|
Post by metacrock on Jun 12, 2014 13:47:25 GMT
It has been assumed by both believers and skeptics alike that we can't study experiences (of the kind that convert people to belief in God) scientifically due their subjective nature. A body of work as emerged in psychology of religion that allows us to understand a valid "mystical" experience form mere woolgathering or mental illness, and that allows us to make controls and study the effects of the experience if not the experience itself. Study of those effects show us that religious experience is not emotional instability or mental illness but one cathartic and life transforming (I use that term in a positive sense). Here's article I wrote about about please read it. It describes the method of study in an instrument known was "the M scale." I also wrote a book that's just come in which the M scale figures prominently. Please read about the book. The Trace of God, by Joesph Hinman.this is not spam, it may be spam it's not spam and run. I plan to be there to discuss it in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 12, 2014 16:14:20 GMT
I've been aware of these methods for some time, but for some reason the subject of religious experience never caught my interest. Maybe it was because the textbook at some point went "okay, and now we are going to discuss reports of alien abductions for pages on end!" which was hugely confusing and even more off-putting.
Anyway, your article is interesting. I have some comments, though:
At one point you contradict yourself, after footnote 20 you describe that the language might offend people, though you already discussed this earlier in the text and concluded it didn't turn out to be a problem (but with "language" misspelled as "langue"). In any case, Hood and Spilka initially problematise the plastic term "ultimate reality" but then also conclude it's understood as intended.
Furthermore in a few instances Brainard's name is misspelled as "Brainaid". It's an apt name for a shrink, of course, but he may not like being called thus.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 12, 2014 16:56:43 GMT
I've been aware of these methods for some time, but for some reason the subject of religious experience never caught my interest. Maybe it was because the textbook at some point went "okay, and now we are going to discuss reports of alien abductions for pages on end!" which was hugely confusing and even more off-putting. Anyway, your article is interesting. I have some comments, though: At one point you contradict yourself, after footnote 20 you describe that the language might offend people, though you already discussed this earlier in the text and concluded it didn't turn out to be a problem (but with "language" misspelled as "langue"). In any case, Hood and Spilka initially problematise the plastic term "ultimate reality" but then also conclude it's understood as intended. Furthermore in a few instances Brainard's name is misspelled as "Brainaid". It's an apt name for a shrink, of course, but he may not like being called thus. the book doesn't have those problems because it has a bunch of proof readers correcting. I have those problems becuase I have dyslexia. spelling is not knowledge is not intelligence it's not value.It's unimportant. Hood did not just "prolematize" the phrase "ultimate reality." he understood the problem that was cropping up and corrected for it by adjusting the language of the studies. your discussion of the contradiction seems to imply nothing more than mentioning it in two different places and having a spelling error. I don't think I contradict anything.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 12, 2014 17:54:16 GMT
Yes, even if I didn't know Hood verified that "ultimate reality", I would know from your article. Calling it a contradiction may have been too harsh language on my part, but let's look at the two sections as it is genuinely a bit confusing:
You've clearly laid out what the problem may have been (Christian may have found the 'neutral' term "ultimate reality" too vague and potentially offensive and might not have recognised it as meaning God), Hood's operationalisation of the problem (compare the outcomes of a 'neutral' and an explicitly Christian scale) and his conclusion (Christians understood the phrase well). So it would seem they aren't offended by the term. But in the second section you state:
So the same problem (neutrality of language) is introduced. However, this time the solution isn't mentioned and a rather different statement follows it (the phrase I've put in bold).
