Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Sup

[heretic888]

Hey there, heretic. Point taken - it is true that the Fathers and Mothers of the Church, saints, and so forth, did have direct experiences. (I'm speaking from an Eastern Orthodox point of view.) My generalization should be applied, perhaps, to the remainder of believers - those who believe because of someone else's experience.

Yes, this is one of the general understandings in Buddhism, as well --- that the student is to have faith in the teachings and experiences of his or her predecessors and teachers. Of course, one is to balance this with a healthy dose of skepticism (something I see all-to-lacking in most, but not all, of the Judeo-Christian religious strands). There seems to be an understanding of balancing between what you might call "blind faith" (in which you unquestioningly accept whatever you are told) and "blind cynicism" (in which you unquestioningly reject or deny whatever you are told). The Middle Way, I suppose.

Come to think of it, that kind of attitude seems to have many parallels in martial arts study as well, neh?? :asian:

Of course, as I pointed out above, there are ways to somewhat "scientifically" confirm the experiences and insights of one's predecessors --- namely, through communal checking and so forth (of those that have completed the actual injunctions, not just anybody that feels like passing judgment). But ultimately, when this is bereft of personal experience and observation, then it all comes down to faith (to a degree) --- as all good science does.

But, as before, faith isn't always blind.

But each person DOES have a personal experience with their faith.

I think each person has experiences of some variety, that they then use to justify or validate their beliefs --- and this is not just limited to religion. I'm not so sure that all, or even most, of these experiences are anything even vaguely similar to the accounts of the saintly exemplars I listed above.

I think, perhaps, a leap of faith (along with my own personal experiences) must be taken for someone like myself - who tries to live in both worlds (which is really one world), of Religion and Science.

Well, when we are lacking direct personal observation or experience of a phenomena, then there is always an element of "faith" involved. This goes for science, as well. This isn't a bad thing, its just part of the limitations of human knowledge.

This is why, namely, there is such an emphasis on communal checking, fallibilism, and so forth within the scientific method --- so that personal observations can be put to the test of those that have also completed the proper injunctions or exemplars (i.e., if you want to know microbiology, you have to look through the microscope --- if you want to know the Divine, you have to meditate). That is also why there is an emphasis on communal validation within the contemplative traditions, as well.

Both blind faith and blind cynicism are unhealthy options that we wish to avoid.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

What I was taking issue with was your claim that those who attempt to use logic or faith to address the divine are only doing so out of fear of meditation. Whether or not someone's intellectual argument for or against God's existence is viable or not, it's still being written as a sincere claim, and not just a Freudian avoidance tactic.

Its not a Freudian avoidance tactic as much as it is a samsaric avoidance tactic.

The fear I spoke of is of the separate-self sense's utter terror at what is actually involved to "know God". To come to the realizations we've been talking about, it is necessary for the separate-self, the ego, to literally and unavoidably die to its exclusive identification --- and that is what is to mind-boggingly terrified to most (including myself).

This is why, when people's personal beliefs are questioned, they often react in a very aggressive, sometimes violent fashion. Personal beliefs are the life-support system of the separate-self --- and when that support system is endangered, the self literally experiences a death-threat.

Instead of doing what is necessary --- transcending the narrow separate-self indentification altogether, changing the mapmaker --- it is so much easier to just come to a new idea, a new paragidm and claim this paradigm is what will "save us", "prove God's existence", or "take us to the Divine". It is so much easier to just switch maps around.

In "Up From Eden", Ken Wilber called these attempts to avoid the Nondual "immortality substitutes" --- instead of directly witnessing the Real, it is much easier to confer various substitute projects and claim these are what confers immortality --- whether its money, culture, 'reason', or that golden cow idol in your backyard.

Freud himself called this fear of self-death thanatos --- although he used in a slightly different context. But, it should be remembered that none of this is necessarily "Freudian" in orientation --- as opposed to karmic.

Sorry, but I must make another comparison to fundamentalist arguments--"He knows the truth of the Bible, but he denies it, because he doesn't want to acknowledge his sin" (paraphrase).

There are innumerable differences I could draw between the two --- the ethnocentric orientation of the fundamentalist juxtaposed to the pan-centric orientation of the Bodhisattva, the communal checking and fallibilism of the contemplative tradition juxtaposed to those that rely on nothing than mere "belief", the emphasis on healthy skepticism in Buddhism juxtaposed to the unhealthy emphasis on blind faith, the emphasis on direct experience of the noumenal Realities as opposed to mere intellectual agreement with my babblings --- but, really, what's the point??

