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

[PDS]

Neil doesn't need me to defend him, but those of us who have followed his posts on this thread are, I believe, highly unlikely to view him as in the middle of a publicity stunt. I believe him to be 100 per cent sincere in his beliefs. Just like those who used to burn people at the stake, unfortunately (for those burned to death, that is....)

[basimpson22]

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

First, i should apologize for making that suggestion. The last thing I wanted was to make Mr. Schulman feel he needed to make yet another defense of his credibility. Personally, I have ascertained Mr. Schulman as giving an honest and accurate account of his encounter. Again, I apologize.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Aristocrates

[basimpson22]

GHS: You have been extremely rude to your critics on OL, calling them "assholes," etc. If you review your posts, I think you will find that you often responded like this when you thought you were not being taken seriously, not only when you thought you had been misrepresented.

Don't you think Mr. Schulman is accurate in describing some of those on OL as snide, condescending assholes.

[basimpson22]

I have found more dogmatic cultists in this discussion than people with scientific curiosity. I certainly have found few I regard as an Objectivist in the school of Ayn Rand and the Brandens. They never regarded the existence of God as impossible and atheism as a primary tenet of Objectivism. Their atheism never went further than demanding that faith not be the basis for concluding the existence of God, and that God not be undefinable or unknowable, and that the supernatural not contradict the natural or known laws of existence and identity, and that if extrasensory perception existed concepts built from it would not contradict knowledge gained from the other senses.

I have met these challenges. I don't expect anyone here to accept that statement, but I've been a friend of Barbara Branden for many years and when we last discussed it this past summer she was far from dismissive.

I felt this deserved another look. How can this not appeal to an Objectivist's reason?

If all the world took the same approach to life as say, a William Scherk or a George Smith there would be limited progress, especially in science and research. They seem to fail at examining possible alternatives to their beliefs or better said, dogmatic opinions. Schulman has been verbally "crucified" here. Is he not a mind and voice worthy of your consideration?

Edited July 22, 2011 by Aristocrates

[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.

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.

I believe Dr. Craig does an excellent job of explaining this. See for yourself. Also, I just came across this video tonight. It pleases me that I am not the only one who has come to this sort of conclusion.

Click Here

[Xray]

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.

The OT God is extremely coercive. The OT is full of divine orders (more than 600), commandments and prohibitive rules which, if they are not followed, have disastrous consequences for the 'offenders'.

A god like in the OT is the very opposite of non-coercive. He even tried to kill Moses.

Here is an example of what God ordered in times of war. Excerpt from a talk given by Steve Pinker in 2007:

http://www.kranti.org/component/k2/item/23-steven-pinker-on-the-myth-of-violence.html

[Pinker quoting the OT]: "And they warred against the Midianites as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew all the males. And Moses said unto them, 'Have you saved all the women alive? Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, but all the women children that have not know a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.'"

[s. Pinker]: "In other words, kill the men, kill the children, if you see any virgins then you can keep them alive so that you can rape them. You can find four or five passages in the Bible of this ilk. Also in the Bible one sees that the death penalty was the accepted punishment for crimes such as homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, talking back to your parents -- (Laughter) -- and picking up sticks on the Sabbath."

A god who orders atrocities like genocide, infanticide (slaying of the firstborn), and many other cruelties is a horrific dictator crushing human lives and dignity like an eggshell.

The OT God was obviously modeled after the dictatorial oriental potentates the people of those times were familiar with.

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

.

Your skepticism is justified.

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.

I'm 100 % convinced that Neil really beleived he had a god encounter, and that he was not trying to deceive anybody.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Xray

[basimpson22]

I truly don't believe Schulman was fibbing either.

Also, I didn't believe God would be found free of coercion in the Bible. If that were the case, it would be pretty phenomenal, but Schulman, like myself, does not believe the Bible offers a completely faithful representation of God.

From me:

Whose to say that the God, or atleast parts of his character, in the OT wasn't contrived in order to exercise an agenda.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Xray]

If all the world took the same approach to life as say, a William Scherk or a George Smith there would be limited progress, especially in science and research. They seem to fail at examining possible alternatives to their beliefs or better said, dogmatic opinions.

