Answering Dan Lawlor's attack on Trace of God

Order from Amazon

Lawler's cutsie ultra cleaver review is given brilliant title:"Listen To What The Flower People Say"

By Dan Lawler May 20, 2015

Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

This is not a review it's the typical mindless knee jerk atheist mocking that so obviously forms the signature move of their movement. to wit:

he quotes a few statements I made about love and mystical experience

"Mystical experience is like love; it is love, in a very real sense." Location 5649.

"Mystical experience is not going to tell us what God is made of; it will tell us God is love. Love is a matter of experience and we can experience that. We need not make doctrines about love, we need only love. " Loc. 5774.

"God is love, and love is the foundation of everything." Loc. 6156.

Than his incisive commentary:

That's right folks, all you need is love, love; love is all you need. If you missed the 1960s or haven't otherwise had a mystical experience of love (or "God," as God is love), then a dose of psilocybin combined with a Good Friday church service might be just what the love doctor ordered for that life changing encounter with the Absolute.

Out of an almost 500 page book he isolates three comments about love then characterizes the whole work by that. Forget over 100 (maybe more like300) empirical scientific studies, the ground breaking M scale that gives us a basis of comparison between experiences so that we not just guessing about subjective states, water off a Duck's back for Lawler.

Pardon the sarcasm, but even the author himself concedes the lollipops-and-rainbows content of his peace and love message. After telling us for the umpteenth time that mystical experience provides a sense that God is love and "the sense of God's love enables one to cope and to love others" (Loc. 6131), he states: "I admit this interpretation does sound a bit 'New Age-like' or pie in the sky; one might go so far as to say 'sunshine and candy lambs.'" One might indeed.

Pardon it? without the sarcasm there's nothing there. In this quote he tries to insist that the "message of the book" is summed up in these three statements, not "umpteen" but three, despite two whole chapters on study findings and study methodology. The message of the is stated explicitly in more than three places (like the subtitle and the back cover)is that good scientific research provides a rational warrant for belief. He knows that:

Mystical experiences that God is love provide the "trace of God" from the book's title, and pragmatism provides the "rational warrant for belief" of the subtitle. People are justified in believing that God is love if they have a mystical experience to that effect and the experience allows them to better cope with life. This rational warrant is said to justify a belief in God without the need of otherwise proving his/her/its existence. The author desires to "free the believer from the need to prove." (Loc. 125.) In the process, however, he also frees them from truth and reality.

Notice that he's still trying to confuse the real message with mocking point (his fear of love is symptomatic of Dawkamentalism. In this statement Lawler reveals his inability to follow a simple argument. Love is a universal or ner universal aspect of the experie3nce, it is not warrant for belief. The warrant is the transformative effects that tells religious belief does what it says it will (changes your life), thus acts as a measure of veracity. That may be over his head. It's Understandable why love is s8uch a red flag for him. Dawkamentalists hate love and thus fear it.

The pragmatic test 'Does it work?' is the author's substitute for truth. "Working equals truth in the epistemic field of our assumptions." (Loc. 5295.) Mystical experiences "work" because they allow one to better cope with the "human problematic" of life being nasty, brutish and short. Magic mushrooms work even better.

Are we dealing with Donald Trump here? If working is not an empirical test what is? Science? You mean like the 50 years of scientific studies with no negative findings? In the book I actually made a big deal out of the atheist refusal to acknowledge this point. If you ask them how they know science is true they will say, it works! they make little pithy comments like "you can ask that and you are using a computer?" The connection between working and truth is foundational to atheist thinking. It's the core of empiricism. That's the basis of prediction and explanatory power. Apparently Lawler doesn't understand the distinction between epistemic matters and propaganda. Insisting upon "truth" while ignoring the means to find it is mere propaganda.

then he wants to throw the good Friday study at me.

In 1962, two groups of Harvard divinity students were sent to church on Good Friday; members of one group were given a placebo and the others a hit of psilocybin. All the members of the drugged group reported experiencing profound, positive mystical experiences (save for the one guy who "totally freaked out"). (Locs. 2553, 5105.) Subsequent experiments in the late 80s and early 2000s had psilocybin takers similarly reporting mystical experiences that increased their personal well-being and life satisfaction (though "about a third of the subjects reported significant fear, with some reporting transient feelings of paranoia"). Loc. 5089.