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Freud did not at any time call the, "fear of self-death," thanatos.

The term, "thanatos," in Freud, refers to what he called, "the death drive," a basic and fundamental drive towards oblivion, and back towards the womb. Its most-famous manifestation in Freud's work comes via the urge to repeat, the "repetition compulsion."

Freud would have identified "enlightenment," in the sense being discussed here, as one of those, "oceanic," feelings he associated with an attempt to recover/to repeat the developmental stage of primary narcissism.

The basic death drive--thanatos--in Freud's arguments, is counterbalanced by a "life drive," eros. Both of these appear to trace back to Freud's account of basic neural physiology: the accumulation and discharge of energy, discussed in his, "Project for A Scientific Psychology," among other places.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Its not a Freudian avoidance tactic as much as it is a samsaric avoidance tactic.

I don't buy this either, heretic.

A key assumption behind these arguments appears to be that the skeptic either fears to, or chooses not to, "experience" spirituality in order to analyze it.

I *have* experienced spirituality. During a time in my life when I frequented the worship of a popular skygod, I even found myself having a "personal religious experience".

Later on, when I realized that I had similar experiences during periods spent experimenting with other religions, as well as during meditation, extreme physical activity, and even mind-blowing sex, it occurred to me that perhaps feeling "in touch with a skygod" or "at one with the Universe" or "enlightened" might all be a smiliar, organically based yummy feeling, and had little to do with the particular reality proposed by any one sect or group, I began to walk the path of the skeptic.

 

[heretic888]

Freud did not at any time call the, "fear of self-death," thanatos.

The term, "thanatos," in Freud, refers to what he called, "the death drive," a basic and fundamental drive towards oblivion, and back towards the womb. Its most-famous manifestation in Freud's work comes via the urge to repeat, the "repetition compulsion."

Which is why, you'll note, that I said "he used [it] in a slightly different context".

In my opinion, these two drives ("fear of self-death" and a regressive "death drive") are very similar, if not the same. It is a tendency to not "move forward". The actual truth is that there is not just one "self-death", but several --- each time one reaches a new "plateau" of ego-development, the "self" of the previous stage is (in a sense) put to "death". This culminates in nondual Enlightenment, in which all "selves" have effectively "died".

Thanatos is the drive to stay were you are --- or, at its worst, regress to a previous stage. Eros is the drive to reach the next stage.

A key assumption behind these arguments appears to be that the skeptic either fears to, or chooses not to, "experience" spirituality in order to analyze it.

I *have* experienced spirituality. During a time in my life when I frequented the worship of a popular skygod, I even found myself having a "personal religious experience".

"Experiencing" something is not the same as living from it.

Even a convicted killer can "experience" moments of intense compassion --- that doesn't mean he's living up to any kind of moral certitude. There has been some research done into so-called "peak experiences" or "altered states", and it indicates that most people end up having one at least sometime in their life. Thus, by no means are they that rare.

Thusly, temporarily "experiencing" something akin to "ego-death" is not equivalent to Enlightenment. It is a transitory experience, one has not fundamentally changed, and thanatos is still there grinning you in the face. It may be extremely significant or moving (and often is), but it does not presume an actual change in consciousness-identity or cognition.

Later on, when I realized that I had similar experiences during periods spent experimenting with other religions, as well as during meditation, extreme physical activity, and even mind-blowing sex, it occurred to me that perhaps feeling "in touch with a skygod" or "at one with the Universe" or "enlightened" might all be a smiliar, organically based yummy feeling, and had little to do with the particular reality proposed by any one sect or group, I began to walk the path of the skeptic.

Yes, that is a very valid interpretation of "peak experiences" from a rationalist-skeptic level of identification --- just as experiences of being "born again" are a valid interpretation of peak experiences from the previous mythic-membership level of indentification. But, again, transitory experiences are not changes in one's consciousness structures.

Also, again, research has been done into both "peak experiences" and "higher levels of consciousness" (I would suggest Jenny Wade's and Michael Murphy's work on the subject) --- not to mention older philosophical works, like Adlous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" or Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth" (more recent). Cross-cultural galore, but not an "organic yummy feeling" (although, contrary to what the traditional religonists claimed, it does have a very objective grounding in concrete correlates in the brain/organism).

Laterz.

 

[PeachMonkey]

"Experiencing" something is not the same as living from it.

