it can't see any evidence of a sky and cannot prove existence of such sky, this sky does not exist.

Like Ghs said in his book, failure to prove the positive does not automatically establish the negative. All that talk about "you don't prove a negative" does not justify epistemological non-sequiturs like claiming non-existence of something just because our limited mind cannot 'see' evidence.

We have a problem here with both you and Rand and many others. A "proof" is a purely deductive construct only as valid as its premises. There can't be anything approaching real proof of the existence of God unless he reveals himself in all his measurable glory. There is evidence for or not. There is no evidence for. The idea of God is mostly religious hallucination a la Dawkins. It is psychological genius for people to construct and hold an existential morally governing anti-lonely force that can buck them up, which is actually a disowned part of themselves. To differing extents it makes life easier just as self-subjugation to the state makes life easier, until you, doing its bidding, go to war and get your ass shot off. Religion and state are two legs of the three-legged altruistic stool most people sit on. The third leg being the hard-wired need for an interactive social existence. Underneath these legs is the floor of selfishness.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Is that from a movie? What movie?

It is an unretouched still from the surprise ending to the original Friday the 13th.

[J Neil Schulman]

Xray, once again raising her hands in a boxer's victory, but unfortunately with no one but her own cheering section to join her, since there is no impartial referee to make an objective decision.

This is not about wanting to be "cheered". Cheers are emotional outbursts and unsuitable as tools of cognition anyway.

As for the "objective" part: It is an objective fact that the existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproved. And no impartial referee is needed to make a decision on that.

You weren't there during the experience. I was. You don't know the difference between experience and belief. I do.

[Xray]

A "proof" is a purely deductive construct only as valid as its premises.

There exist different kinds of proof.

For example, if Jane says there is butter in the fridge but John does not believe there is, Jane can prove it by simply showing him the butter in the fridge.

You weren't there during the experience. I was. You don't know the difference between experience and belief. I do.

I hope you do. In which case you will know that the issue is about the different interpretations of an experience you have made.

Imo no one here doubts that you had a very strange personal experience, but as to what triggered it, the rational explanation that the physical state you were in (dehydration, ketosis, etc.) played a crucial role cannot be discounted.

Starbuckle's rational assessment is interesting as well:

I bring the topic up in this thread because it has been my contention that Schulman prepped himself mentally for quite a long time for his God-experience time. The physical deprivation that triggered his funky state of consciousness (the Nimoyesque "mind-meld" with God) was only a proximate cause. Much of Schulman's argument in this thread amounts to strenuous blank-filling that serves to render his experience intelligible in theistic terms (as well as pseudo-rationalistic and science-fictional terms). If all the assumptions and leaps of faith and logic and strained analogies and so forth were stripped away, the only thing Schulman could claim to have "perceived" during the eight hours would be the effects on his consciousness of a bad trip.

Since you stress the importance rationality so much, Neil, it would be interesting to read your comment on Starbuckle's post.

Also, if you would be so kind to answer the questions I asked you in post # 894:

Now, I know Bach's work intimately, and the violin concerto my mom and I were hearing was not Bach. You can't mistake baroque era violin for the romantic-era violin concerto my mom and I were hearing. I said so and asked to see the CD they were playing. He said he was just watching the table until the owner came back and if I returned in a half hour I could ask him.

So, a half hour later I returned to the table and asked the owner what the CD was that was playing when my mom and I walked by their table for the first time. He said, "Bach." I said something like, "Look, we know what we heard and it couldn't be Bach. Could I look through your CD's?" He said yes.

The CD in the player was Bach.

When you approached the owner after that half-hour, what music was playing then?

And how could the owner know which CD had been playing when you and your mom walked by their table for the first time if he was not there?

Edited February 18, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

A "proof" is a purely deductive construct only as valid as its premises.

There exist different kinds of proof.

For example, if Jane says there is butter in the fridge but John does not believe there is, Jane can prove it by simply showing him the butter in the fridge.

Jane can "prove it" to John if John accepts the "proof" which actually proves nothing. As the scientist said in the 1920s when asked if he would believe it with his own eyes: "Certainly not! First I would test it with many instruments!"

--Brant

try, try again

[Xray]

Jane can "prove it" to John if John accepts the "proof" which actually proves nothing. As the scientist said in the 1920s when asked if he would believe it with his own eyes: "Certainly not! First I would test it with many instruments!"

--Brant

try, try again

No problem, Brant. John can of course "test with many instruments" to confirm whether what he sees in the fridge IS in fact butter.

--Xray

try, try it again, John! ;)

Edited February 18, 2011 by Xray