OT god vs. NT god

[Vicar Philip]

We are all aware of the violent and despicable acts which occurred in the OT; genocide, rape, incest, etc. Lots of these barbaric acts were seemingly approved by, and sometimes even perpetrated by, god himself. Again, this is OT.

Next, we turn to the parables and "wisdom" contained in the NT. God seems to have made a New Year's resolution to be a kinder, gentler omni-max Supreme Being, and we no longer find accounts of babies being dashed against rocks and daughters sleeping with fathers.

Many theists I've encountered argue that the difference is Jesus, that lo and behold, once the Son of god made his miraculous debut, god no longer needed to continue his murderous ways to chastise a misbehaving species of creatures. He worked his magic through Junior and didn't need the flashy pyrotechnics anymore.

How does one go about disspelling this particular load of rubbish? :confused:

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by Vicar Philip
Many theists I've encountered argue that the difference is Jesus, that lo and behold, once the Son of god made his miraculous debut, god no longer needed to continue his murderous ways to chastise a misbehaving species of creatures. He worked his magic through Junior and didn't need the flashy pyrotechnics anymore.

How does one go about disspelling this particular load of rubbish? :confused:

Theists also like to claim that Jesus has been around as long as Yahweh and will even go so far as to twist OT passages to support this view. So then, it seems contradictory to then claim that Jesus didn't make his debut until the NT.

Either Jesus was there from the beginning or he wasn't, so which is it?

[Selsaral]

If theists claim what you describe Vicar Phillip, then aren't they acknowledging the OT god is a total bastard? Most theists I talk to assert you just have to interpret the OT in the right way, read it with an 'open heart' or some crap, or that everything god does is GOOD, case closed. To take this line, they are acknowledging God (OT god at least) is out of whack with human morality (essentially a psychopath) eh?

[Barcode]

Ask them how the *word of God* managed to change so much over a thousand or so years .... if they say all of The Bible is somehow " inspired by God " (something I hear frequently), but they disagree with the OT ... ask them why the OT hasn't been thrown out yet.

Also ask them why they continue to quote scripture from the OT to condemn things today -- homosexuality for instance. To use it for their own bias, whilst ignoring the rest because they dislike it is extroardinarily hypocritical.

Ask them why we should take the message of the NT literally, but not the words of the vengeful God depicted in the OT.

The only answers I tend to hear are " read it in context ", or " some things are obviously metaphorical " ... at which point, you should ask why they are presumptous enough to claim to know what *God's word* definitely is ...

Or don't waste your time arguing .... hard core Christians tend to have a subjective view of The Bible that just conveniently corresponds to what they *wish* to be true and what they think is just and moral in this world.

Anything else is heresay ...

[rdalin]

Originally posted by Vicar Philip
We are all aware of the violent and despicable acts which occurred in the OT; genocide, rape, incest, etc. Lots of these barbaric acts were seemingly approved by, and sometimes even perpetrated by, god himself. Again, this is OT.

Next, we turn to the parables and "wisdom" contained in the NT. God seems to have made a New Year's resolution to be a kinder, gentler omni-max Supreme Being, and we no longer find accounts of babies being dashed against rocks and daughters sleeping with fathers.

Many theists I've encountered argue that the difference is Jesus, that lo and behold, once the Son of god made his miraculous debut, god no longer needed to continue his murderous ways to chastise a misbehaving species of creatures. He worked his magic through Junior and didn't need the flashy pyrotechnics anymore.

How does one go about disspelling this particular load of rubbish? :confused:

Many theists also claim that God's essential nature - whatever that may be - never changes. If you accept the claim that God has changed between the O.T. and the N.T., then you are stating that God has evolved, or grown, or matured, which would seem to be a neat trick for a multi-omni being.

I think the whole thing falls of its own weight with a little analysis.

[Pyrrho]

The supposed "change" is imaginary. Here are supposedly the words of Jesus:

Matthew 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
KING JAMES VERSION

So, absolutely all of the old, barbaric laws are endorsed, without the slightest modification. They should all be followed "Till heaven and earth pass", according to what Jesus explicitly states in Matthew.

