Responding to Hinman (Again)
Joe has written a new article, this time specifically about me. This is actually the second article he has written in response to one that I wrote, but this one comes six weeks later, and I thought the issue was forgotten. Apparently, Joe has been seething all this time, but he has completely ignored what I actually said, and instead imagined that I was attacking his book. And that's what he's pissed off about. But it isn't true.
Let me give a brief recap. Joe wrote an article called Children of the lack of God, that said basically that atheists don't know what Christians know about their basis for belief, because atheists lack the experience that provides this epistemic basis. He is referring to the mystical experience, which supposedly provides first-hand knowledge of God's presence. My response, called Children of the lack of Objectivity, said that there are different levels of understanding of an experience, some of which are indeed subject to objective examination. As for the meaning of these experiences, I said basically that we are all humans, and we all have similar experiences, but we interpret them differently, based on what we already know or believe. Furthermore, many of us atheists are former theists, and therefore, the claim that we lack the same experience simply isn't true. For some reason that isn't clear to me, Joe sees this as an attack on his book. But I didn't mention his book, and I was responding strictly to what Joe said in that article.
So now in his latest article, Joe has come out with some false claims that I feel should be addressed. First of these is the title of his new article: Children of the lack of reading what they criticize. He might have a case if I was talking about his book, which I haven't read, but that's not what I was addressing (as I just explained). It is true that I haven't read his book, and I have said so many times. I refuse to provide financial support for it, but I'll be happy to read it if Joe wants to provide a free copy. In the meantime, when I make my comments about things that Joe says elsewhere (regardless of any overlap they might have with what is in the book), I am commenting on things that I have read.
Next, Joe makes this claim:
He assumes that there is nothing there to explained so therefore any human feeling is as good as another therefore he knows all about it. That is manifest nonsense. ... Some atheists (small group) do have mystical experiences and the studies show that these atheists react to the experiences the same way that religious people do but they use different terminology, but they are the same experiences.Joe completely failed to understand what I wrote. I never denied that non-religious people have profound (possibly religious) experiences. I did deny that experiences of this type are unknown to atheists. In fact, it's not just a small group of atheists who have these experiences, although it might be a small group that sees the experience as reason to convert. It's because of our previous understanding that we interpret the experience in a different way. But Joe denies that most atheists have the same kind of experience. And this is a point of disagreement.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that Joe bases this mistaken belief on his "empirical studies" - specifically, the M-scale that, according to Joe, purports to objectively measure mystical experience, and distinguish the "true" experience from others that are similar. In other discussions, I have made the point that there is no objective measure of what is inherently subjective. How would the inventor of this scale know whether the scale is accurate in determining a "true" experience? It's impossible. All he knows is how people answer a questionnaire, which is dependent on how they interpret the experience. The M-scale may weed out any answers that its creator feels don't indicate the proper interpretation, but it provides no objective information about the subjective inner experience, just as it is impossible to objectively describe what the color blue looks like. In fact, there is no legitimate way to say that this person's experience is "the real thing", and this other person's isn't, M-scale notwithstanding. This isn't objective scientific analysis. It is religion masquerading as science - just like "creation science".
Joe's defense of the validity of this M-scale is predicated on studies that correlate the experience with positive changes in one's life. But that's meaningless. If this correlation is true, it doesn't establish that the experience comes from God. All we might conclude is that a person's attitude and psychological state probably affects both his interpretation of the experience, and also the way he lives. No legitimate scientist would make the logical stretch from correlation data to Joe's conclusion. Furthermore, Joe cites 200 such studies that supposedly provide "empirical backing" for his claims. But with the possible exception of of Wuthrow and Noble, those 200 studies aren't even about mystical experience. They mostly correlate a spiritual attitude with well-being. They don't really support his thesis in any substantial way.