The psilocybin trips were, for some, an effective coping mechanism for the human problematic. They "worked" according to this author's pragmatic standards. The author steadfastly denies that the administered hallucinogens caused the reported experiences, and says the cause of the experience is beside the point anyway. If the subject reports an experience that adds to his well-being, the experience is deemed "real" because it has "real" effects. (Loc. 1092.) This is where the author's pragmatism cuts its ties to reality. If a drug induced hallucination helps you to cope with life's problems, you can say you've experienced God and that is all the rational warrant you need for living in fantasy land.

First of all I acknowledged the link between transformative experience and the drug. he just doesn't talk about my answer. I wonder if he read the whole chapter. Secondly he relates an answer I did not give. He says, "The author steadfastly denies that the administered hallucinogens caused the reported experiences, and says the cause of the experience is beside the point anyway.." I said no such thing. He mistakes my challenge to the study to supply proof of cause but makes it sound like I am denying something the study supplied. Moreover, I prove that the good Friday data is contaminated so it can't tell us anything. totally ignores it. He also misses the fact that I pointed to that the subjects of the original Panke study (Good Friday) all had mystical experiences before the study, some in childhood. That opens the door to the prospect that the drugs opens receptors that allow the memory of the experience. That's why the data is contaminated.

Another misimpression he creates is that two subsequent studies back up good Friday. The study in the 80s was a follow-up to good Friday, same people same bad data. The study in the first decade of the century was Johns Hoppkins (the researcher's name is Griffiths), that was a new study. Lawler ignores my point that the author of the study buys the receptor argument (above) and says it doesn't rule out God. I quoted his statement in a news paper and also communicated with him in emails.

The final part of that quote: "If a drug induced hallucination helps you to cope with life's problems, you can say you've experienced God and that is all the rational warrant you need for living in fantasy land," this is a ridiculous exaggeration. That kind of data is not existent in the Griffiths study, They did not follow the subjects for years to determine if they experienced transformation, many studies on mystical experience have done so. The findings in Griffiths show high score on the M scale and the subjects themselves reported experiences, There is no data on transformation. The receptor argument explains the M scale scores but since there is no data on transformation there's no proof the drug produces that. The critics still can't explain how the mystical experience without the drug does that, Lawler can't explain how all those people who did not take the drug, in other studies, did have the transformation.

Whatever the Bible might say about God, truth and reality is of little account to the pragmatist, so don't go looking there for guidance.

He didn't read the last chapter where I show how an experiential apologetics is Biblically based.

He exhibits another little technique that atheists use on message boards, labeling. They think if they label your position then they beat your argument. This excessively stupid because atheists are usually pragmatists. I am not a pragmatist at all, it's stupid to use that label just because I use social science data.

Pragmatism rejects representation and correspondence, that is, language does not truly represent an objective reality and our concepts do not truly correspond to an objective reality.

that's ludicrous and shows massive ignorance about pragmatism. Lawler is on the verge of making a beginner's mistake in argumentation. Let's watch:

Consequently, language cannot convey true knowledge of reality. Religious language in particular is "basically guaranteed to be wrong" insofar as it purports to correspond to reality. (Loc. 5035.) Language, like religion, is merely a culturally constructed coping mechanism. To the extent it allows one to better survive in the world it "works," and for pragmatists that's as good as it gets vis-à-vis truth and reality.

That is not the result of pragmatism but of mystical theology. Nor does it apply to all language, speaking directly about talk of the transcendent.

Because words are mere cultural constructs that do not accurately represent reality, religious doctrine is not all that important. In fact, doctrine exacerbates the human problematic as it "creates religious differences and religious problems." (Loc. 3092.) The world's mystics all experience the same ground of being, its only the words they use to describe the experience that differ: "Jesus," "Jehovah," "The Void," "Vishnu," "Allah," "Krishna," "Christ." (Locs. 2771, 5880.) The words are insignificant. The experience is what counts. Why bother with those troublesome words and religious doctrines when one can just mystically experience love?

That's an exaggeration of what I said and I never said anything like Jesus = Vishnu. I did not lump Christ in with Krishna. or any other god in a theological sense..To not understand the link between J (OT God) and Allah is totally ignorant. Even so that doesn't bar one side being wrong.

I never said words are unimportant I did made caveats against ignoring it. In fact I made a big deal out of the point that I would not base doctrine upon mystical experiences I use doctrine to make sense of it. My point is we can know love apart from language.

Altogether now:

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius!


