Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Warrant for Skepticism


Joe Hinman has been ubiquitous in many internet forums, always urging people to buy his book, "The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief".  This article is not a review of Hinman's book, but a commentary on his approach to scientific examination of an issue.  Hinman calls mystical experience "empirical evidence of the supernatural".  The thesis of his book is to show that the scientific evaluation of empirical data relating to mystical experiences provides a rational scientific basis for belief in God.  However, if that were really the case, the scientific community would be buzzing with the news of this empirical evidence for God.  It is not.  The fact of the matter is that the scientific community has yet to recognize the existence of any such evidence.

What Hinman has done is a survey of studies done mainly in the field of psychology of religion that correlate mystical experiences with positive outcomes in the lives of people who have them.  He also relies on Hood's M-scale to distinguish "genuine" mystical experiences from other similar phenomena, such as drug-induced experiences.  He makes an argument based on these studies that mystical experiences are the result of a supernatural power, and that they have a transformative (or life-changing) affect on the subject.  It is this transformation that provides the supposed warrant for God-belief.  By citing all these studies, Hinman claims he has taken a scientific approach to arrive at his conclusion of warranted belief in God.

But there are problems with this approach.  First and foremost, any scientific approach must take into account all available evidence, not just the evidence that suits your purpose.  Why limit his examination of studies to those in the field of psychology of religion, which seems to be dominated by religious believers, rather than the broader field of psychology in general?  Could it be that the broader scientific community doesn't support his goals as much as the mostly religiously oriented studies that he cites?  Cherry-picking evidence to support previously held beliefs is the hallmark of pseudo-science.

Even the name Hinman uses for these experiences indicates his bias toward religious explanation: "mystical", as opposed to "peak".  The broader scientific community generally uses the term "peak experience", which was coined by Abraham Maslow to describe the phenomenon, without giving it a presumption of religious or spiritual content.  While it is true that many people attach a religious significance to these experiences, it is certainly not the case that they must have religious significance.  In fact, peak experiences occur to all kinds of people in many contexts that have little or no relationship to religion or spirituality at all, as described by psychiatrist Bruce G Charlton.  But Hinman ignores that inconvenient fact.

And this is consistent with his reliance on measuring and assessing these experiences with the M-scale (Mysticism scale), developed by theist Ralph W. Hood and geared toward the religious/spiritual aspect of the experience, as opposed to more generalized alternatives such as the Peak Experience Scale and others that are more broadly recognized by psychologists in general, contrary to Hinman's claims.  These scales do not not neglect feelings of spirituality often associated with the peak experience, but neither do they attempt to distill the experience to primarily spiritual or religious content.

A major assumption made by Hinman is that mystical experiences are transformative.  Although many studies show a positive correlation between the experience and psychological well-being, it would be a mistake to assume that the experience causes an improvement in well-being.  In fact, many psychologists believe that people with a higher level of well-being are more prone to have peak experiences.  A common theory is that the peak experience follows an instance of mental clarity or insight, and serves as a kind of reward for having accomplished a cognitive feat.  If that's true, then Hinman has the cause and effect backwards, which weakens rather than strengthens his argument.

The most egregious assumption that Hinman makes is to attribute the peak experience to a supernatural source in the absence of any supporting evidence.  Of course, by taking a pseudo-scientific approach that cherry-picks his data, and evaluating it in light of theistic criteria, he feels that he is justified in making this conclusion.  But there is absolutely no genuine scientific justification for it.  There is no empirical data that indicates any supernatural source - just interpretations of the data based on theistic assumptions.  As I mentioned earlier, if that were the case, the scientific community would be abuzz with the news.  

Of the book reviews available on Amazon, only one, by Dan Lawler, takes a skeptical view.  It reveals the starry-eyed approach Hinman takes.
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.
Hinman's claim of warrant for belief is founded in his mistaken assumptions that peak experiences actually cause an improvement in well-being, which has not been demonstrated, and that they arise from a supernatural power, for which there is zero evidence.  So much for his scientifically based "warrant for belief".  This is religious pseudo-science.

23 comments:

  1. I am regularly subsumed into that wonderful sense of transcendence through peak experiences, that thoroughly delightful feeling of being at peace with oneself and in harmony with the world.
    How does Hinman account for that, and the incalculable numbers of others like me, in his 'scientifically based' warrant for belief? And I am most assuredly not a god-botherer.

    In fact I'm experiencing that feeling right now as I write this comment. Must be the coffee. Oops! I think I may have blown Hinman's thesis right out of the water, scientifically, that is.

    Hinman's woefully callow scholarship is redolent of that form known as EISEGESIS. Get it? I-SEE-JESUS.

    Sheesh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hinman even posted a polemic against scientism the other day. The usual tripe about how atheists are cold, sterile, devoid of humanity. etc. The criticism of science is the usual response of Christians who understand that science doesn't support theistic belief. Non-overlapping magisteria, and all that. But it's funny to see how they try to latch on to science if they think it can be used to their advantage.

