|
Post by metacrock on Jun 13, 2014 14:25:13 GMT
Here's anther thing the little genius league needs to consider. It is ground breaking, here's why: becasue not since the 80s and Carol Franks Davis's writing has a book attempted o unite this body of academic work with God arguments. no one else has done it except her, and she did not have nearly the emphasis on methodology of the studies, she didn't have nearly as many studies as have been done now, she didn't have the three part M scale, all of which means my attempt is (no fault of her own) more acute than her's.
Moreover, I deal with issues such as placebo, drugs and God part of the brain/God gene (alleged) uniting that with the studies which no one has done before.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Jun 13, 2014 16:08:34 GMT
I'll wait for peer review to reach that conclusion before entertaining it myself. where do they have peer review for books Einstein? I assumed you had already submitted it as a thesis, or at the very least a journal article. Am I to understand that this material has never been subjected to peer review at all?You've provided a few endorsements for your book from people I've never heard of, but I don't see any of them referring to it as 'ground breaking.' Oh, and just one thing while I'm at it: book endorsements are not peer review! I'm a big believer in academic consensus. When academic consensus concludes that your work is 'ground breaking', I'll feel more inclined to favour that conclusion myself.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 13, 2014 16:12:51 GMT
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. Fine, but that's irrelevant for evaluating evangelion's response, considering that evangelion didn't know that they endorsed your book when he wrote that comment. 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. Yes, because one becomes an A-student by knowing nothing about academic thinking. Another piece of etiquette: don't engage into online psychiatry or biography, don't assume about others what you don't know. you seem to think spelling is a big sign of intelligence. No, I don't think that spelling indicates intelligence. Nothing I have said remotely suggests that either. The two comments I made on spelling were perfectly within the bounds of politeness: one was merely a reference (and didn't suggest a correction at all) and the other was an error in somebody's name - that's seems a fair reason to me. 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. Please refer to a single instance in this topic where I have been sarcastic. Or in any recent topic. Or just check how often sarcasm is used in any of my posts. As for mocking and ridicule, it's is open for all that to see that absolutely nobody here has done that to you or your work. 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. Eh, right. Would you care to indicate that "snide little attitude of superiority"? Some more evidence for your assertions in your dealing with other people would be kind of nice. But I'd also settle for a little use of Hanlon's razor (not assuming malice).
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Jun 13, 2014 16:15:01 GMT
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. ...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. It's this sort of language and behaviour that leads people to conclude you're merely the Christian equivalent of D. M. Murdock, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier.
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Jun 13, 2014 16:17:00 GMT
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. Fine, but that's irrelevant for evaluating evangelion's response, considering that evangelion didn't know that they endorsed your book when he wrote that comment. Actually I did, because I've seen the book's promotional video on YouTube, which consists entirely of endorsements and tells you very little about the content.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 13, 2014 16:28:17 GMT
Fine, but that's irrelevant for evaluating evangelion's response, considering that evangelion didn't know that they endorsed your book when he wrote that comment. Actually I did, because I've seen the book's promotional video on YouTube, which consists entirely of endorsements and tells you very little about the content. All right, I stand corrected then. In any case, Ralph Hood definitely is one of the biggest fish in the research of religious experience, as Metacrock says.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 13, 2014 23:08:05 GMT
Hi metacrock
I haven't commented so far on this subject, so I wonder if you will accept my comment as being genuine and trying to be helpful.
I am interested in this topic, very interested. I have put your book on my Amazon "Wish List", so that when I next order books, I will be considering it. (I wait to order several books at a time because Iive in Australia and that saves shipping costs.)
You have been a member of this forum for 5 or 6 years, and I don't recall ever having any arguments with you, my only impression of you is favourable. This is generally a friendly forum. So in this context I am very surprised at your response to comments here. You want to recommend your book yet you are rude to those of us here who are interested enough to question you about it. In particular, I have come to know ignorantianescia very well, and Wraggy pretty well too (I have corresponded extensively with both of them) and they do not in my experience deserve the scorn you have offered them. They are very genuine people.
I can understand that you might be feeling anxious about the outcome of all your work, but announcing your book on the forum but insulting those who are interested in it is not going to help. May I suggest we start again with the discussion and you be willing to answer questions, even possibly critical ones, in good faith?
I would really welcome that.
Thanks. I hope I haven't further inflamed the situation.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 13, 2014 23:11:32 GMT
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. This is a very helpful summary, and I think shows this is potentially a very interesting and useful study. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jun 14, 2014 11:51:10 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. I meant Hood's book in case that wasn't clear. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 14, 2014 14:10:48 GMT
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. I meant Hood's book in case that wasn't clear. Thanks. Buy my book. It's an excellent book. Well written and Hood likes it. I think you guys have something agaisnt me a priori.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 14, 2014 14:14:41 GMT
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. ...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. It's this sort of language and behaviour that leads people to conclude you're merely the Christian equivalent of D. M. Murdock, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier. you are quite the idiot. your behavior is not sacrosanct just becuase you are one of the few bored morons who want to post here. you drive everyone else away with your little all knowing sarcastic "we are the precious geniuses of the board" attitude then act like you rule the roust. who the hell wants to post here. I guess that enables you to pretend that you re big fish in the non existent pond. your understanding is surface level and you not talking about issues. only able to talk about personalities. your little line about "your behavior" is studied and practiced right out atheist message boards.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 14, 2014 14:15:33 GMT
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. I meant Hood's book in case that wasn't clear. Thanks. yea right, buy my book if you want to be able to argue with atheists or anyone else who doesn't think so.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Jun 14, 2014 23:11:59 GMT
I think that guy went to my website and summarized my arguments. It's clearly very important to him to appear to be the all knowing one.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 14, 2014 23:41:02 GMT
I think that guy went to my website and summarized my arguments. It's clearly very important to him to appear to be the all knowing one. That's exactly what he was doing, if I understand him correctly. And I found it very helpful. I don't think he was wanting to appear knowing, but simply wanting to help others of us. I happen to know him quite well and he reads a lot, has good background knowledge on a wide range of topics, and has a good ability to understand and summarise. I'm sorry if it seems that way, but I don't think that's the case. I and some others here are very interested in this topic. If you check back, you made some adverse comments before anyone else did - I'm guessing you may have assumed something about people here that may not have been true. Why not start again with a good will, and see what happens?
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Jun 15, 2014 11:34:52 GMT
It's this sort of language and behaviour that leads people to conclude you're merely the Christian equivalent of D. M. Murdock, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier. you are quite the idiot. your behavior is not sacrosanct just becuase you are one of the few bored morons who want to post here. you drive everyone else away with your little all knowing sarcastic "we are the precious geniuses of the board" attitude then act like you rule the roust. who the hell wants to post here. I guess that enables you to pretend that you re big fish in the non existent pond. your understanding is surface level and you not talking about issues. only able to talk about personalities. your little line about "your behavior" is studied and practiced right out atheist message boards. I'm a Christian and you know absolutely nothing about me, as you have amply demonstrated. Your bizarre mischaracterisations are as amusing as they are incorrect.
|
|