Jesus on His divine mission:

Matthew 10:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
KING JAMES VERSION

Here is a site with links to injustice, cruelty, intolerance, "insults to women", etc., and they include many things in the New Testament as well as the Old:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The idea that the God of the New Testament is kind and gentle is a great deal of nonsense.

[Bill]

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Theists also like to claim that Jesus has been around as long as Yahweh and will even go so far as to twist OT passages to support this view. So then, it seems contradictory to then claim that Jesus didn't make his debut until the NT.

Either Jesus was there from the beginning or he wasn't, so which is it? That depends.

The followers of Arias asserted that Jesus was invented at the time when God caused Mary to become pregnant. This was then labeled as the "Arian Heresy" and people who espoused that view were eventually hunted down and killed. Nonetheless, the belief survives today in places like the founders of the Unitarian church.

Of course, the reason that Christianity declared the beliefs of Arias to be heresy is because it degraded their choice of gods for Jesus to be a created sub-god of Yahweh. So, for what would really appear to be marketing reasons (after all, the Christians were competing with Mithras worshippers for virtually the same market segment of believers), the Christians decided that Jesus must necessarily have existed forever, just like Yahweh.

So, you see, it depends upon exactly which sect of believers in Jesus you wish to use in order for you to determine the answer to your question. My view is "a pox on both their houses!"

== Bill

[Evolutionist]

i like the way gnostics view the OT god- the Demiurge, a spiteful, jealous god prone to genocide... lol

i've heard the same old rubbish "he's a loving god, and if you read the OT in context... oh yeah, and they say the same things about jesus when he says nasty things in the NT. :rolleyes:

[Dean Anderson]

Originally posted by Vicar Philip
Many theists I've encountered argue that the difference is Jesus, that lo and behold, once the Son of god made his miraculous debut, god no longer needed to continue his murderous ways to chastise a misbehaving species of creatures.
Well, they do say that becoming a father gives you a new outlook on life and changes you for the better...

Perhaps he's just settling down with a good woman (Sophia?)...

[rdalin]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
The supposed "change" is imaginary. Here are supposedly the words of Jesus:

Matthew 5:
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
KING JAMES VERSION


So, absolutely all of the old, barbaric laws are endorsed, without the slightest modification. They should all be followed "Till heaven and earth pass", according to what Jesus explicitly states in Matthew.

Jesus on His divine mission:

Matthew 10:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
KING JAMES VERSION



It all depends on how good you are at rationalizing. I've seen a number of discussions about some of the laws in Leviticus (?), and why it is that many Christians condemn homosexuality but don't obey the other laws. Well, I've essentially been told that these have been superseded - presumably by something in the N.T. - and don't apply any longer. Being an uncharitable sort, I've always suspected that which rules are followed and which are ignored depends more on one's own particular prejudices than the bible, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Bill]

Originally posted by rdalin
Being an uncharitable sort, I've always suspected that which rules are followed and which are ignored depends more on one's own particular prejudices than the bible, but maybe I'm wrong. No, your certainly not wrong! In fact, this phenomena you describe is exactly and precisely the reason we have many thousands of different sects of Christianity, each of whom picks and chooses a slightly different set of rules to follow, ignore, and/or revise somewhat. This is really just memetics in action. With so many variations in Christian beliefs, there isn't any argument an atheist can possibly offer up which both can be proven and can defeat all known variations of the Christian myth. So, if you view memetics as being as much of a competition for survival memes as genetics would be for genes, then it actually makes sense that Christians would split into so many different sects in order to give the Christian memeplex the best chance of survival in some form or another.

At least, that's how I view it.

== Bill

[rdalin]

Originally posted by Bill
No, your certainly not wrong! In fact, this phenomena you describe is exactly and precisely the reason we have many thousands of different sects of Christianity, each of whom picks and chooses a slightly different set of rules to follow, ignore, and/or revise somewhat. This is really just memetics in action. With so many variations in Christian beliefs, there isn't any argument an atheist can possibly offer up which both can be proven and can defeat all known variations of the Christian myth. So, if you view memetics as being as much of a competition for survival memes as genetics would be for genes, then it actually makes sense that Christians would split into so many different sects in order to give the Christian memeplex the best chance of survival in some form or another.