I have a counter quote from an old 60s song, one I always liked better: "a man only sees what he wants to see, and dis-regards the rest, lie lie lie lie lie lie lie --The Boxer, by Paul Simon.
here'a the link order the book
Order from Amazon

Review in Studies in religion 43 (3)

a recent article in a French Journal with English articles, Studies in Religion 43 (3) 529 Review:The Trace of God

My Response to Dave Stump's Criticism of The Trace of God by Joesph Hinman

Me


Dave Stump wrote an admirable review for my book on Amazon, The Trace of God (by Joseph Hinman), for Amazon, and I posted it on this blog last Monday (June 9, 2014). Dave made some criticisms of the book, I expected no less. These were not only fair criticisms but I also agree with hem in some ways. At any rate they are worth taking seriously so I decided to comment on them.


Common core weakens truth claims of Christian tradition

The "common core" is the view of mystical "theology" and/or phenomenology that is supported by Ralph Hood jr, inventor of the M Scale (mysticism scale.).The M Scale figures prominently in the book. [1] The common core says that there is a common core experinces at the basis or all organized religion. The attentive to the common core is the "perennial philosophy" which seeks to establish a unique and separate philosophy or religon based upon mysticism, even though it's worked in all different faiths. Stump's criticism:

This approach [the common core] may leave the reader to wonder how these experiences are associated with any but the most generic kind of "higher power". While that does bolster the universal aspect of the experience and avoids the difficulties of issues such as mutually exclusive religious claims by appealing to something that per-dates and transcends religion, such claims are seriously undercut by this approach.

 I did anticipate that one could see it that way. Thus I included a whole chapter (the last chapter, no 9) on that prospect. I argue that we experience God at a subliminal level. To make those experiences understandable to those who have not had them (which the mystic is driven to do by our nature as social animals) we encode them in cultural constructs. That colors the religious tradition with the culture and makes religions seem different from one another. They are in fact different becuase they grow up rooted in and colored by the culture but there is a common core that transcends the culture; the same reality stands behinds all traditions. I point to the metaphorical nature of all language. I wrestle with the epistemological reality and what that entails for religious belief as a whole. I make the argument that religion is not about words on paper. Doctrine is improtant and I do not advocate basing doctrine upon mystical experience. Yet the daily experience of a religious life is about knowing the proper words but expericing God in a real and living way. That's what these people are doing who have these experiences. That's what the experience is about phenomenologically.


 Major criticism: forced dichotomy

A weakness of the book is that is somewhat limited in offering a broader view of the evidence and its implications. The arguments are geared in many cases toward a model of "Here is what some people claim/think, here is a different way to see things/evidence that contradicts what those people say." This refutation style tends toward a false dichotomy of potential views. This style is understandable given the author's goals, but still those who don't fit well within either of the two sides presented will nod along in some sections and shrug at others. The potential criticism of Hthe author's position comes as you might expect primarily from the arguments of those he is refuting. That is, "Here is what someone who rejects a certain kind of data (or a particular analysis of that data) says and here is my rebuttal". Self-critique is not entirely absent in the book, however, and there are caveats included regarding the author's interpretations of the evidence he provides.

That first answer above is a good segway (segue) to this issue. I've basically just answered this criticism above. I did not create the framework into which these experiences are grouped. It has a deep history in human society perhaps even going back as far as Neanderthal.At least we know they had religion.[2] So that approach was set out for me. Yet there's good evidence that we fall into it naturally without being herded there by society. One set of data from the studies themselves, where those whose data based is contains a large number of children (some studies have as many as half coming from children) find that they have mystical experience. Other studies show that children are not laden with doctrinal hangups. Meaning their conclusion that their experience is about God is pretty natural and just comes tot hem without a lot medication by society. Even if they are in a chruch they are still not laden with the church's doctrines as an iron clad view even they spout the doctrine to some extent.

Dave says those who don't fit will shake their heads or shrug, I assume he means they will react in an indifferent manner to the conclusions. What he doesn't say is who they are? How many alternate views are there of the same experiences? Use of the M scale or soemthing it is necessary to even answer the question because otherwise how do we even know we are talking about the same experiences?