I never claimed to have become "enlightened". Experiences of the "ego-death" kind, as you have chosen to label them, simply are not enough to convince me that any particular religious path exists outside of the minds of its practitioners. Thus the leap of faith required to buy into them, and my skepticism about performing it.

But, again, transitory experiences are not changes in one's consciousness structures.

Even an assumption that these changes take place does not alter my skepticism towards religion, nor does it change the fact that some sort of non-intellectual leap is required to adhere to them. One can perform work to alter one's mind to operate at a higher level and still not believe in invisible skygods, yes?

 

[heretic888]

I never claimed to have become "enlightened". Experiences of the "ego-death" kind, as you have chosen to label them, simply are not enough to convince me that any particular religious path exists outside of the minds of its practitioners. Thus the leap of faith required to buy into them, and my skepticism about performing it.

Once again, there is a difference between "experiences" and a new state of cognitive functioning. Its basically akin to someone at, say, the pre-operational mode of cognition temporarily "peaking" to a type of formal-rational logic. The person at preop is going to have a VERY different understanding, interpretation, and analysis of formal-rationalism than someone who actually lives by that stage (which is probably why many very valid spiritual experiences end up producing so many cultish nutbars). Likewise, someone at a formal-rational or even post-formal network-logic mode of functioning (and I include myself among these) would have a VERY different interpretation of a "peak" into nondual states than someone at the nondual stage would himself.

If peak experiences were enough to convince people of so-and-so religion's validity, then there would be no atheists in the world. Peak experiences, as before, are really not that rare. I've had them, you've had them, and probably most of the other posters on here have had one or more, as well.

There is, again, research into the subject --- of both peak experiences and higher states of consciousness. Much of the data is cross-cultural and indicates experiences beyond "the minds of a particular religion". Although, really, this is just second-hand (but interesting) information.

Ultimately, if you wanna experience it, you have engage the practice.

Even an assumption that these changes take place does not alter my skepticism towards religion, nor does it change the fact that some sort of non-intellectual leap is required to adhere to them.

This "assumption", as you put it, is grounded in research and evidence. Please look into the references I provided earlier. I could probably scrounge up some specific stats in a day or two, as well.

One can perform work to alter one's mind to operate at a higher level and still not believe in invisible skygods, yes?

Sure, but "believing in invisible skygods" isn't really the point.

The hallmark of each cognitive stage is the functional substance and reasoning underlying it --- not the particular form and content, which is often culturally relative anyway. Some "rational-skeptics" are atheists, some are agnostic, and some are even deist (believing in a "God of Reason"). All three would employ the same kind and substance of cognition to come to their beliefs.

Its not the form, its the substance. Form is usually culturally relative, substance is cross-cultural.

Laterz.

 

[PeachMonkey]

This "assumption", as you put it, is grounded in research and evidence. Please look into the references I provided earlier. I could probably scrounge up some specific stats in a day or two, as well.

The "assumption" I alluded to is my own, as I have not yet read the references you provided, and I am in no position to dispute your points. Moreover, since you've shown no tendency to deliberately misconstrue issues, I felt it to be courteous to concede the existence of these "enlightened states" for the sake of discussion. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.

Sure, but "believing in invisible skygods" isn't really the point.

Actually, it is. Feisty Mouse said that followers of religious beliefs have to rely on faith. You said that scholars of Eastern and Western mysticism discuss, and even demonstrate scientifically, "actual experience", making leaps of faith unneccessary.

I'm willing to assume that experimentation and practice can lead to cognitive changes, even improvements, that we'll refer to as "enlightenment" for short.

However, any assignment of these states of mind to any particular mystical practice can be based on culture, fear, or a "leap of faith", but has nothing to do with science.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Heretic:

Just a quick question. These "peak experiences" that you claim most, if not all, people have experienced at least once during their lives: wouldn't they have to recognize them as such in order for it to be confirmed that they've had one? Unless, of course, the researchers you cite simply show how all humans will inevitably have such an experience, thereby enabling them to avoid any empirical research.. Basically, I'm curious as to how they are able to claim that everyone's had them, because I personally have never gone through any such experience. Then again, I still have another 60 years to go, hopefully.

 

[heretic888]

The "assumption" I alluded to is my own, as I have not yet read the references you provided, and I am in no position to dispute your points. Moreover, since you've shown no tendency to deliberately misconstrue issues, I felt it to be courteous to concede the existence of these "enlightened states" for the sake of discussion. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.