At least, that's how I view it.

== Bill
That's a very interesting analysis, Bill. I very rarely argue details of christianity for this very reason (also because I don't know very much about it). Also, there is a tendency on the part of christians to assume that once you've proved that a god exists, you have then demonstrated the existence of their particular version.

I just believe that no supernatural gods of any type exist. The various religions based on them are so nonsensical that they're not worthy of serious consideration, IMO.

edited for spelling

[Drew J]

So then, it seems contradictory to then claim that Jesus didn't make his debut until the NT.
It's only an apparent contradiction that our simple minds can not possibly explain.

;)

[Good_anger]

All the arguments that you guys are making are good, but they ignore the facts of Pyrroh's post. The change between the Old and New Testament is not as obvious as some people make it.

[Gothic_J]

mainly, jesus waits till after your dead to punish you.

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Bill
This was then labeled as the "Arian Heresy" and people who espoused that view were eventually hunted down and killed. Bill, where might I find this documented?

[Vicar Philip]

I'd be curious to read this too, Bill. I suppose I could get up off my dead ass and do a google search, too....

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Vicar Philip
I'd be curious to read this too, Bill. I suppose I could get up off my dead ass and do a google search, too....
Please let me know what you find.

[Keith Russell]

Vicar Phillip asked:
"How does one go about disspelling this particular load of rubbish?"

If theists ask you to believe a load of rubbish (which particular load of rubbish, is irrelevant), simply explain that you are rational--that you accept no claim without sufficient, non-contradictory, independently verifiable, supporting evidence.

Gets 'em every time!

K

[rainbow walking]

Actually, the evolving god hypothesis is exactly what you'd expect if man were the author of god and not the other way around. What began as a good story to explain the inexplicable has evolved into a perfect method to persuade the gullible to attempt the impossible. Simply remind these theists that the NT isn't that much of an improvement because slavery was still acceptable, {even Paul wrote a letter (Philemon) requesting the owner of one Onisemus the slave be allowed to serve Paul}, and was totally absorbed in peoples sexual preferences. Remind them of the apocalyptic tone of Revelation and the declarations depicting this god as the final authoritarian figure coming out on top as the conqueror of mankind with plenty of blood and gore to go around.

[SlateGreySky]

How does one go about disspelling this particular load of rubbish?

I've got one idea vicar: how about dispelling it by suggesting that the "theists" you cite are complete idiots and that your argument is a straw man?

Find me one reputably-published (and by that I mean in a journal such as "Journal of the Philosophy of Religion" or "Philosophia Christi") theologian or philosopher who believes that load of absolute crap, and I'll find you a Brooklyn bridge that's for sale.

If you really want to dispell "rubbish," you might start by honing your skills against arguments that contemporary scholars of religion (historical, theological, and philosophical) actually accept as valid. Until then, you can easily and obviously set up and knock down as many wiffle-ball "religions" as you care to invent.

It's not that I mind the discussion: I'm all for having fun at the expense of a non-orthodox and completely non-rigorous line of thinking. It's just that if you're looking for a quest of enlightenment, you might want to set your sights a little higher than unbridled fabrication.

[SlateGreySky]

simply explain that you are rational--that you accept no claim without sufficient, non-contradictory, independently verifiable, supporting evidence.

Incredible, Keith. Do you mean to tell me that you're able to verify the existence of your own hand with supporting evidence gathered independently of sensory perception?

The G. E. Moore Shift -- gets 'em every time!

[rainbow walking]

Originally posted by SlateGreySky
Incredible, Keith. Do you mean to tell me that you're able to verify the existence of your own hand with supporting evidence gathered independently of sensory perception?

The G. E. Moore Shift -- gets 'em every time!

rw: Well, if you're gonna stuff words in his mouth to create your own version of shaggy the strawman...where did Keith say anything about "independently of sensory perception"?

[SlateGreySky]

Shaggy the Strawman . . . I love it.

Keith noted that Vicar should note that he was "rational" - Keith took this to mean "that you accept no claim without . . . independently verifiable, supporting evidence."

