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

[Brant Gaede]

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! ;)

Not being a scientist I'd get some toast and jam.

--Brant

not bad--it's Parkay!

[9thdoctor]

I see that it's Neil's birthday today, rather than starting another thread I thought I'd bump this one.

http://www.neilrogers.com/sounds/old/026.mp3

[Xray]

Happy birthday, Neil. Hope all is going well for you.

[equality72521]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHrxPSDgyyI&feature=related I have met God, though I doubt he means the same as I.

[basimpson22]

I just came across this thread although its been posted for half a year. I read through Schulman's entire interview. It was a tremendous experience for me. This will likely have a profound impact on me. What hit me so hard was when I read one of Schulman's response to this question: With the understanding that you say nobody should take it on faith alone, what are you trying to get the readers of I Met God to believe?

Schulman's answer: That God 's creation was an act of experimental invention thus the outcome was unknown to Him when He did it, and there were and still are enormous personal risks for Him.

That for any intelligent being – even God -- “perfect” is not a noun but a verb, and any perfection is only a temporary way station in an unending adventure.

That denying God because he takes risks and his experiments don’t always pan out is like a child finding out that his parents aren’t perfect, and while God isn’t perfect, he’s still way smarter, better informed, wiser, and better at making the hard choices than the rest of us are. (end answer)

The reason this struck me so hard stems from a conversation I had with a devout christian just a couple nights ago. I had, what I felt was, a rather tremendous epiphany. So much so that I wrote it down, something I've rarely ever done. Here's what I wrote:

I do believe God serves a purpose but its not to give us dogmatic commands to follow. The purpose is to give us something to aspire to. God is the epitome of perfection but perfection is an imperfect as well as an adaptable idea an in that sense you can mold God in the image of what you aspire to be. (end quote)

I realize that Schulman's has a completely different premise, which is that God exists. However, after reading the interview I realized that what I said is only applicable if we honestly believe in a God-like being, or if one holds that same premise. We can't fool ourselves into striving to be something we know imaginary. It must be real to us.

And I see parallels to Objectivist thinkers. I believe they are striving for perfection as well, but without the God premise. Perhaps, Objectivists are much closer to God than they realize.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Aristocrates

[PDS]

I just came across this thread although its been posted for half a year. I read through Schulman's entire interview. It was a tremendous experience for me. This will likely have a profound impact on me. What hit me so hard was when I read one of Schulman's response to this question: With the understanding that you say nobody should take it on faith alone, what are you trying to get the readers of I Met God to believe?

Schulman's answer: That God 's creation was an act of experimental invention thus the outcome was unknown to Him when He did it, and there were and still are enormous personal risks for Him.

That for any intelligent being – even God -- “perfect” is not a noun but a verb, and any perfection is only a temporary way station in an unending adventure.

That denying God because he takes risks and his experiments don’t always pan out is like a child finding out that his parents aren’t perfect, and while God isn’t perfect, he’s still way smarter, better informed, wiser, and better at making the hard choices than the rest of us are.

The reason this struck me so hard stems from a conversation I had with a devout christian just a couple nights ago. I had, what I felt was, a rather tremendous epiphany. So much so that I wrote it down, something I've rarely ever done. Here's what I wrote:

I do believe God serves a purpose but its not to give us dogmatic commands to follow. The purpose is to give us something to aspire to. God is the epitome of perfection but perfection is an imperfect as well as an adaptable idea an in that sense you can mold God in the image of what you aspire to be. (end quote)

I realize that Schulman's has a completely different premise, which is that God exists. However, after reading the interview I realized that what I said is only applicable if we honestly believe in a God-like being, or if one holds that same premise. We can't fool ourselves into striving to be something we know imaginary. It must be real to us.

And I see parallels to Objectivist thinkers. I believe they are striving for perfection as well, but without the God premise. Perhaps, Objectivists are much closer to God than they realize.

As to your last sentence, doesn't this notion depend highly upon what type of God you are referring to? My problem with JNS' notion of God was its utterly uninspiring nature. What would be the point of believing in and/or worshiping "an act of experimental invention", and one as arbitrary as the Old Man in the Sky, at that?