      Delete
    2. Scientism or Theism as testimony to evidential and factual truths?
      No doubt about it. My money is on science as the model with explanatory power that is unquestionably orders of magnitude more powerful in both explaining about and understanding us, our environment, the world, the universe.

      Christian-tainted theism? Not so much.

      In contrast, christian theism is underwhelmingly provincial and parochial in both outlook and character to the extraordinary but epistemologically grounded acumen of the sciences. In folklore and fantasy literature theism is a giant among dwarfs.

      Delete
  2. I an Joseph Hinman I did the interview in question. I want ayone who reads this to realize taht "I am skeptical" does not know anything. He is not a scholar, he's never been to graduate school He;s not published, he doesn't read most of what he criticizes,I doubt he read the interview.

    I argue with this guy every day on my bogs. He is trying to get at me because I've beaten him so many times. The one thing I know from arguing with him is that he does not read anything he criticizes.

    e
    Look at his statement "The thesis of his book is to show that the scientific evaluation of empirical data relating to mystical experiences provides a rational scientific basis for belief in God. However, if that were really the case, the scientific community would be buzzing with the news of this empirical evidence for God. It is not. The fact of the matter is that the scientific community has yet to recognize the existence of any such evidence."

    He had no counter study he has not read the studies he';s criticizing he does not have the credentials or the training to make the comments he's making. He is merely trading on prejudicial atheist ideology. The top researcher in the field professor at U. Tennessee @ Chattanooga. approved my work and supports it,he says so on the cover of the book, a nice little fact Skepie doesn't know because he's never seen the book. several other major researchers have singed on to it too. It's unethical of Skepie to withhold all of this talking don't know anything when in fact I have real academic scholars who support my work and he does not have that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing but personal attacks. That is not an argument. The fact is that my academic credentials exceed yours (although they are in a completely different area of study. Mine are in science.) And I don't need a "counter-study to note that the scientific community has completely ignored your results, because they have no scientific value, whatsoever. It doesn't matter if you got Ralph Hood to "approve" your book. He is a religionist, just like you. But your book is not peer-reviewed, and if you ever attempted to do that, it would fail any legitimate review process.

      Delete
    2. your comments are not arguments, you have not read the original material so you have no option of my work, your whole thing is personal,

      Delete
    3. In this particular comment, I reply to your personal attacks on me. It is not intended to be an argument, just as your attacks against me do not constitute an argument. Sheesh!

      Delete
  3. the argument he makes "The thesis of his book is to show that the scientific evaluation of empirical data relating to mystical experiences provides a rational scientific basis for belief in God. However, if that were really the case, the scientific community would be buzzing with the news of this empirical evidence for God." that is utter hog wash, There is a ton of sickness evidence that supports belief: all the cosmological evidence used in CA and in the evidence used in fine tuning.

    Of course scientists argue about what that data means. Atheists promote the little fantasy that science works by declaring everything true and law and proven so there's no argument. He will contradict that but obviously it would have to work that way to have the outcome his argument claims we would have.

    Think about it if science is about disproving hypothesis as Popper says there is no scientific evidence to prove God then you can't have the kind of absolute proof he assumes we have vis the question of God. You are going to have arguments and denial among scientists about God. It can't be resolved clearly but that doesn't negate rationale evidence for God.

    Here is the bottom line about the studies i use. Skepie is rejecting them based upon his preconceived notion Kathy science Can't support religious belief because he doesn't want to believe that it does. He's not basing it upon the studies because he's never read any of them, he;'s just asserting that they have to say what his little party line says they must.

    is that science? In Texas we call it prejudice, we also call bull shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a ton of sickness evidence that supports belief: all the cosmological evidence used in CA and in the evidence used in fine tuning
      - And yet, the scientific community is utterly unimpressed.

      Of course scientists argue about what that data means. Atheists promote the little fantasy that science works by declaring everything true and law and proven so there's no argument. He will contradict that but obviously it would have to work that way to have the outcome his argument claims we would have.
      - You don't have a clue how science works.

      Think about it if science is about disproving hypothesis as Popper says there is no scientific evidence to prove God then you can't have the kind of absolute proof he assumes we have vis the question of God. You are going to have arguments and denial among scientists about God. It can't be resolved clearly but that doesn't negate rationale evidence for God.
      - God is not a scientific hypothesis to be disproved. Science tries to find the hypothesis that works best to fit the available evidence, and God isn't it.

      Here is the bottom line about the studies i use. Skepie is rejecting them based upon his preconceived notion Kathy science Can't support religious belief because he doesn't want to believe that it does. He's not basing it upon the studies because he's never read any of them, he;'s just asserting that they have to say what his little party line says they must.
      - More lies. I haven't read all of them, but I have read as many as I could obtain, as well as most of the abstracts. I do not reject those studies, as you keep insisting. I reject your analysis and your conclusions, which are not justified by the data presented in the studies.

      Delete
    2. I already said they argue about it, that was my premisthat it can be argued with. you are the one thinks science is a done deal with no possible criticism.

      Of course scientists argue about what that data means. Atheists promote the little fantasy that science works by declaring everything true and law and proven so there's no argument. He will contradict that but obviously it would have to work that way to have the outcome his argument claims we would have.