I think the opposite would be the case, and that progress in those fields would soar. For undogmatic individuals like Scherk and Smith would the last to hamper or ignore new research. On the contrary, they would be eager to absorb it.

Schulman has been verbally "crucified" here. Is he not a mind and voice worthy of your consideration?

Neil has not been verbally crucified. He has been challenged on the epistemological level, with the burden of proof rightly being placed on him. He could not meet that burden.

Neil's epistemological error was to present a mere belief on his part as if it were an objective fact.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

The subject's done and dusted, guys.

Neil Schulman knows what he knows, and believes what he believes. This was never in doubt. He doesn't need me to say this, either.

Personally, I'm never going to understand any atheist who has to tear to pieces another person's faith.*

What's the threat? Why so little confidence?

Maybe, I've been fortunate in that I've never known a religious person to try to impose anything on me; whatever, I will return that respect.

*Nobody on this thread fits that, btw - but I've known some.

Edited July 22, 2011 by whYNOT

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil's epistemological error was to present a mere belief on his part as if it were an objective fact.

Neil presented a waking experience of his as if it was evidence of something real.

Not accepting it on faith any more than accepting any other waking experience as real.

Not a "mere belief."

Nothing that can be accepted by anyone else as anything but anecdotal evidence, but in the spirit of opening other minds to the necessity of challenging one's view of what is possible.

[Xray]

Neil's epistemological error was to present a mere belief on his part as if it were an objective fact.

Neil presented a waking experience of his as if it was evidence of something real.

Not accepting it on faith any more than accepting any other waking experience as real.

Not a "mere belief."

Neil,

The "mere belief" does not refer to your perspective, (for you are convinced you actually did meet god). It refers to the epistemological status of your assertion.

For example, suppose John states: "I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that", he would present something as a fact (Nancy's alleged theft of a bicycle) which, from an epistemological standpoint, is a mere unsubstantiated belief.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil's epistemological error was to present a mere belief on his part as if it were an objective fact.

Neil presented a waking experience of his as if it was evidence of something real.

Not accepting it on faith any more than accepting any other waking experience as real.

Not a "mere belief."

Neil,

The "mere belief" does not refer to your perspective, (for you are convinced you actually did meet god). It refers to the epistemological status of your assertion.

For example, suppose John states: "I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that", he would present something as a fact (Nancy's alleged theft of a bicycle) which, from an epistemological standpoint, is a mere unsubstantiated belief.

"I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that" is testimony that gets Nancy convicted of theft in just about any court of law.

[Xray]

Neil's epistemological error was to present a mere belief on his part as if it were an objective fact.

Neil presented a waking experience of his as if it was evidence of something real.

Not accepting it on faith any more than accepting any other waking experience as real.

Not a "mere belief."

Neil,

The "mere belief" does not refer to your perspective, (for you are convinced you actually did meet god). It refers to the epistemological status of your assertion.

For example, suppose John states: "I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that", he would present something as a fact (Nancy's alleged theft of a bicycle) which, from an epistemological standpoint, is a mere unsubstantiated belief.

"I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that" is testimony that gets Nancy convicted of theft in just about any court of law.

No. For a waking experience of the type as as you described it is not an eyewitness experience.

So John may have the "waking experience" in Nevada where he 'sees' Jane steal a bicycle in New York. He would be laughed out of court.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Neil's epistemological error was to present a mere belief on his part as if it were an objective fact.

Neil presented a waking experience of his as if it was evidence of something real.

Not accepting it on faith any more than accepting any other waking experience as real.

Not a "mere belief."

Neil,

The "mere belief" does not refer to your perspective, (for you are convinced you actually did meet god). It refers to the epistemological status of your assertion.

For example, suppose John states: "I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that", he would present something as a fact (Nancy's alleged theft of a bicycle) which, from an epistemological standpoint, is a mere unsubstantiated belief.