[anthony]

And I see parallels to Objectivist thinkers. I believe they are striving for perfection as well, but without the God premise. Perhaps, Objectivists are much closer to God than they realize.

Aristo,

Could you mean closer than Objectivists realize, AND, closer than any religious person?

No, just saying, - I don't think you meant the second.

Metaphorically, I enjoy your "parallels."

Continuing in that vein, a Creator would surely love best his one creation that could consciously choose to turn their backs on him, and go it alone - I'd believe. Wouldn't that be his proudest moment?

Metaphorically speaking.

Tony

[basimpson22]

Yes Tony, I would agree with that they are closer than any religious person, because they are willing to really examine what is true where a religious person tends to uphold arbitrary dogmatism.

I believe you may be on to something Tony. This adheres to the classic cliche, "if you love something you'll let it go. if it loves it'll find its way back" something to that effect. That's what Schulberg said he appreciates so much about libertarians, not believing in coercion.

And Tony, I understand that you may have sprinkled your reply with a bit of sarcasm but I will choose to overlook this because of your kindness in the past.

Edit: And if that wasn't your intention I apologize for assuming so.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Aristocrates

[basimpson22]

Well, theoretically, I suppose God as an infinite number of "types" with every individual having a slightly varied and evolving perception of God.

Well, do objectivists not already have a high appreciation for ingenuity and for science. Also I believe experimental invention is redundant as inventions are subject to the possibility of future improvement or even change in application. This goes along with what Schulberg says about how God is a dynamic being and not the rigid creature depicted in the Old Testament.

[anthony]

Well, theoretically, I suppose God as an infinite number of "types" with every individual having a slightly varied and evolving perception of God.

Well, do objectivists not already have a high appreciation for ingenuity and for science. Also I believe experimental invention is redundant as inventions are subject to the possibility of future improvement or even change in application. This goes along with what Schulberg says about how God is a dynamic being and not the rigid creature depicted in the Old Testament.

Aristo,

"Infinite number of types" says a lot. About our needs, for one thing. Or, more familiarly, of the 'standard type' of the OT, the pissed-off, uncompromising God. Which, I imagine, had its uses for those early guys trying to get a bunch of rowdy unbelievers to toe the line.

For me, early on I didn't approve of such a fellow, and spent a long period believing in, and evolving, a hands-off, one-on-one God who had no need of a particular religion to intercede for me. (It seems I was at the back of the queue when they handed out faith and humility.)

Sure, lacking a definite or palatable format, I think many people create God in their own image.

What you took wrongly for sarcasm was a fond remembrance of my own device (or metaphor) of a Creator - not of the NT 'God of Love' variety, either - but more a 'God of Regard' for his Creation: Free to choose, and free to use their (God-given) minds to declare independence from him.

The 'device' served me well, until I completed the transition to atheism after several years.

Tony

[basimpson22]

Well, these are two different things: the concept of God and....can't think of a better way to put it, God himself. You invented your own concept of God that suited you. I believe that any concept of God created to tailor to an individual's personal agenda is a recipe that results in a gradual departure from God, since by substituting God with an artificial persona, you are not honestly able to compel yourself to seek him out. Whose to say that the God, or atleast parts of his character, in the OT wasn't contrived in order to exercise an agenda. I know this isn't perfectly written but I feel certain that you can see where I'm coming from.

I don't believe Schulman is guilty of this either(inventing a God to further his agenda). From where I stand, his main focuses are that of a staunch libertarian.

By the way Tony, when I say the above statement I'm not accusing you of having this opinion. I just think it gives some credibility to the genuineness of Schulman's encounter.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Aristocrates

[anthony]

I believe that any concept of God created to tailor to an individual's personal agenda is a recipe that results in a gradual departure from God, since by substituting God with an artificial persona, you are not honestly able to compel yourself to seek him out.

...or else, you are honestly compelled to acknowledge your rationalization and follow the only alternative which is to reject his existence.

Essentially, any concept of God - by clerics or theologians - is tailor-made and derivative. (I think.)