      - You don't have a clue how science works.

      I studied how it works at the PhD level you have never been to graduate school, Science is about method you dont understand that,

      - God is not a scientific hypothesis to be disproved. Science tries to find the hypothesis that works best to fit the available evidence, and God isn't it.

      I know it that doesn't make it false,you think scinece is the only from of knowledge it;s not,

      More lies. I haven't read all of them, but I have read as many as I could obtain, as well as most of the abstracts. I do not reject those studies, as you keep insisting.

      you have nevrer been able to name a single study you lie and claim you read one,what was it called? who wrote it? where did you get it? liar


      I reject your analysis and your conclusions, which are not justified by the data presented in the studies.

      Delete
    3. I studied how it works at the PhD level you have never been to graduate school, Science is about method you dont understand that
      - You took a course in "history of ideas" and you think that makes you a scientific genius. You never got your PhD, and it wouldn't matter if you did. Your only graduate degree is from a bible college. You don't know squat about science.

      I know it that doesn't make it false,you think scinece is the only from of knowledge it;s not
      - I didn't say it was false. And this just proves that you don't understand what a scientific hypothesis is.

      you have nevrer been able to name a single study you lie and claim you read one,what was it called? who wrote it? where did you get it? liar
      - Joe, you put the entire bibliography, as well as some of the the key studies on your own blog for everyone to read. Don't you remember that? It was years ago, and it's not worth my time searching through old posts to prove you're lying. Do you remember that I showed you where one of those studies contained information that directly contradicted what you said? You are so consumed with cherry-picking information that you don't even know what some of the studies that you cite actually say.

      Delete
  4. But there are problems with this approach. First and foremost, any scientific approach must take into account all available evidence, not just the evidence that suits your purpose. Why limit his examination of studies to those in the field of psychology of religion, which seems to be dominated by religious believers, rather than the broader field of psychology in general? Could it be that the broader scientific community doesn't support his goals as much as the mostly religiously oriented studies that he cites? Cherry-picking evidence to support previously held beliefs is the hallmark of pseudo-science."

    This statement proves his ignorance. I bet he hasn't read a single page of psychology of religion.I know at least one of the major researchers whose study I use is an atheist, another one is openly gay hardly an evangelical Christian.

    The know nothing who has never researched and has not read the book he criticizes is full of shit several of the researchers are not in psychology of religion,some are sociologists some are other kinds of psychologists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually have published material in real peer-reviewed scientific journals, and you haven't. Nor will you ever.

      Delete
  5. I actually have published material in real peer-reviewed scientific journals, and you haven't. Nor will you ever.

    where? give me the citation,I was a referee for an academic journal I've read papers at conferences and ran an academic journal,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your "academic journal" is just a blog you had in college. It isn't published, and it isn't recognized by any professional or academic society. It is not peer-reviewed. It doesn't have a discernible focus. It contains poetry and random philosophical musings. Unlike you, I have done real scientific work, and published in real scientific journals.

      Delete
  6. What is your specialty im-skeptical?

    Mine is condensed matter physics, quantum ab initio EOS, and information-physics...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have two areas of academic and professional specialization. Computer systems engineering, and semiconductor physics.

      Delete
    2. OK...

      So, is the universe an open system or a closed system?

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure what you mean by that. There are several types of closed systems. If you simply mean that it would preclude the transfer of any energy or information in or out of the universe, there is speculation that the so-called cold spot in the cosmic microwave background is observable evidence of a multiverse. If that is true, then the universe must not be a closed system.

      But I really don't understand the relevance of your question. Is there a point you are trying to make?

      Delete
    4. Your reply proved Joe Hinman's thesis.

      Your reply quantified a purely qualitative question.

      You have lost the argument with an empirical measurement.

      The degree of mis-understanding you most likely perceive concerning this measurement simply reflects the tolerance of the measurement.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I don't have a clue what you are telling me. What did I quantify? What measurement are you referring to? And what does discussion of a closed system have to do with empirical evidence for God? Maybe there's some meaning in your questions, but I can't figure out what it is. Would you care to elucidate these things?

      Delete
  7. It matters little whether a system is closed or open. Information flow between systems is continuous regardless.

    Being scientifically adept, you should know this.

    And yet, you are deblaterating over several types of closed systems, the possibility of an open system because of multi-verse existence and now, finally zeroing in on a closed system (because you have done further research on the topic and a closed system suits your agenda).

    You do not possess the technical tools necessary to examine this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It matters little whether a system is closed or open. Information flow between systems is continuous regardless.

    Being scientifically adept, you should know this.

    - Then why did you ask me about whether the universe is an open or closed system?


    And yet, you are deblaterating over several types of closed systems, the possibility of an open system because of multi-verse existence and now, finally zeroing in on a closed system (because you have done further research on the topic and a closed system suits your agenda).
    - Where do you get the impression that I'm "zeroing in on a closed system"? Did I say something like that? All I did was ask you to explain what the hell you're talking about.


    You do not possess the technical tools necessary to examine this issue.
    - Time for little know-nothing trolls to go away.


    ReplyDelete