Suppose there were a theist who believes what Vicar describes. This theist claims to have obtained his knowledge via religious experience, that is, by mystical epiphany. Keith would (apparently) reject any such beliefs as "irrational," largely because (so I take his post) the beliefs aren't verifiable independently of the mystical experience.

Now, in much the same way, Keith sees his hand at the end of his arm and wants to be able to rationally verify the claim, "My hand is at the end of my arm." This claim is a claim based on sensory perception (at least, so it seems to me . . . maybe someone has an idea how this claim would be based on something other than sensory perception?). He could appeal to sight, touch, even sound (the testimony of others that yes, his hand is at the end of his arm), but these would ultimately be unsatisfactory, given that they are not verifiable independently of the senses that led him to believe that his hand was there in the first place.

Thus, if the theist is "irrational" for his non-independently verifiable knowledge via religious experience, Keith is just as "irrational" for his non-independently verifiable knowledge via sense-perception. Now, if you want to assert that mystical religious experience is in a different epistemic "class" than sensory perception (i.e., mystical experience is, a priori, to be taken less seriously than sense perception), you're obviously free to do so, but you should probably provide an argument supporting any such claim.

[markfiend]

Well, if I saw Keith's hand I would probably agree that it's a hand.

Whereas two people who have "mystical religious experiences" never seem to agree on the specifics. Or even the generalities, come to think of it.

Also certain electro-magnetic and chemical stimuli to the human brain can produce an experience that seems like a "mystical religious experience".

But if you're going to completely deny the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, then you're welcome to. I just wonder how you argue from your completely subjective experience of the universe (non-independently verifiable, remember?) to an objectively real God?

[Bill]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Bill, where might I find this documented? Oh, I didn't realize that this point was controversial at all. For some background, please read THIS PAGE (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa082499.htm) which contains this quote: Constantine's sister and Eusebius worked on the emperor to obtain reinstatement for Arius, and they would have succeeded, if Arius hadn't suddenly died - by poisoning, probably, or, as some prefer to believe, by divine intervention.

Arianism regained momentum and survived until the reigns of Gratian and Theodosius, at which time, St. Ambrose set to work stamping it out. So, Arius himself was poisoned to death ("divine intervention" indeed!).

Of course, the victors write the histories, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm) tries to put as good of a face as possible on things: As soon as he came to Constantinople Theodosius began expelling the Arians, who had hitherto been in possession. The Aryan bishop, Demophilus, left the city (Socr., V, 7; Soz., VII, 5), St. Gregory of Nazianzus undertook the administration of the diocese. In January, 381, the prefect had orders to close all Arian chapels in the city and to expel those who served them. The same severe measures were ordered throughout Theodosius's dominion, not only against Arians, but also in the case of Manichaeans and all other heretics. However Sozomen says that the emperor "made severe punishment by his laws, but did not carry them out, for he did not wish to punish, but only to frighten his subjects, that they might think as he did about Divine things, And he praised those who were converted of their own accord" (H. E., VII, 12). ...

During all his reign Theodosius took severe measures against the surviving remnants of paganism. In 388 a prefect was sent around Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor for the purpose of destroying temples and breaking up pagan associations; it was then that the Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed (Socr., V, 16). ...

Theodosius stands out as the destroyer of heresy and paganism, as the last sovereign of the undivided empire.So, while Emperor Theodosius himself disclaimed any intent to impose "severe punishment" on those who held to Arianism, those who put his laws into practice were under no such compulsions, and they did execute many for the crime of adhering to Arianism after it had been outlawed. How else could Theodosius "stand out as the destroyer of heresy?"