Joe wraps up his diatribe with this:
This guy has the gal to lecture me on epistemological tool boxes. He's never read any of the studies I use (which are the leading studies in the field) or my book and probably not any book or even an article about mystical experience, He wants to be credited as knowing all about an experience he's never had, he doesn't quote a single source I have 200 studies from peer reviewed journals, He doesn't even know who Stephan Tulmin was and he's so ignorant he thinks Warrant has to be blessed by science before its valid. His knowledge base is grounded in pre conceived notions and atheist propaganda, Mine is based upon resource of a body of literature consisting of 200 peer reviewed studies in academic journals going back 50 years and endorsed by the leading researchers in psychology of religion, My actual book is endorsed by Ralph Hood inventor of the M scale and one of the acknowledged leaders in research in the field. It.s on the cover of the book.What I know about Joe's thesis is what he's told me. And much of it is pseudo-scientific hokum. He may be citing actual studies, but the way he interprets them, and the conclusions he draws, are not scientifically valid.
As a Christian, Joe makes faith-based claims much like many other Christians. The difference is his insistence that he is playing the role of scientific researcher, and claiming empirical validation for his religious beliefs. If this were true, he should have the attention of the whole scientific community. But that's not the case. Instead, what we see is Joe showing up on blogs everywhere, pathetically trying to promote sales of his book.
There has been discussion about this at Christian Cadre. Mostly not very productive. For the benefit of readers here, I will repeat my last comment to Joe:
ReplyDeleteOK, Joe. Let's try a different approach.
(1) You say that the mystical experience is something special. It's something that is unknown to atheists. That was the central point of your article Children of the lack of God. You say that the M-scale is used to distinguish a true mystical experience from [something that is not] the real thing.
(2) You say that there are over 200 empirical studies back up your claim that mystical experience provides warrant for belief. A key element of this is that mystical experiences produce positive life changes, and this is shown by all these studies.
(3) I looked at your bibliography (and read whatever abstracts I could find), and it appears that most of these don't really deal with mystical experiences. Most of them are merely about spirituality. But now you're claiming that they really are about mystical experiences. I ask, how does "Effect of meditation upon SREM" support your thesis? Your reply is I'm not going through this sophomoric bullshit with another atheist. You tell me all that material is about mystical experiences.
(4) There's a HUGE disconnect between (1) and (3). If (3) is true, then any kind of higher consciousness would qualify as a mystical experience. Sam Harris meditating would count just as much as someone who scores perfect on the M-scale. But then what use is the M-scale? What makes a mystical experience so special? And how can you go around claiming that atheists don't have the same experiences as religionists?
What I'm asking of you is to explain this discrepancy. And if you don't care to discuss it here (which would be strange because you did post this article, and it is specifically about what I said), please come to my blog and discuss it.
After further discussion (Joe has made yet another post to ridicule my skepticism of his argument), I now have a better understanding of Joe's incoherence. I asked him to show how all these studies support his thesis, on the presumption that many of them aren't about the "mystical experience" that he has described as being warrant for belief in God. Joe linked to a couple of articles by Gacenback that he claims are supportive of his thesis (see the comments at Christian Cadre). The trouble is that Gacenback says that the so-called mystical experiences are not "mystical" the religious sense that Joe insists. They are supposedly "pure consciousness". And although religious mystics may experience the same kind of heightened consciousness, so do many others, with no religious aspect implied. It is a misnomer to call this "mystical experience". But this blows Joe's thesis out of the water. He insists that these experiences are unknown to atheists (see his article Cheldren of the lack of God), and that they justify his religious belief.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I think that Gacenback's talk of "pure consciousness" is just psychobabble, but nevertheless, Joe's use of her work in references for his argument indicates that he doesn't understand the material he cites.
every argument you make is clearly and obviously refuted by the article. That's how i know you didn't read it., I already explained that in the comments on cadre. Either that or you have no reading comprehension skills.
DeleteI quoted Gackenback saying higher states of consciousness are also called mystical experience, he's too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge it, he claims he read abstraqct he want say which ones i cant answer if if I don't know which one;s to answer for. reading the abstractions not the study anyway,
Deleteso you see skeptic is a little liar who plays games of dishonest and can never admit he;s wrong even when it is in ront of his face,.