He also alleges that my arguments come primarily from those who argue against me. that I'm allowing the atheists on CARM to set the agenda. I think that's very untrue. That is an assumption that has some validity with regard to how the project got started the early thinking, and the basic God arguments in their general structure. As the years research got going and become more diverse, the years dragged on the atheists on the net had less and less to do with it. The agenda was really recaset by Dr. William S. Babcock my old professor at Perkins who introduced me to Proudfoot's work. Proudfoot is a detractor and an atheist. In a sense an atheist was still setting the agenda, but not an internet atheist. I do two chapters on Proudfoot and his attack upon mystical experience. As I developed more of a friendship with Dr. Hood I think he began being more of an influence upon the agenda. I began moving toward what I saw as Hood's research areas. I brought the Vedantists into it and opened it up to a more universal element beyond the Christian community (Hood is not a Christian).

Where I agree with Dave is that there is an inherent Derridian point of contradiction that if pressed will always be problematic. That's in the realization about the nature of language as essentially metaphor. We can always introduced the autonomy between symbolism and literalism and always ask "is this really representative of what is going on?" Are always imposing our own framework upon the amorphous sense data? Although I believe that the sense data will suggest it's own categories if we give it a chance. I believe that's what's happened with mysticism. I think it's the reductionists who explain it away who are imposing their frameworks. When people listen to the experience that it suggests the categories of God and religion. There has to be a point at which we accept that the fits works and thus has some religion to truth, we get the category right, or we are not able to accept truth at any level. That means we also lose scinece and rationality. The categories I speak of are those into which we group our understanding of things to explain the workings of the world. As I understand phenomenology it says that we set up preconceived categories and impose them upon sense data, but if we let the data suggest the categories we come closer to the truth.


 does it meet it's goal?

  the question of whether the book succeeds at its goal of presenting a rational warrant for belief in God depends on how you measure success.

Neither the internet atheists whom Hinman debates nor the professional promoters of atheism will be convinced in the slightest by this book that belief in God is any more or less reasonable. Anyone who is settled in their conviction that belief in God is ridiculous or harmful will not be swayed by the even the most detailed and subtle lines of reasoning put forward in this book. Even though Hinman tries to make the case that his definitions of God, religion, and so on are more nuanced than their common usage allows, one can still choose to reject the significance Hinman gives to these words and to the human experiences Hinnan connects to them. As an argument for a rational warrant rather than conclusive proof, there is ample room to take an opposing view if one is committed to doing so. Trace offers an approach to defending the reasonableness of belief in God, but its arguments do not obviate a thoughtful and honest rejection of such belief.

 He says how we measure success that determines the answer. If we define the point of the goal to be the effect on lives and not selling books (that sounds like a wise goal so far--not selling books, that's certainly in keeping with reality) it does meet the goal.

Achieves true Goal of positive effect on people's lives

 Where the broader success of the book will be measured, aside from sales numbers, is the impact that it has on those who are true fence-sitters in the God debate as well as the reception by those looking for broadly accessible arguments and supporting evidence for the reality of God.

That's very sharp of Dave. Yes rational warrant is the ostensible goal but the true goal is to provide a focus and framework for those who have had such experiences, or seek them, or are just searching and don't what they need to understand the idea of an experiential relationship with the divine and to understand the value of it. Part of that is clearing away the clutter of fear and distrust that surrounds any subjective approach to reality such as an experientially based approach.

The book is having that effect. Wordgazer talks about it. Others who have read it already have told me "this book as already changed my life." From the message board interview: "That sounds absolutely like something I've been looking for. Thanks! I will be ordering me a copy right now."[3]



 Notes

 [1]Metacrock, "The M scale and the Universal Nature of Mystical Experience," The Religious a priori an online resource: http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-m-sacle-and-universal-nature-of.html (accessed 6/10/14). This is my article from religious a priori (my blog-website) which I have published on this blog as well,  it explains in detail what the M Scale is about. Suffice to say it's a means of establishing that one has had an actual mystical experience, thus it can be identified and thus a control group established, thus the phenomena can be studied scientifically.

[2] Ker Than, "Neanderthal Burials Confirmed as Ancient Ritual," National Geographic.Dec 16, 2013 On line version:  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/  accessed 6/10/14. one must register to read the article.
I deal with this issue in the book and present a lot more historical evidence about Neanderthal and early humans. The fact all of that is speculation. There's no way to prove that religious experience existed back then. I do show evidence of  tribes using techniques of conscoiusness raising that link them to mystical experience. Yet there is no way to prove they had those techniques thousands of years ago.

[3] Michael Cole, Re: JRP interviews Joe Hinman on THE TRACE OF GOD
Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:17 am
http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=5620


please click here, go to my book trailer and watch it so it will move higher up the ladder on You tube, so it will  be seen by more people.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tGmDnyI7Aw

Buy the book! 

 http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408714/