An opposition view is given on THIS PAGE (http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ListOfCollatedArticles/ChristianityAndHeresy.html) which is, I believe, closer to the truth of the matter: As long as the Christian Church was itself persecuted by the pagan empire, it advocated freedom of conscience, and insisted that religion could be promoted only by instruction and persuasion (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius); but almost immediately after Christianity was adopted as the religion of the Roman empire the persecution of men for religious opinions began. While Constantine at the beginning of his reign declared complete religious liberty, and kept on the whole to this declaration, yet he confined his favors to the orthodox hierarchical church, and even by an edict of the year 326 formally asserted the exclusion from these of heretics and schismatics. Theodosius the Great, in 380, soon after his baptism, issued, with his co-emperors, the following edict (Ibid.): We, the three emperors, will that our subjects steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which has been faithfully preserved by tradition, and which is now professed by the pontiff Damasus of Rome, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the institution of the Apostles, and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of equal majesty in the Holy Trinity. We order that the adherents of this faith be called Catholic Christians; we brand all the senseless followers of the other religions with the infamous name of heretics, and forbid their conventicles assuming the name of churches. Beside the condemnation of divine justice, they must expect the heavy penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict.
(Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. I, 142.) Civil punishment followed religious offences as early as the time of Constantine, who enacted severe penalties against the Donaits, and ordained that all possessing Arian books should burn them on the pain of death (Arianism, from Arius, Christian priest at Alexandria, died A.D. 336, who held that Christ the Son was not consubstantial with God the Father). Arcadius made the reading of books written by the Eunomians a capital crime. Theodosius and Valentinian proscribed Nestorian books, and Valentinian and Marcian the books of Eutyches and Nestorius. The custom became so common that the condemnation of any heresy by the church was followed by the proscription of the writings of members of the sect. The Codex Theodosianus, bk. xvi. tit. 5, "De haereticis," enumerates a great variety of laws against heresy with penalties more or less severe, including the death penalty. (Brit., 9.) So, as early as Constantine, those possessing Arian books were ordered to be put to death. Does anybody really doubt that this penalty was actually carried out? I don't!

== Bill

[Alan N]

SlateGreySky Thus, if the theist is "irrational" for his non-independently verifiable knowledge via religious experience, Keith is just as "irrational" for his non-independently verifiable knowledge via sense-perception.

My dad would say "that's hogwash", but I have no way of independantly verifying that my dad exists, or that I even exist, so what's the point!

A - "I'm a solipsist".
B - "Prove it"
A - "You idiot, I am! (pointing finger in own face)"
B - "Prove that's your finger"
A - "uh, give me a minute"

[SlateGreySky]

Well, if I saw Keith's hand I would probably agree that it's a hand.

Whereas two people who have "mystical religious experiences" never seem to agree on the specifics. Or even the generalities, come to think of it.

This is beside the point. We can easily hypothesize (or cite examples, since many exist) of two people who describe a certain mystical experience in very similar terms, terms almost as similar as those you would use to describe Keith's hand and those he would use to describe it (tangential note: other than the use of the words "hand" and "fingers," your respective descriptions might not turn out to be quite as similar as you seem to presume). Suffice it to note that this issue can be taken care of, if not by examples from the actual world, then certainly ex hypothesi.

Also certain electro-magnetic and chemical stimuli to the human brain can produce an experience that seems like a "mystical religious experience".

Even if I were to grant that this is true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe that it is), the fact remains that certain other "electro-magnetic and chemical stimuli to the human brain" can produce an experience that seems like you have a hand. It's the old brain-in-a-vat trick: all of your sensory perceptions could be one grand deception of some mad scientist. This objection, while arguable, gets you nowhere.

But if you're going to completely deny the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, then you're welcome to. I just wonder how you argue from your completely subjective experience of the universe (non-independently verifiable, remember?) to an objectively real God?

1. I didn't, anywhere in any of my responses, deny the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

2. Nowhere have I expressed a desire to argue for "an objectively real God."

3. Even if I were to have denied the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, I don't see how such a denial would disable the argument for the existence of an "objectively real" God: I'm not sure I buy the idea that experience is the only means by which an argument for the existence of God can be given.

4. (Editorial) I find it interesting that as soon as someone takes issue with the rationale behind an atheist poster's arguments, that person is presumed by many other posters to be a theist. It's an interesting, albeit false, dichotomy.

