Argument from Religious ExperienceAnswering Arguments for Atheism part 2

Notice in these arguments every single argument they make is flatly contradicted bya pile of studies, the artheists are totally un aware of this fact.

Atheist:

Opponents of the Religious Experience Argument claim that religious experiences involve imagination rather than perception,

Hinman

Clearly its more than just imagination, if any is involved, because the effects are real. I devote several chapters in the book to proving this. I discuss study after study.

Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75. Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614. Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.

Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.

Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)

Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful, *think about meaning and purpose *Know what purpose of life is Meditate more *Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities *Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends *Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy *Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness *Less authoritarian and dogmatic *More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient *intelligent, relaxed *High ego strength, *relationships, symbolization, values, *integration, allocentrism, *psychological maturity, *self-acceptance, self-worth, *autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude, *increased love and compassion

Atheist

and point out that there is always the possibility of fabricating artificial experiences of God,

Hinman

Not really. Statistically it would be impossible to fabricate the score on the M scale. I proved this on CARM by making small study with only seven items while the M scale has 32. The atheists couldn't even get one fake answer right.

Atheist

or that the experiences may not actually be religious at all but are merely interpreted that way by religious people (this would go some way towards explaining why it seems that we do not all have these religions experiences). There are no independent criteria which can be used to separate genuine experiences from false or flawed experiences, and, with no reliable methods of testing, claims of godly communications cannot be accepted as valid.

Hinman

Not true on either count. We know the content is religious because it is communicated through religious symbolism and it leads people to belief even as conversion experience. There are several studies that dispeove thye the idea that they are just imposing religion on it.

1. its not always sought or expected and is often conversion experience.

: 2. It often contradicts doctrine held by the mystic.

3. half the experiences are in child hood and other studies show children are not into doctrine. In the book I tell which studies and how they were done. L

Atheist

Also, adherents of almost all religions (which, remember, are mutually inconsistent and conflicting) claim to have had experiences that validate those religions and, if not all of these appeals are valid - as the competing religions themselves maintain - then none can be. When nations go to war, devout believers on both sides have been known to receive revelations assuring them that god was on their side, suggesting that neither side was reliably informed.

Hinman


This assertion is totally disproved by the M scale and it's one of the most interesting findings. When Hood took out references to particular religions the answers were the same. In other words the experiences are all the same and the mystics interpret them as confirming their specific group, I quoted some of this in part 1.

Here is a quote from the trace of God talking about the research onj this point:

In a series of empirical measurement based studies employing the Mysticism scale introvertive mysticism emerges both as a distinct factor in exploratory analytic studies[24] and also as a confirming factor analysis in cultures as diverse as the United States and Iran; not only in exploratory factor analytic studies (Hood & Williamson, 2000) but also in confirmatory factor analyses in such diverse cultures as the United States and Iran (Hood, Ghornbani, Watson, Ghramaleki, Bing, Davison, Morris, & Williamson. (2001).

[25] In other words, the form of mysticism that is usually said to be beyond description and beyond images, as opposed to that found in connection with images of the natural world, is seen through reflection of data derived form the M scale and as supporting factors in other relations. Scholars supporting the unity thesis (the mystical sense of undifferentiated unity—everything is “one”) have conducted interviews with mystics in other traditions about the nature of their introvertive mystical experiences. These discussions reveal that differences in expression that might be taken as linguistics culturally constructed are essentially indicative of the same experiences.

The mystics recognize their experiences even in the expression of other traditions and other cultures. These parishioners represent different forms of Zen and Yoga.[26] Scholars conducting literature searches independently of other studies, who sought common experience between different traditions, have found commonalities. Brainaid, found commonality between cultures as diverse as Advanita-Vendanta Hinduism, and Madhmika Buddhism, and Nicene Christianity; Brainaid’s work supports conclusions by Loy with respect to the types of Hinduism and Buddhism.[27]

you can see the foot notes in that quote here.

Atheist

The assertion by William James that “all normal people” have religious experiences is so vague and unsubstantiated (indeed, impossible to substantiate) as to be all but useless as a basis for further logical analysis. The assertion is self-referential, as anyone claiming not to have had a religious experience (e.g. an atheist) is presumably, by definition, not “normal”. When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion. - Robert M. Pirsig (1974)

I discuss several studies that link the experiences to the common person.

But, leaving aside the problem of defining what a “normal” person is, the reality is that very few people actually claim to have had direct experiences of God, angels, etc.

false. some estimates go as high as a fourth of the population. One in four people. somke as high as 41%.

from Gakenbach:

"Several studies have looked at the incidence of mystical experiences. Greeley (1974) found 35% agreement to his question while Back and Bourque (1970) reported increases in frequency of these sorts of experiences from about 20% in 1962 to about 41% in 1967 to the question "Would you say that you have ever had a 'religious or mystical experience' that is, a moment of sudden religious awakening or insight?" Greeley (1987) reported a similar figure for 1973".

Atheist

Many of those who do claim religious experiences and visions prepare themselves by food or sleep deprivation, isolation from human contact, the repetition of chants or prayer, and even the use of drugs, exactly the kinds of unusual and extreme physical experiences likely to result in hallucinations.

Hinman

This is disproved by the studies:

Council on Spiritual Practices State of Unitive Consciousness http://www.csp.org/experience/docs/unitive_consciousness.html "Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. "

council on spiritual practices are a group of psychologists.



Atheist

Also, by extension of the logic of the original argument, if someone actively tries to have an experience of a god and fails - and few would deny that this has occurred on numerous occasions - is this not a good reason to believe that the god probably does not exist?

No remember the original argument was a straw man. my arguments don't use those premises. Also this is the fallacy known as black is white slide. all of these assertions are refuted by studies.

argument from arguments for atheism:religious experience

Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa*

on the blog arguments for atheism.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

The Argument | The Refutation

They begin by asserting:

The Religious Experience Argument posits that one can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him.