I must point out that my early concept was as honest and sincere a belief as any. It wasn't designed to enable "a gradual departure from God" as you well put it.

So, you would say not continuing to seek him out was denial; I would say it was denial that was keeping me there.

Where do we go from here?

B)

Tony

[basimpson22]

I believe that any concept of God created to tailor to an individual's personal agenda is a recipe that results in a gradual departure from God, since by substituting God with an artificial persona, you are not honestly able to compel yourself to seek him out.

...or else, you are honestly compelled to acknowledge your rationalization and follow the only alternative which is to reject his existence.

Essentially, any concept of God - by clerics or theologians - is tailor-made and derivative. (I think.)

I must point out that my early concept was as honest and sincere a belief as any. It wasn't designed to enable "a gradual departure from God" as you well put it.

So, you would say not continuing to seek him out was denial; I would say it was denial that was keeping me there.

Where do we go from here?

B)

Tony

Well, this is difficult for me to analyze unless you can illustrate to me your personal transition from sincere believer to atheist. I do know that the reasons for these changes often have much to do with deeply personal issues. Or maybe it was as simple as having a revelation that all this religious stuff seems to be so contrived. Either way I am interested in your story on this matter.

edit: i don't believe I said anything about denial. Possibly, one could infer that, though I feel what I said implies being completely honest with yourself. Ok, so you said that denial was keeping you there, well I say that your denial implies deep-seeded doubt and with possessing this doubt you are in essence serving up another plate of an inevitable departure from God. This is where faith comes in to play I suppose.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Aristocrates

[basimpson22]

God of the Old Testament?

The confusing part starts in vs. 6

Edited July 21, 2011 by Aristocrates

[anthony]

God of the Old Testament?

The confusing part starts in vs. 6

Aristo,

If you mean Isaiah (as self-appointed spokesman for God) saying:

"Is this not the kind of fasting I have chosen - to loose the chains of injustice...to set the oppressed free...to share your food with the hungry... then you will call, and the Lord will answer..."

-then it's simple matter of "give, and you shall receive", short-term unselfishness, in order to be ultimately, selfish. Run of the mill, altruism, basically.

If we accept the premise that oppression and injustice (in that era) were possibly the root cause of people's poverty, the how and why to get rid of these evils isn't addressed by Isaiah.

(To be facetious - not sarcastic - hadn't he heard of individual rights, or capitalism?)

No, the implication is that the poor will always be poor, and on Fast days the rich should help them. What do they do on other days? How did the rich become rich? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? No answers.

The wisest statement on the page imo is the heading: "If we think the poor will always be with us, then they probably will."

Tony

[basimpson22]

yes, reading this brings back the nostalgia of the religious' nauseating self-righteousness.

Of course we don't accept that premise. Poverty is just as often the result of the impoverished's own mindset. And you are correct, there will always be poverty and the authors of the bible make the same claim and are not so naive as to believe there is a solution.

Tony: No, the implication is that the poor will always be poor, and on Fast days the rich should help them. What do they do on other days? How did the rich become rich? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? No answers.

Yes, no answers. Perhaps, the realistic diagnosis of poverty as a chronic condition of society coming from the bible is a surprise to you. On other days they are devout Objectivists, lol. The rich of that time? Does it really matter? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? A necessity for what? The question seems to imply that the poor don't possess the same fundamental rights as the rest of us. Do they not have a right to be around whoever they so choose and do others have a right to displace them? I think not. This also seems to imply that if a person cannot be utilized they are to be dismissed. Anyways, I doubt any of these questions are serious.

Also, we seemed to have strayed from our previous discussion....

[basimpson22]

Addition: Pertaining to altruistic notions, perhaps you should take the passage at face value. In this passage they're not pretending to be altruistic, they do indeed expect some compensation for their devotion and God also offers it.

[anthony]

Tony: No, the implication is that the poor will always be poor, and on Fast days the rich should help them. What do they do on other days? How did the rich become rich? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? No answers.