"I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that" is testimony that gets Nancy convicted of theft in just about any court of law.

No. For a waking experience of the type as as you described it is not an eyewitness experience.

So John may have the "waking experience" in Nevada where he 'sees' Jane steal a bicycle in New York. He would be laughed out of court.

Re-cross, your honor?

"So if Jane was in New York while you were in Nevada, how did you see Jane steal the bicycle?"

"I was watching an Internet video feed from the security cameras in New York."

You're smuggling in unstated conditions of non-locality to support your own prejudices.

[basimpson22]

I have found more dogmatic cultists in this discussion than people with scientific curiosity. I certainly have found few I regard as an Objectivist in the school of Ayn Rand and the Brandens. They never regarded the existence of God as impossible and atheism as a primary tenet of Objectivism. Their atheism never went further than demanding that faith not be the basis for concluding the existence of God, and that God not be undefinable or unknowable, and that the supernatural not contradict the natural or known laws of existence and identity, and that if extrasensory perception existed concepts built from it would not contradict knowledge gained from the other senses.

I have met these challenges. I don't expect anyone here to accept that statement, but I've been a friend of Barbara Branden for many years and when we last discussed it this past summer she was far from dismissive.

I thought you may have skipped this Xray, so I posted it again.

Neil's epistemological error was to present a mere belief on his part as if it were an objective fact.

Tell me Xray, what other type of facts are there other than objective facts? Also, what makes a fact objective as opposed to just simply being a fact?

[Xray]

I have found more dogmatic cultists in this discussion than people with scientific curiosity. I certainly have found few I regard as an Objectivist in the school of Ayn Rand and the Brandens. They never regarded the existence of God as impossible and atheism as a primary tenet of Objectivism. Their atheism never went further than demanding that faith not be the basis for concluding the existence of God, and that God not be undefinable or unknowable, and that the supernatural not contradict the natural or known laws of existence and identity, and that if extrasensory perception existed concepts built from it would not contradict knowledge gained from the other senses.

I have met these challenges. I don't expect anyone here to accept that statement, but I've been a friend of Barbara Branden for many years and when we last discussed it this past summer she was far from dismissive.

I thought you may have skipped this Xray, so I posted it again.

I have had many exchanges with Neil on these issues here, Aristocrates.

Since Ayn Rand clearly rejected as irrational the claim that a god exists, any attempt on Neil's part to fit Objectivism into his thought system implying the existence of a god is an epistemological error.

Neil's epistemological error was to present a mere belief on his part as if it were an objective fact.

Tell me Xray, what other type of facts are there other than objective facts? Also, what makes a fact objective as opposed to just simply being a fact?

"Objective" was used in a purely pleonastic fashion by me here, for reasos of emphasis.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Re-cross, your honor?

"So if Jane was in New York while you were in Nevada, how did you see Jane steal the bicycle?"

"I was watching an Internet video feed from the security cameras in New York."

You're smuggling in unstated conditions of non-locality to support your own prejudices.

Here's the rebuttal:

No problem throwing out the non-locality. But you will have to throw out your security camera as well.

Since both of us obviousy did not apply Occam's razor (it's never a good idea to neglect Occam's razor), including unnecessary elements into our argumentation, let's make a better effort to tailor the "waking experience" of Jane's alleged bike theft to resemble your own waking experience as much as possible.

Okay, here goes:

John has a "waking experience" (of the type you had) where he "sees" Jane steal a bicycle.

But there is no evidence that the "Jane" he sees even exists.

Your turn.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Re-cross, your honor?

"So if Jane was in New York while you were in Nevada, how did you see Jane steal the bicycle?"

"I was watching an Internet video feed from the security cameras in New York."

You're smuggling in unstated conditions of non-locality to support your own prejudices.

Here's the rebuttal:

No problem throwing out the non-locality. But you will have to throw out your security camera as well.

Since both of us obviousy did not apply Occam's razor (it's never a good idea to neglect Occam's razor), including unnecessary elements into our argumentation, let's make a better effort to tailor the "waking experience" of Jane's alleged bike theft to resemble your own waking experience as much as possible.