I have an article that says the skeptic cannot be trusted" this proves this guy who calls himself skeptical is a liar, I never read the article but the title says it all. does that sound fair tha's the kind of game you are playing.
here is Gagenback direct quote: A. "Mystical Experiences
DeleteThe experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical". The essence of the mystical experience has been debated for years (Horne, 1982). It is often held that "mysticism is a manifestation of something which is at the root of all religions (p. 16; Happold, 1963)." The empirical assessment of the mystical experience in psychology has occurred to a limited extent."
when he claims that he read the titles in the bib and they don't say mystical so that proves the study is not about it, a bunch say higher states of consciousness, this expert says that is also called mystical.that just demonstrates the stupidity of trying to pretend the studies aren't talking aren't talking about it just because he doesn't see the word in the title, it also proves my contention that are other terns for it, and it proves he doesn't read the comments or he doesn't care about the facts because I quoted this right to his face.
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical".
Joe, it would be most useful if you actually made an effort to understand what I am saying.
DeleteRead the comment below.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
Your use of the term "mystical" is a grand equivocation.
wrong lyiing fool, you are are too stupid to makke taht jugment, now Ny final answe3rv to yoiur lkying bull hsit is here
Deletehere
this is my last say to you and you have had your last say in cadre blog,. you re too stupid to talk to, yiou can't document the cral yiu spwe you are just playing games,
So, you have taken to deleting my comments again.
DeleteJoe, you are a jackass. When I say something like that, It's not to be taken lightly. I don't normally throw around such ad hominems without you having earned it by your own words and actions.
You make posts that are explicitly about me, and you call me a liar, you put words in my mouth that I never said - and then you don't allow me to defend myself?
WHAT A JACKASS.
All this time, Joe, I have been trying to address your arguments. You don't even hear what I am saying. Joe, a big part of this disagreement stems from the fact that you don't listen. You have this fantasy that you are the brilliant scholar and you are dealing with a know-nothing atheist, and therefore, you can answer all my objections without ever listening to what they are. But you haven't addressed my objections in anything like a thoughtful manner.
Since you won't allow my comments there, I will respond here. And since you are allowed to defend your own statements here (because I'm not quite the jackass that you are), I must assume that if you don't answer here, then you have no answer.
I am Skeptical has a child's concept of discussion and argument, refusing to accept that the sources I quote are talking about mystical experience even when I show that they do.
Delete- That's not what I've been saying. Listen for a change. This all comes down to what is meant by the term. Your arguments claim that ME is divine. Those studies do not.
First of all I did say that a small fraction of atheist have mystical experiences, But there really no way he can deny this argument
- I never denied that. Listen for a change. I said that these experiences are not specifically religious, and that they are not unique to religious people.
No we don't all have similar experiences, not at all. That is borne out by every study
- You contradict yourself. You said: "(2) It is regular, consistent, and (3) universal to all faiths and cultures". So which face is talking now? Depends on which point you're trying to prove.
More proof he does not read, He does not read the responses, Some new atheist loony convinced him not read what Christians say. The answer is his assertion that subjective experience can be measured is not evidence, it's his opinion,The fact is what is being measured is both the content of the experience and the effect of having had it. That can be and is measured, It's is an objective effect. these experiences are real and really do produce objective quantifiable responses.
- The big problem for you, Joe, is that I DO read what you say. Here's a quote: "The M scale is a survey devised by psychologist Ralph Hood to function as a control on religious experience so that we can understand weather or not a recipient has had real mystical experience. It's the main methodology used in studies today in studies on religious experience. I write about it extensively in my book." You see? you are talking specifically about religious experience, and you are hijacking these studies to support your thes
I never claim to prove the existence of God,I claim that belief id rationally warranted.
- I never said you claimed to prove the existence of God. Listen, for a change. I said the data doesn't support your claims.
I never said I'm, a scientist or that I'm doming scientific research. He imagines I think because that;s his religion that's his version of a priest, I have committed sacrilege, I am an historian of science and I'm makimng known a body of work that is scientific that is unknown to theology. Like the graduate program I was in I'm interdisciplinary I work in many fields one of them is theology, I am also a theologian. Skepie has no idea what any of that is
DeleteYou certainly are no scientist. What you are doing is hijacking science for your religious purposes. You claim empirical evidence supports your superstition. There is no such evidence. Your argument from God Correlate specifically claims that mystical experiences are divine. Where's the empirical evidence for that?