Ah, must have been my mistake. :asian:

Actually, it is. Feisty Mouse said that followers of religious beliefs have to rely on faith. You said that scholars of Eastern and Western mysticism discuss, and even demonstrate scientifically, "actual experience", making leaps of faith unneccessary.

Ah, well, the point I was trying to make in the blurb you quoted was that the defining feature of each cognitive stage or level was not its specific content, so much as the deep features and "substance" underlying it. I was not, at that point, trying to demonstrate the "science" of meditative practice.

But, since you brought it up, the question of "leaps of faith" is dependent on whom we are asking the question to. For the meditative experimenters themselves, there is no question of "faith" at all --- it is direct, obvious experience to them. But, for those not engaged in the contemplative injunctions themselves, then an element of faith is involved --- faith in validity of the teachings, and faith in the experiences of one's predecessors.

Of course, a cross-cultural analysis of contemplative traditions can help cement and validate this "faith". It is still faith, mind you, as it is not something you have directly observed --- but, its a faith grounded in scientific method (much as, say, I have faith in the universalism of biologic evolution even though I have never observed the process myself).

However, any assignment of these states of mind to any particular mystical practice can be based on culture, fear, or a "leap of faith", but has nothing to do with science.

*shrugs* Depends on your definition of "science". It is quite scientific by the criteria I established above (injunction, datum, fallibilism). If you have a different definition (i.e., only things we can objectively observe from the outside are "scientific", thus relegating most psychology and mathematics to the realm of speculation), then that is yours.

You are quite correct that the assignment of particular changs in consciousness to these practices can can be based on culture, fear, or faith --- which is why we must employ the principle of fallibilism. The only way to test whether these practices produce the results in question is to engage them ourselves, and communally validate our results with others that have likewise engaged the injunction.

Mere "can be's" and "may be's" are not valid grounds for dismissing the scientific basis of any practice. If they were, then I could dismiss the Theory of Evolution based on the fact that it can (but not necessarily) will be based on racist presuppositions (which it often is), a la Social Darwinism. The actual truth, however, is that one must engage the biological injunctions (to put it very simply) to test evolution's validity --- and not simply speculate its validity from a detached and unengaged position.

I am simply reporting the overwhelming consensus of those that have engaged the meditative exemplars, in virtually every culture we have access to (not just them wacky Easterners here). If you disagree as to the effects of meditation, then you had better have a pretty good reason as to why you --- who may or may not practice meditation --- are right, whereas those that do are wrong.

Its basically akin to the Church leaders of Galileo's time dismissing his claims, even though they had never bothered to look through the microscope. If you don't engage the injunction, you won't acquire the datum.

All of the above seems quite "scientific" to me. Then again, I could be wrong.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Just a quick question. These "peak experiences" that you claim most, if not all, people have experienced at least once during their lives: wouldn't they have to recognize them as such in order for it to be confirmed that they've had one? Unless, of course, the researchers you cite simply show how all humans will inevitably have such an experience, thereby enabling them to avoid any empirical research.. Basically, I'm curious as to how they are able to claim that everyone's had them, because I personally have never gone through any such experience. Then again, I still have another 60 years to go, hopefully.

If I recall the stats correctly, research indicates about 74% of all adults have had a peak experience at some point in their life (which isn't always "spiritual" --- it could simply be a "peek" at very sophisticated reasoning like network-logic). Most of these manifest as "eurekas!" and so forth.

As to your question, no they wouldn't have to "recognize" them as such. That is not how phenemonology works. They merely report the content of their experience, not the interpretation they affix onto the experience at a later time (although, as hermeneutics shows us, this isn't as clear-cut as we would like).

As to yourself, it is indeed quite possible that you had a peak experience --- but later dismissed it as something like a "hallucination", "daydream", or "wild imagination" to preserve your sense of self-continuity. I would suspect that most peak experiencers (myself included) resort to this.

Laterz.

 

[Flatlander]

*shrugs* Depends on your definition of "science". It is quite scientific by the criteria I established above (injunction, datum, fallibilism). If you have a different definition (i.e., only things we can objectively observe from the outside are "scientific", thus relegating most psychology and mathematics to the realm of speculation), then that is yours.

I think that my definition of science includes a clear delineation between objectivity and subjectivity. I do not believe that mathematics can be equated with psychology in this context. As well, the direct mystical experiences you refer to are highly subjective. When I do a mathematical calculation for you, you can witness the result of that, and show it to someone else. Your trancedence does not posess this quality.