Okay, here goes:

John has a "waking experience" (of the type you had) where he "sees" Jane steal a bicycle.

But there is no evidence that the "Jane" he sees even exists.

Your turn.

If you think the existence of Jane is impossible, no number of witnesses reporting sighting Jane can reach a high enough threshold to be convincing.

Even if you believe Jane exists, but your belief system excludes anyone not on a received list of official Jane sighters, the threshold is too high to be convincing.

Both of these are pre-judices against accepting reports of Jane sightings at face value.

[Xray]

Okay, here goes:

John has a "waking experience" (of the type you had) where he "sees" Jane steal a bicycle.

But there is no evidence that the "Jane" he sees even exists.

Your turn.

If you think the existence of Jane is impossible, no number of witnesses reporting sighting Jane can reach a high enough threshold to be convincing.

Let's stay within the framework matching your experience. The issue is not about witnesses reporting - (like in a eye-witness testimony where there is a connection to objective reality) - it is about person's subjective experience limited to what went on in this person's head.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Xray

[J Neil Schulman]

Okay, here goes:

John has a "waking experience" (of the type you had) where he "sees" Jane steal a bicycle.

But there is no evidence that the "Jane" he sees even exists.

Your turn.

If you think the existence of Jane is impossible, no number of witnesses reporting sighting Jane can reach a high enough threshold to be convincing.

Let's stay within the framework matching your experience. The issue is not about witnesses reporting - (like in a eye-witness testimony where there is a connection to objecitive reality) - it is about person's subjective experience limited to what went on in this person's head.

I don't think you're even aware that you're assuming your conclusion. All perception is subjective. Whether the perception is of something externally stimulated and therefore real is the question under discussion.

[basimpson22]

So could it be said that objective reality is indeed subjective, and that objectiveness is for all intents and purposes an illusory concept, and that anyone who holds there "objective reality" above that of another is dogmatic.

[PDS]

So could it be said that objective reality is indeed subjective, and that objectiveness is for all intents and purposes an illusory concept, and that anyone who holds there "objective reality" above that of another is dogmatic.

Short answer: no.

[basimpson22]

So could it be said that objective reality is indeed subjective, and that objectiveness is for all intents and purposes an illusory concept, and that anyone who holds there "objective reality" above that of another is dogmatic.

Short answer: no.

you can do better than that

[Xray]

Let's stay within the framework matching your experience. The issue is not about witnesses reporting - (like in a eye-witness testimony where there is a connection to objecitive reality) - it is about person's subjective experience limited to what went on in this person's head.

I don't think you're even aware that you're assuming your conclusion. All perception is subjective. Whether the perception is of something externally stimulated and therefore real is the question under discussion.

Surely you will acknowledge that there is a difference between an actual eyewitness testimony and the type of "waking experience" someone has who "sees" something in his mind only?

[J Neil Schulman]

So could it be said that objective reality is indeed subjective, and that objectiveness is for all intents and purposes an illusory concept, and that anyone who holds there "objective reality" above that of another is dogmatic.

There is an objective reality in which we exist. But the interfaces and filters between what exists and what we perceive make for a lifetime of philosophical study and crossing disciplines ranging from information theory to the physical sciences to neurobiology to "fringe" areas which are just as worthy of serious treatment as other sciences but which have protocols that are confounding and theories that are perplexing.

I have accumulated enough data -- not just my own but data from others -- to conclude that conventional views of what is obviously true leave far too many anomalous data points to accept conventional worldviews.

As a thought experiment, though, consider that if a medium were perfected that emulated reality -- sort of a hyper-3D reality emulation like you see in movies like The Matrix and The 13th Floor, or even the Star Trek holodeck -- so convincingly that the emulation was not readily distinguishable from an unprogrammed direct-sensory-feed reality, then the external source of a data feed is objectively real whether or not it's programmed media, but the meaning of "real" would require further definition.

Edited July 25, 2011 by J. Neil Schulman