[markfiend]

me:
Also certain electro-magnetic and chemical stimuli to the human brain can produce an experience that seems like a "mystical religious experience".
SlateGreySky
Even if I were to grant that this is true (and I have absolutely no reason to believe that it is)...
from this link (http://people.uncw.edu/bergh/par325/L09RPersinger.htm):
Summary: Mystical and religious experiences are hypothesized to be evoked by transient, electrical microseizures within deep structures of the temporal lobe. Although experiential details are affected by context and reinforcement history, basic themes reflect the inclusion of different amygdaloid-hippocampal structures and adjacent cortices...
I would also suggest you do a google on "entheogens", the class of chemicals (including DMT, mescaline, and others) which users report as inducing mystical visions.
SlateGreySky
...the fact remains that certain other "electro-magnetic and chemical stimuli to the human brain" can produce an experience that seems like you have a hand. It's the old brain-in-a-vat trick: all of your sensory perceptions could be one grand deception of some mad scientist. This objection, while arguable, gets you nowhere.
But I'm not arguing "brain-in-a-vat". Your talk of "non-independently verifiable knowledge via sense-perception" is. The point being, the scientific world-view has to assume that sense-perception is independently verifiable, otherwise all you are left with is solipsism. (Or brain-in-a-vat-ism, or other such.)
SlateGreySky
1. I didn't, anywhere in any of my responses, deny the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
But can you see why your posts on the non-verifiability of sense data might lead me to this conclusion?
SlateGreySky
2. Nowhere have I expressed a desire to argue for "an objectively real God."
OK fair enough. But the hypothetical theist you mentioned might. Most theists probably would.
SlateGreySky
3. Even if I were to have denied the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, I don't see how such a denial would disable the argument for the existence of an "objectively real" God:
Well, if sense data is non-verifiable, then the entire universe is merely a subjective experience, so how can you argue for the objectivity of anything?
SlateGreySky
I'm not sure I buy the idea that experience is the only means by which an argument for the existence of God can be given.
I'm not sure I see your point here.
SlateGreySky
4. (Editorial) I find it interesting that as soon as someone takes issue with the rationale behind an atheist poster's arguments, that person is presumed by many other posters to be a theist. It's an interesting, albeit false, dichotomy.
I get your point. Maybe I should have directed my points at your "hypothetical theist" rather than at you.

[SlateGreySky]

Mark,

The data you cited from the Persinger Reading is interesting, but it's not clear to me that one could get much philosophically argumentative mileage out if it, particularly if one wishes to use the data provided to enforce a conclusion that says something like, "certain electro-magnetic and chemical stimuli to the human brain can produce an experience that seems like a mystical religious experience."

First off, one thing I noticed repeatedly in the article in question is the pervasive comingling of neurological terminology and ordinary language (cf. a sentence such as "Considering the direct connections to the dorsomedial portions of the thalamus and orbital frontal lobes, time distortions (e.g., viewing eternity in a split second) would not be unexpected."). I have to ask here, what does the author of this report mean by "viewing eternity in a split second?" It is not clear to me that the data with which the researcher is presented is at all commensurable with my own ideas of what it would mean to "view eternity in a split second." In fact, it's not clear to me why the researcher himself should be supposed to have any clearer of an idea of what it means than anyone else - just because he's a (hallowed pause) scientist? I think not. There is nothing in the report or outside of it that speaks to his credentials as an expert on the significance of mystical language, so why should I trust his concepts of folk psychology/philosophy over those of the man on the street?

Secondly, even if I accepted that the researcher (and for the sake of argument, I'm reducing all of the researchers listed to one scapegoat of a scientist ;)) did in fact have the corner on the linguistic market when it comes to the folk philosophical/psychological terms he uses, I would still have no reason to believe that mystical experiences were always (or even most of the time) a result of a random internal stimulation of certain parts of the brain. The principle of parsimony, it seems to me, applies as much to the scientist as it does the mystic: it doesn't seem to me that there's any more reason to believe that a "mystical experience" is the result of the occurrence of such a random stimulation than that it is a result of the occurrence of an actual experience of the presence of God.

Finally, even if I granted the arguments to which I object in my first and second points, the report still wouldn't get you the distance you're looking to obtain between mystical experience and sensory experience. You say:
But I'm not arguing "brain-in-a-vat". Your talk of "non-independently verifiable knowledge via sense-perception" is. The point being, the scientific world-view has to assume that sense-perception is independently verifiable, otherwise all you are left with is solipsism.
It appears that you and I agree totally on this point. The scientific world does have to assume such a thing, and the reason it has to assume it is because it can't prove it via Keith's "independantly verifiable" criteria. My point has been (and remains) that sense-perception is just as cut off from independant verifiability as is mystical experience.