My arguments do not proceed from this premise. I make two arguments in the trace of God. The first proceeds from the reasonable assertion that we are warranted to trust our experiences, thus we are justified in believing on that basis.

The second argument is based upon the premise that our only rational epistemic assumption must of necessity be based upon the results of experiences. Since religious experiences are proven scientifically to correlate with positive outcomes we are warranted in assuming their reality.

argument 1

Co-determinate: The co-determinate is like the Derridian trace, or like a fingerprint. It's the accompanying sign that is always found with the thing itself. In other words, like trailing the invisable man in the snow. You can't see the invisable man, but you can see his footprints, and wherever he is in the snow his prints will always follow.

We cannot produce direct observation of God, but we can find the "trace" or the co-determinate, the effects of God in the wrold.

The only question at that ponit is "How do we know this is the effect, or the accompanying sign of the divine? But that should be answere in the argument below. Here let us set out some general peramitors:

(1) The trace produced content with speicificually religious affects

(2)The affects led one to a renewed sense of divine relaity, are transformative of life goals and self actualization

(3) Cannot be accounted for by alteante cuasality or other means.

Argument:
(1)There are real affects from Mytical experince.

(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.

(3)Since the affects of Mystical consciousness are independent of other explaintions we should assume that they are genuine.

(4)Since mystical experince is usually experince of something, the Holy, the sacred some sort of greater trasncendent reality we should assume that the object is real since the affects or real, or that the affects are the result of some real higher reailty.

(5)The true measure of the reality of the co-dterminate is the transfomrative power of the affects.

Argument 2

(1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.

(2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.

(3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.

(4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.

(5) Inersubjective

RE of this type has a commonality shared by believers all over the world, in different times and different places, just as the external world seems to be perceived the same by everyone.

(6) Real and Lasting effects.

(7) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experience as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

Atheist:

Many people have had what they label as religious experiences or revelations (experiences of the supernatural, like heaven or angels or even God himself), and if we believe the everyday experiential claims which people generally make, it is argued, then we should be willing to believe these claims as well. The fact that there are so many people who testify to having had such experiences therefore constitutes at least indirect evidence of God’s existence, even to those who have not had such experiences themselves.

Rather than just assume that all religious experience is equally unreliable we should base our claims upon the best most reliable evidence. This is what I do in

the Trace of God

I deal with what is called "mystical experience. There is vast evidence, hundreds of studies over 50 years that demonstrate the universality of these experiences as well as the positive outcomes and life transforming effects of having had them,

this research is demonstrated by a study instrument called "them scale" by Ralph Hood Jr. U Tenn Chatenouga. Here is an essay I wrote on the religious href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/08/defense-of-m-scale.html">a priarithat demonstrates the veracity of the M scale. The scale has come to standard procedure for study of mystical experience in psychology of religion. to learn more and get a better understanding of the data read:The M Scale and the Universal nature of mystical experience".

The works of W.T. Stace are very influential. He shows that, as Ralph Hood Jr. put it, “within and eventually outside of the great faith traditions mysticism has flourished.”[4] Stace offers five characteristics that demonstrate the commonalities to mystical experience; these are characteristics that are found universally in all cultures and in all forms of mystical experience:

The contemporary interest in the empirical research of mysticism can be traced to Stace’s (Stace, 1960) demarcation of the phenomenological characteristics of mystical experiences (Hood, 1975). In Stace’s conceptualization, mystical experiences had five characteristics (Hood, 1985, p.176):

1. The mystical experience is noetic. The person having the experience perceives it as a valid source of knowledge and not just a subjective experience.

2. The mystical experience is ineffable, it cannot simply be described in words.

3. The mystical experience is holy. While this is the religious aspect of the experience it is not necessarily expressed in any particular theological terms.

4. The mystical experience is profound yet enjoyable and characterized by positive affect.

5. The mystical experience is paradoxical. It defies logic. Further analysis of reported mystical experiences suggests that the one essential feature of mysticism is an experience of unity (Hood, 1985). The experience of unity involves a process of ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways (Hood, 1 976a). The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or a combination of the two.[5]

In speaking of “mystical experience” we are not talking about visions or voices. We are not talking about miracles or God speaking to people. We are talking about “the sense of the numinous,” a sense of presence, a sense of undifferentiated unity of all things. The claim is often made that this is an unmediated experience of reality. The veil is taken back on the thing behind the façade and reality is experienced directly. The notion of an unmediated experience is debatable and not essential to an understanding of the experience. A couple of examples might be helpful. It’s helpful to understand that mystical experiences come in two forms, introvertive and extrovertive. Intorovertive experiences are without time and space; they are not keyed to any external landmark or visual que. They seem to be beyond word, thought, or image. Extrovertive experiences are often keyed to a land mark and seem like projecting a sense onto the image of nature. For example the sense that God is pervading the physical space in nature around which one views a scene in nature. Or a sense that all the natural landscape around forms some sort of whole that’s meaningful and indicative as an understanding of all reality.]

see link above. Of course I go into all o this much more deeply in the book.

The Atheist:

The 19th Century philosopher William James offered a variant on this argument, arguing that all normal people have religious experiences and, since experience is the final arbiter of truth, then God (as the object of religious experiences) must be accepted as factually true.

The Refutation Back to Top

James never said any of that. But what if he did? Being in the 19th century didn't make him wrong (the verieties was 20th century anyway).

what he actually said was that all people have some degree of these experiences but its on a continuum. Robert Wuthnow in his ground breaking study of the 70s agreed as did C Wright Mills. That's covered in the Trace...as well.

I will deal with part 2 soon.