Yes, no answers. Perhaps, the realistic diagnosis of poverty as a chronic condition of society coming from the bible is a surprise to you. On other days they are devout Objectivists, lol. The rich of that time? Does it really matter? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? A necessity for what? The question seems to imply that the poor don't possess the same fundamental rights as the rest of us. Do they not have a right to be around whoever they so choose and do others have a right to displace them? I think not. This also seems to imply that if a person cannot be utilized they are to be dismissed. Anyways, I doubt any of these questions are serious.

Not quite.

What I'm getting at is viewing OT passages from a modern perspective of individual rights. I don't know the history of those times, but from emphasis on this 'Tribe' and that 'Tribe', would guess at a form of feudalism - serfs and lords, basically.

No chance of liberty for one born 'wrong'.

Seen in a purely social context, the prophets preached an ethics of altruism for the privileged - thereby reinforcing the divide of rich and poor, it appears. Thus the poor had their 'uses' for the rich to patronize in their self-righteousness.

All the while the immorality of the underlying principles of oppression and tribalism which forced poverty on the masses, went unchallenged by the prophets.

Perhaps I am going too far, however, with my limited knowledge.

In some ways, though - what's new?

Reminds me of Mark Twain: "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

Tony

[caroljane]

Tony: No, the implication is that the poor will always be poor, and on Fast days the rich should help them. What do they do on other days? How did the rich become rich? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? No answers.

Yes, no answers. Perhaps, the realistic diagnosis of poverty as a chronic condition of society coming from the bible is a surprise to you. On other days they are devout Objectivists, lol. The rich of that time? Does it really matter? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? A necessity for what? The question seems to imply that the poor don't possess the same fundamental rights as the rest of us. Do they not have a right to be around whoever they so choose and do others have a right to displace them? I think not. This also seems to imply that if a person cannot be utilized they are to be dismissed. Anyways, I doubt any of these questions are serious.

Not quite.

What I'm getting at is viewing OT passages from a modern perspective of individual rights. I don't know the history of those times, but from emphasis on this 'Tribe' and that 'Tribe', would guess at a form of feudalism - serfs and lords, basically.

No chance of liberty for one born 'wrong'.

Seen in a purely social context, the prophets preached an ethics of altruism for the privileged - thereby reinforcing the divide of rich and poor, it appears. Thus the poor had their 'uses' for the rich to patronize in their self-righteousness.

All the while the immorality of the underlying principles of oppression and tribalism which forced poverty on the masses, went unchallenged by the prophets.

Perhaps I am going too far, however, with my limited knowledge.

In some ways, though - what's new?

Reminds me of Mark Twain: "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

Tony

Tony,

Your as always perceptive, insightful post shows that your knowledge of the OT is not as limited as you think. One of the many things it is (I can't help but think of it as primarily a great work of literature) is a compendium of justifications for the primacy of one tribe, the Hebrews, over all the other tribes who had ever lived until them; and we are all tribal, we can't help it, we are as a later poet says "apes with angel glands." Yet within each person in each tribe is a soul, which cries out in poetry, which does good or evil according to the voice of that soul (maybe God), which asks why?, which thinks, loves, lies and contrives, which lives, long before Aristotle, an examined life.

Indeed it was all master-slave, patron-client, lord-serf in those days. What is new today? Not so much as we think.

[basimpson22]

Tony: No, the implication is that the poor will always be poor, and on Fast days the rich should help them. What do they do on other days? How did the rich become rich? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? No answers.

Yes, no answers. Perhaps, the realistic diagnosis of poverty as a chronic condition of society coming from the bible is a surprise to you. On other days they are devout Objectivists, lol. The rich of that time? Does it really matter? Are the poor in fact a necessity to keep around us? A necessity for what? The question seems to imply that the poor don't possess the same fundamental rights as the rest of us. Do they not have a right to be around whoever they so choose and do others have a right to displace them? I think not. This also seems to imply that if a person cannot be utilized they are to be dismissed. Anyways, I doubt any of these questions are serious.

Not quite.

What I'm getting at is viewing OT passages from a modern perspective of individual rights. I don't know the history of those times, but from emphasis on this 'Tribe' and that 'Tribe', would guess at a form of feudalism - serfs and lords, basically.