More on subjectivity/objectivity in the next post . . . .

[SlateGreySky]

Mark,

Of subjectivity and objectivity, you noted,
But can you see why your posts on the non-verifiability of sense data might lead me to this conclusion?

Certainly I can see why you might think this is the case. You've probably read Kant, and maybe you've read Hegel (whew!). I agree that, since sense data is not independently verifiable, all human experience must in some sense be subjective. This admission, however, should not be misconstrued to read that because human experience is always in a sense subjective, there is no difference between subject and object for the perceiver. Nor, in fact, does my admission even entail that there is no such thing as objective experience. We haven't ruled out the existence of the perceptive God (the Absolute subject-object) yet, right? I don't, then, think that what I'm endorsing in any way entails an annihilation of the distinction between "subject" and "object," even though I can see how, by skipping a few steps, one might think that he'd arrived there.

Well, if sense data is non-verifiable, then the entire universe is merely a subjective experience, so how can you argue for the objectivity of anything?

Through (among other things) a priori rational principles. This is what I meant when I said, "I'm not sure I buy the idea that experience is the only means by which an argument for the existence of God can be given." Arguments not based on experience but rather on rational principles have been given to assert the existence of the objective perceiver - God. Of course, it is up to each of us to determine for himself whether he finds these arguments convincing.

[markfiend]

SlateGreySky:

It would appear that we've been arguing past each other; the more I read of your posts, the more I find that I agree with you. Just a couple of points though:

The link I posted appears not to have been to the article I intended; Persinger has done research where religio-mystic type experiences were induced by application of strong magnetic fields to a volunteer's brain. I can't find the correct link, although the research is (briefly) mentioned in the article I originally linked.The principle of parsimony, it seems to me, applies as much to the scientist as it does the mystic: it doesn't seem to me that there's any more reason to believe that a "mystical experience" is the result of the occurrence of such a random stimulation than that it is a result of the occurrence of an actual experience of the presence of God.It seems to me that if religio-mystic experience can sometimes be explained in terms of neuropathology (or hallucination, or the activity of an external magnetic field, or even drug-experience) then it is unparsimonious to posit a new entity (God) to account for other experiences of this type.This admission, however, should not be misconstrued to read that because human experience is always in a sense subjective, there is no difference between subject and object for the perceiver.OK. I was misconstruing your argument, sorry.We haven't ruled out the existence of the perceptive God (the Absolute subject-object) yet, right?We-e-e-e-ell, you may not have! ;)Arguments not based on experience but rather on rational principles have been given to assert the existence of the objective perceiver - God. Of course, it is up to each of us to determine for himself whether he finds these arguments convincing. Do you find such arguments convincing? Perhaps you should start a new thread with your "best shot"; I'm sure I won't be the only one to take a crack at it.

[SlateGreySky]

Do you find such arguments convincing? Perhaps you should start a new thread with your "best shot"; I'm sure I won't be the only one to take a crack at it.

I'm sure you wouldn't be the only one indeed! :D The arguments that I do find convincing are probably old hat to most of the veterans here (althought maybe they've never seen the arguments presented as charitably as possible): cosmological, teleological, etc. I think that if I (or anyone else) tried to start a post, the gist of which was something like, "hey, I believe in the cosmological argument; let's see who can destroy my rationale," a moderator would no doubt kindly direct me to the archives of some debate that took place on this site in 1998 or something.

To be honest, I'm not sure I believe that anyone was ever convinced to begin believing in God solely because he or she suddenly agreed with Anselm's ontological argument or some such. My only point in citing the existence of such arguments here is to say that perceptual experience may not be the only factor that leads one to belief in God, and that, therefore, one could reason non-experientially to the existence of an objective perceiver. As it stands here, the claim is only modal in character: I'm just saying that it's possible that God exist; I don't have to maintain that God actually exists - at least, not for the purposes of this argument.

Thanks for an engaging debate.

[markfiend]

SGS:Thanks for an engaging debate.Thank you too.