Your data supposedly establishes these things (according to you):
(1) Mystical experience is life transforming, meaning it is positive and promote self authentication and actualization,
(2) It is regular, consistent, and
(3) universal to all faiths and cultures (although not to all individuals).
None of those things imply any kind of divine content. None of those things are unique to religious experiences or religious people. The authors of those studies tell you this, if you bother to read them. This is about the NATURAL experiences that are common to human-kind. A non-religious peak experience has the same effects. God has NOTHING to do with it. Your desire to turn this into evidence that provides warrant for belief in God is not supported by the data, and not a logical conclusion that can be legitimately drawn from the data.
Your whole argument is pseudo-scientific bullshit.
What Joe writes about the M-scale and how the scale differentiates between 'real' and 'unreal' mystical or spiritual experiences, is gratuitous religious nonsense. Firstly, the M-scale is unambiguously predicated on self-identification and self-rated subjectivity. Second, the 'mystical experience' is a wholly naturally-occurring phenomenon that each and every human is capable of inducing, regardless of religion and certainly not a function of religiosity. Indeed the association between religion and mystical transcendence is simply an accident of correlation, not causation. Religion long ago co-opted the mystical experience for itself, which is now increasingly becoming obvious that the link between religion and spirituality is tenuous at best. Just as philosophy cleaved from religion during the period of the Enlightenment, so too today is spirituality untangling itself from the hegemony of religion: "An ongoing transition from a more religious to a more spiritual self identification is evident at least in the United States (Roof & Greer, 1993, 1999; Pargament, 1999)." HERE.
ReplyDeleteEqually, "It is also true, as Hood (2001) points out; mystical experience need not be inherently meaningful. It is most insightful, however, to use typologies in the study of exceptional experience because it is the interpretation of the experience that is
ultimately the determining factor in whether or not the experience will be formative,
transformative, restorative, and so on."
And as we can judge from Hinman's several contributions, his theologically-daubed interpretation is equally nonsensical, inherently meaningless and unscientific in scope.
THIS ENTRY does not reflect nor support the claims Hinman makes for himself about the M-scale.
What can be inferred here is the research is increasingly demonstrating that the role of religion in the exercise and expression of mystical experiences is purely associative, a historical record of confabulation and conflation. The M-scale clearly shows there is no discernible spiritual or mystical experience that could not have occurred without religion. If anything, " Previous research has indicated that mysticism scores are particularly relevant in distinguishing the more spiritual than religious group from all others (Hood, 2003; Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999, p. 553).". HERE again
So it seems Hinman is up to his old tricks of spinning the apologetical web. A rebel without a clue.
Thank you. This is something that Joe should read.
DeleteTo round up the discussion, Hinman's grand equivocation has been exposed as a complete fraud. His argument is based on religious experience, which he calls "mystical experience", but which is his basis for claiming this "trace of God". His empirical evidence consists of many studies that correlate spirituality with well-being, and that show positive outcomes in people's lives associated with mystical experiences. But those studies that examine the effects of mystical experience actually are about a broader category of experiences that Maslow has called "peak experiences". Still they refer to them by the commonly used terminology "mystical experience". However, in this sense, it is not the same thing as Hinman's use of the term, which specifically refers to religious experience. There is nothing specifically religious about these, except for the fact that many religious people interpret them as being religious in nature. However, that is only a subjective interpretation, and it is irrelevant to the empirical connection with positive outcomes. These experiences can be had by anyone, and there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO empirical data that links them in any way with God. This is Hinman's grand equivocation.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO logical basis for making any claim that they constitute "warrant for belief". If you start with some religious conviction, and you then interpret the peak experience as a religious experience, and then claim that this experience constitutes warrant for belief (which is what Hinman does), that is nothing but circular reasoning.
This is what Hinman wants to sell as a scientific basis for justifying belief in God. Pure bullshit.