No chance of liberty for one born 'wrong'.

Seen in a purely social context, the prophets preached an ethics of altruism for the privileged - thereby reinforcing the divide of rich and poor, it appears. Thus the poor had their 'uses' for the rich to patronize in their self-righteousness.

All the while the immorality of the underlying principles of oppression and tribalism which forced poverty on the masses, went unchallenged by the prophets.

Perhaps I am going too far, however, with my limited knowledge.

In some ways, though - what's new?

Reminds me of Mark Twain: "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

Tony

I must say Tony, that is written extremely well in my opinion. Although I still disagree with your use of altruism as it applies to the particular passage. They do expect something in return. Also, I am not certain if there is overriding evidence that prophets did indeed preach an ethics of altruism to the privileged and/or exclusively to the privileged. And again, I would argue that it ins't actually altruism. I admittedly have a limited knowledge of the OT. That's why I am speaking only of this passage.

I like how you turned the utilization comment around, lol. edit: well i might be more accurate in saying you simply revealed the flip-side of the coin.

As far as prophets not challenging tribalism and oppression, you can look to Patrick Gates line in National Treasure - Cooperation only last as long as the status quo is unchanged. I believe prophets, as well as, from a speculative standpoint, God, understood the reality of things quite well. Maybe the differences in income, status, etc. may be attributed to the effects of free will. And with free will as a premise one might check the bible for proof that God never actually coerced an individual. If that premise held true then you may very well have a libertarian God, lol.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Xray]

Reminds me of Mark Twain: "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

Great quote by M. Twain!

[Xray]

I don't believe Schulman is guilty of this either(inventing a God to further his agenda). From where I stand, his main focuses are that of a staunch libertarian.

... who in all seriousness tried to convince himself and others here that his "god experience" was reconcilable with Objectivism, an atheistic philosophy. This quickly landed Neil in epistemological quicksand.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

And with free will as a premise one might check the bible for proof that God never actually coerced an individual. If that premise held true then you may very well have a libertarian God, lol.

To return to my rough concept, when young, of God - isn't it great how these things become clear, retrospectively - I was thinking exactly that yesterday, as a result of our conversation: a Libertarian God, that's whom I had 'created', and I had not the faintest idea of libertarianism, then.

Well spotted.

As for the non-coercive God of the Old Testament, I'm not so sure of that...

Tony

[basimpson22]

And it is difficult to defend free will as a premise in of itself, especially if you consider it to be an absolute free will. Truth is, it makes more sense that God would make free will a privilege rather than something commonplace since with absolute free will, we would all be gods. In reality we are bound by natural laws as well as a bounty of social, economic, and genetic limitations.

I suppose one could argue that we were given limited free will and if utilized properly we will obtain a more complete version in the next life. but that just sounds like mystic rubbish, huh?

And then arises the possibility that Schulman's story is merely a ploy to earn a little extra income from people who wish desperately for a reason to believe in a Deity. Trick is to maintain cashflow he has to stick to his story. I'd say he's intelligent enough, and well, I guess that's something he could be proud of, lol.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Aristocrates

[J Neil Schulman]

And then arises the possibility that Schulman's story is merely a ploy to earn a little extra income from people who wish desperately for a reason to believe in a Deity. Trick is to maintain cashflow he has to stick to his story. I'd say he's intelligent enough, and well, I guess that's something he could be proud of, lol.

Published I Met God on my blog for free.

Published Escape from Heaven on my blog for free.

I think I sold five or six copies of the audio book edition of I Met God.

Have received zero interest from book publishers on the I Met God manuscript and don't feel motivated in publishing the I Met God book, myself.

Pissed off a lot of my atheist fans by going public with my God encounter.

Haven't gained anything like a replacement theist fan base by doing it.

Have not received an invitation from a single major talk or news show, or a single write up in a magazine or other media with significant audience, from doing this.

If I were just after money or attention, the strategy was an utter failure and my best move would be to identify it as a psychotic episode and revert to being an atheist in public.

Not doing that. I stand by my claims that what happened to me was a real encounter.

Edited July 22, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman