35b1a1ce   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.astrology, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.religion.vaisnava   
   From: reanimater_2000@yahoo.com   
      
   On May 19, 4:08 am, Jahnu  wrote:   
   > On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:37:23 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist   
   >   
   >  wrote:   
   > >Why should anyone believe any of that shit?   
   >   
   > Because it makes sense to listen to God, the Supreme Authority?   
   >   
      
   Why does it make sense to do so?   
      
   > >Your not very good at   
   > >presenting an argument, try again but maybe bring something you can   
   > >support. Why do you believe it?   
   >   
   > Because I know who God is, what His name is, where He lives, why and   
   > how He created the world, who and what the soul is.   
   >   
      
   You have not provided any convincing evidence that you know the god   
   nor have you provided any evidence at all in support of your theory of   
   gods.   
      
   An important form of the Argument from Religious Experience focuses on   
   the issue of mysticism — it might be called the Argument from   
   Professional  Religious Experience. What is claimed is that,   
   throughout time, in various cultures and places, there have existed   
   particular individuals who have somehow had direct, personal   
   experiences with God.   
      
   Like the general Argument from Religious Experiences, it is claimed   
   that these experiences should be given the same credence as other   
   experiential claims and should not be rejected out of hand. But unlike   
   the general argument, it is observed that mystics spend a lot of time   
   working on understanding and reaching God — they are professionals, in   
   a sense, and their observations and conclusions should be treated like   
   those of other professionals.   
      
   How should we respond to this argument? The first thing to note is   
   that, as with general religious experiences reported by others, there   
   is a tremendous amount of variety in the reports by religious mystics   
   over the millennia. Not only are the reports from different religions   
   mutually incompatible, but not even all the reports in a single   
   religious tradition are compatible.   
      
   This embarrassment of riches is an Achilles’ Heel of the Argument from   
   Religious Experiences, including mystical reports. If they can’t all   
   be true, how do we differentiate the incorrect reports from the   
   correct reports? How can any one mystic give us a good reason to   
   accept his or her claims over and above the claims made by others?   
      
   Another problem with these mystical claims is how the mystical   
   experiences themselves originated. It is unclear how the religious   
   experiences of an “average” person originate, but they are not so   
   intense and spectacular as to require an unusual explanation. Mystical   
   experiences, however, need a bit more digging.   
      
   Fortunately, the mystics themselves often provide the answer because   
   even though the reports from mystics vary greatly, the road they take   
   is shared much more closely. The usual recipe for these experiences is   
   some sort of deprivation — going without food, water, and often sleep,   
   sitting in the heat of a desert or sweat lodge, isolation from human   
   contact, the repetition of chants or prayer, and even the use of   
   drugs.   
      
   All of this is unusual — they are not the sorts of things that a   
   normal person does over the course of a normal life. Is it really so   
   surprising that going through extremely unusual physical experiences   
   will produce unusual effects in the brain? Deprivation of food, water,   
   sleep and human contact will, over time, result in hallucinations.   
   When you add in certain drugs, visions are even more likely.   
      
   Because hallucinations happen in your brain, they are naturally   
   informed by what you know, what you believe, and what you expect. To   
   put it another way, when you are looking to have visions, and actually   
   prepare your brain for them, then you are likely to find just what you   
   were expecting.   
      
   Dr. Michael Persinger in Canada can produce mystical visions in people   
   with a mechanical device and what people see is heavily influenced   
   even just by the sort of things he has in his office. When he plays   
   music with an Eastern theme, people tend to have Buddhist-type   
   visions. When he hangs crucifixes in the room and plays Christian   
   chants, people have Christian-type visions.   
      
   Because there are possible physical and natural explanations for these   
   mystical experiences, and because they can actually be produced at   
   will in very natural ways, it becomes incumbent upon the supporter of   
   mysticism to help us differentiate between the naturally induced   
   experiences and those which allegedly have a supernatural origin.   
      
   One curious issue with the claim that mystics’ experiences of God   
   provide good reasons to believe that God really exists is the question   
   of just how a person can claim to recognize God. What arguments or   
   evidence, without resorting to question begging, can a person use to   
   claim that whatever they experienced is necessarily that of the god   
   they believe in?   
      
   Perceptual recognition is something which can merit skepticism even in   
   mundane matters we encounter in everyday life. Consider how easy it   
   can be to make an error in recognition when it comes to the voices or   
   faces or writing styles of people we know very well — but how would we   
   “know” the voice or face or speaking style of “god”?   
      
   Michael Martin offers the example of someone claiming to have spoken   
   on the phone with a person who seemed to be the strongest man of   
   County Cork. How on earth could such an identification be made merely   
   on the basis of a voice? Perhaps if the person was an expert on Irish   
   accents at least a small part of the claim could be justified — but   
   only a very small part.   
      
   These same problems occur with the claims made that someone has spoken   
   with God or even just “experienced” God. This claim cannot be taken at   
   face value: we need to know what part of this experience justifies the   
   conclusion that it involved “God” — with all of the qualities and   
   attributes alleged for this god, like omniscience, omnipotence,   
   omnibenevolence, etc. — and not an experience of something else, even   
   if it is another supernatural being.   
      
   A traditional question based upon this dilemma is, “Are you so sure   
   that you can’t be fooled and it wasn’t Satan who spoke to you?” You   
   don’t have to be a believer in God or Satan to recognize the   
   importance of such a question. The point is, no one has offered a   
   sound basis for differentiating between an experience of “god” and of   
   something else entirely.   
      
   http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/mysticism.htm   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)