Joe:
DeleteI have explained it time and time again you guys refuse to listen, notice skeptic has not argued against the idea at all.In all childish denials that the literature talks about mysticism he never once argued with the reasoning the ideas connecting the data to God.
The reasoning that connects your scientific data to God is the very subject that I have been attacking all along. You are too obtuse to recognize that your argument is invalid. You have no valid basis for drawing the conclusion that these studies make such a connection. The "mystical experience" that you make so much hay about is NATURAL. It is induced by a variety of methods. The fact that religionists think it's God means NOTHING, unless you can provide evidence that it actually IS God. And you don't have any such evidence. Positive outcomes are the result of a person's psychological state and his beliefs about the experience, not any kind of intervention by a supernatural being. THAT's what the evidence shows.
You should take off your God-colored goggles and look at those scientific studies a little more objectively. Look at what they say that is NOT consistent with your religious propaganda, instead of cherry-picking the parts that you like. They don't conclude what you do, because there's no basis for it.
Gosh, I didn't realize this was sort of a 2 house party, but now that Skep got kicked out of Joe's house does Joe still get to come here to continue the festivities? Very confusing.
ReplyDeleteI'm just trying to get Joe to state his argument. He says this brain state "proves god", but how? I mean, most arguments that "prove god" can be stated in a few lines of formal argument, or in a paragraph of plain English, like the argument from first cause, truth, knowledge, morality, beauty, etc.
Person meditates, enters a state variously described as a mental void, or pure consciousness, or mystical...therefore god.
Uhm, that ellipsis needs to be filled in with an argument and so far I simply have not seen one from Joe.
Joe doesn't want me to comment at his blog because he has no answer for the objections that I have raised. He can still comment here.
DeleteJoe is not trying to "prove god". He is arguing that empirical data shows that belief in God is warranted. His argument is stated like this (and I quote from Joe):
(1) Real effects come from real causes
(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real
(3) the effects of mystical experience are real
(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME
I have addressed this argument here. And I pointed this out to him.
As you can see, he never even responded.
That's pretty much how it is, SP. Joe draws too long a bow to connect the ellipsis [mixed metaphor I know] and misses his target by the veritable country mile. :o)
ReplyDeleteBut then, when one indulges in the imaginative free flow of ideas and thoughts, the number of stories that can be constructed are limitless. Hinman's thoughts are just such thoughts, but do not comport with the findings of scientific research into these experiences. Indeed of the 4 groups studied, the 'more spiritual than religious' group together with the 'spiritual but not religious group' both recorded significantly higher instances of 'mystical experiences' than did the 'more religious than spiritual' group and 'religious but not spiritual' group. It would seem the nexus between religion and spirituality has been summatively broken and therefore Hinman's arguments, whatever they were, moot.
Actually, Joe used the term "proves god", in reference to this brain state he is on about. Every since I have been trying to get him to state an argument as to how this supposedly "proves god" (his exact words in context) and of course all he does is shuck and jive.
ReplyDeleteSkep, I am sure you realize that the above 8 line argument of his is also so poorly constructed that it really does not warrant refutation on its own merit (none, that is), but in light of the fact that there are so many theists out there endlessly spewing vast volumes of such nonsense I have taken it upon myself to light a candle as well as curse the darkness.
I agree that the argument presented by Joe is poor. And it's not as if this was off the cuff. He made a post for the specific purpose of presenting this. This is his thesis in a nutshell. Joe obviously has no answer for my objections to it, or he would have responded (either here or there), but he has never addressed these objections, to my knowledge.
DeleteIf you ask me, this argument alone shows that his thinking is shallow and illogical. Like many Christians, he is completely twitterpated with the idea of his God, and that emotional affectation keeps him (and so many others) from thinking clearly.
Joe thinks he's a genius because he's in a PhD program (and claims he has been for many years). He goes around boasting about it, and using it as a weapon against those who challenge his reasoning, under the assumption that people like me have no such educational achievements. But bible colleges hand out PhDs like candy, and Joe still hasn't managed to get his.