Mind you, I'll admit these points are nitpicky. As I said, your article is good to read.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 13, 2014 0:47:40 GMT
Hood did not invent the problem and he resolved it in ways that silenced his critics. that's not all the book is about. buy the book. Buy the book, it's a ground breaking work.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 13, 2014 6:06:07 GMT
OK, doesn't seem at all clear what this is supposed to be about. Perhaps I need to just buy the book and skip your articles, which don't exactly make for smooth reading.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jun 13, 2014 6:24:32 GMT
I have those problems becuase I have dyslexia. spelling is not knowledge is not intelligence it's not value.It's unimportant. Metacrock, do you get asked about your spelling often? I remember suggesting to you that you invest in a spell check about 3 years or more ago. You then informed me of your Dyslexia. I then felt like throwing myself off the Westgate bridge.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 13, 2014 7:15:49 GMT
OK, doesn't seem at all clear what this is supposed to be about. Perhaps I need to just buy the book and skip your articles, which don't exactly make for smooth reading. Maybe a schematic summary helps? 1. Religious experience can be reliably studied using the M-scale ("M" comes from mysticism). 2. The M-scale can be reliably used across different religions. 3. It appears that religious experience through various religions has a common core, but that there is an element of cultural interpretation. 4. Religious experience can thus reliably be confirmed (real ones can be distinguished from suggested ones). 5. Religious experience has transforming effects. 6. We are justified in trusting our experiences if it is regular, consistent, inter-subjective and aids us in orienting ourselves. 7. The majority of religious experiences are understood to be divine. 8. Religious experience is regular, consistent, inter-subjective and allows us to navigate the world. 9. We are justified in believing in God by virtue of religious experience. 10. The universality of religious experience across religions and their common core suggest that religious experience is an interaction with an objective reality. 11. Because religious experiences are not experienced by everybody, but brain structure is enjoyed by everybody, brain structure is not the cause of religious experience. 12. Cultural variation suggests that brain structure is not the cause, as then greater uniformity would be expected. 13. It is not likely to be a mere evolutionary adaptation against boredom, as other more efficient solutions are available. 14. Naturalistic objections do not defeat the justification for belief. I suppose sceptics will counter that brain structure may only be responsible for the common core in religious experiences. But you probably address that in your book.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Jun 13, 2014 11:47:23 GMT
Buy the book, it's a ground breaking work. I'll wait for peer review to reach that conclusion before entertaining it myself.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 13, 2014 12:46:57 GMT
OK, doesn't seem at all clear what this is supposed to be about. Perhaps I need to just buy the book and skip your articles, which don't exactly make for smooth reading. Please do. The M scale is a means of determining if one has had a valid mystical experience or not. Being able to know that means we can study the effects of having had one. one thing that allows us to do is determine if it is a matter of emotional instability, mental illness or, nothing negative. the studies show that it is not negative to have one but is actually very good for us. In the Philosophy section I have tread showing how I use the studies in apologetics.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 13, 2014 12:50:48 GMT
Metacrock, do you get asked about your spelling often? I remember suggesting to you that you invest in a spell check about 3 years or more ago. You then informed me of your Dyslexia. I then felt like throwing myself off the Westgate bridge. Yes, very ignorant pompous people who can't think and don't want to learn ask me about because they don't know what dyslexia is. I also told you I use fire fox so it's always being spell checked. If you can't see something you can't correct it Einstein. I can't see the words they way you do, so brilliant of you to see things the "normal way." wish I had thought of that.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 13, 2014 12:55:28 GMT
OK, doesn't seem at all clear what this is supposed to be about. Perhaps I need to just buy the book and skip your articles, which don't exactly make for smooth reading. Please do. The M scale is a means of determining if one has had a valid mystical experience or not. Being able to know that means we can study the effects of having had one. one thing that allows us to do is determine if it is a matter of emotional instability, mental illness or, nothing negative. the studies show that it is not negative to have one but is actually very good for us. In the Philosophy section I have tread showing how I use the studies in apologetics.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 13, 2014 12:56:40 GMT
Buy the book, it's a ground breaking work. I'll wait for peer review to reach that conclusion before entertaining it myself. where do they have peer review for books Einstein? would Professor of chruch history who got his Ph.D. form Yale and was in charge of the seminary at SMU count as a peer review? Well William S. Babcock says "A great contribution to discussions of the rationality of belief in God" How about James Hannam. is he another dumb nuts like me or is he one of you geniuses? he says: "Some much-needed scientific rigour on the subject of mysticism and religious experience" He told me to put up this thread, what a know nothing he is hu? Ralph Hood who invented the M scale says: "A fine exploration of the meaningfulness of arguments from human experience to the reality of God"
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 13, 2014 13:23:09 GMT
Metacrock, you'd do well to keep these points of unwritten forum etiquette in mind:
1. People here take their academic consensuses seriously. So they tend to disbelieve things are ground-breaking unless academics agree it is. It's nothing personal against you. 2. People don't respond well to sarcasm and using it is counterproductive.
So far nobody has attacked you. Wraggy's post in particular didn't deserve the snark in your reply, as it was an innocent question. But it is also an overreaction to Evangelion's more sceptical remark.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 13, 2014 14:20:28 GMT
Metacrock, you'd do well to keep these points of unwritten forum etiquette in mind: 1. People here take their academic consensuses seriously. So they tend to disbelieve things are ground-breaking unless academics agree it is. It's nothing personal against you. let me give you a piece of advice great all knowing one. Ralph Hood and William Babcock are the top of academic accomplishment for the 20th century. Babcock i retired and Hood is getting there but they are both still sharp and highly accomplished. you can't respect that that's a sign you dont' know shinola about academic work. I was a Ph.D. student for 10 years. you don't know nuts about academic thinking. you seem to think spelling is a big sign of intelligence. It's no more so than color scheme. you color scheme isn't because your sense of it sux. gree really> Not even to yours? sure they respond well the great all knowing one's sarcasm. maybe that explains why I'm pissed. becasue these armature know alls who sit over here and dont' even confront anyone and have nothing to say and talk about BS in tones of a tribunal of knoweldge, decided to mock and ridicule soemthing they have never read, for no good reason. Maybe that's what pissed me off. ahahahaahahahaha so on top of everything else you think your snide little attitude of superiority isn't an attack. So on top ov being a pedantic know all you are fool. Look armature, I've been on CARM atheist board for 20 years. I suffer fools easily.
|
|