Similarily, there needs to be an element of consistent repeatablity. Mathematics logically follows all the time. Psychology does not - there tends to be too many aberrations. Again, there is no way for you to provide a rigorous proof of your experience. The best you can do is offer me your word. To me, there is no science there.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I am simply reporting the overwhelming consensus of those that have engaged the meditative exemplars, in virtually every culture we have access to (not just them wacky Easterners here). If you disagree as to the effects of meditation, then you had better have a pretty good reason as to why you --- who may or may not practice meditation --- are right, whereas those that do are wrong.

I am still not making myself very clear, here. I'm not disputing the meditative process, or the possibility that it can lead to "enlightenment".

What I dispute is that said "enlightment" therefore scientifically proves whatever particular religion that said meditator pursues. The "leap" goes from "people who practice meditation tend to have this set of responses" to "I have now communed with a skygod/a pantheon of skygods/the earth spirit/etc". There is *nothing* scientific about the last leap.

 

[heretic888]

I think that my definition of science includes a clear delineation between objectivity and subjectivity. I do not believe that mathematics can be equated with psychology in this context. As well, the direct mystical experiences you refer to are highly subjective.

Mathematics are also highly subjective. Notions such as a "perfect square" (as in the geometrical shape), the Pythagorean Theorem, the square root of negative 2, and a unreal number exist only within the subjective domain (i.e., your mind, dummy). Sure, they can be pragmatically applied to the "objective" world --- but so can psychology and meditation.

Besides, the entire rigid delination between "objective" and "subjective" is kind of archaic, anyway. For every subjective occassion, there are objective correlates in the organic brain. Thus, they arise spontaneously. For every objective observation, there are subjective qualifiers, filters, and background contexts that give it shape (i.e., we'd never develop the theories of quantum physics if our very intersubjective language didn't give us a way to express and understand those theories). Thus, again, they arise spontaneously.

Besides, according to the mentality in the quote above, then the theories of all sciences themselves are not themselves "scientific". They are just ideas in the minds of humans, and cannot be objectively "seen" directly. A theory has neither matter nor energy --- and yet, all of us sure seem confident that evolution exists (errr... most of us, anyway).

When I do a mathematical calculation for you, you can witness the result of that, and show it to someone else. Your trancedence does not posess this quality.

Errr..... sorry, but not quite.

The only way I can "witness the result" of a mathematical calculation is if I engage the mathematical injunction or paradigm (so to speak) and acquire the necessary datum for myself. If I do not do this, then I am basically just going on your word that your results are valid. This, again, is "faith".

This is where the principle of Popperian fallibilism comes into play. Mathematical formulations, like all properly scientific phenomena, must be tested communally by a group of the adequate --- meaning, those that have similarly engaged in the mathematical injunction (i.e., if you're gonna tell Galileo he is wrong, you had better look through the damn telescope and see for yourself).

What does all this mean?? It means, that if I am going to test the results of your mathematical formulations, I have to engage a similar injunction and see which particular mathematical datum I come up with. This is the basis of communal falsifiability --- for, in that instance, I myself become one of the "adequate" (i.e., those adequately qualified to make a judgment about your datum/results). Then, and only then can the results of any mathematical formulation ever be "witnessed".

All of the above holds true for contemplative practice, as well --- even if you don't particularly like the answer (my guess is because it really puts kinks in the armor of the science/religion dilineation).

To test the results of any meditator's claims, one has to become one of the "adequate" --- meaning, you have to engage the meditative injunction, and see if you acquire similar results (you may, in fact, acquire completely different results which would invalidate the meditator's claims, or at least put them into question). Furthemore, you would have to then communally "check" your datum with those that have also engaged in the particular injunction (and, remember, there are different "types" of meditation).

Whether it is meditation or mathematics --- the ONLY WAY to test any claim is to engage the injunction for oneself, and then to communally check your results with others that have done likewise. I can't just "show you" the results if you haven't engaged the practice, the injunction, the paradigm --- it just doesn't work that way.

If I were to venture a guess, my intuition why many people don't like this "meditation is science" answer is because it requires YEARS of discipline and hard work to validate the results of meditators --- something not to appealable in the microwavable, quick 'n' easy, fix-em-up-in-a-jiffy, commercial West. Actually, that could go for the "science" of martial arts, too. Hrmm....

.... I mean, sure, you could be referring to the "practical applications" of mathematics --- but, so what?? There are "practical applications" of meditation, as well. In either event, it doesn't "prove" that the claims made in the name of their respective theories are true, only that they can be beneficially implemented by humans (i.e., idealism versus pragmatism).

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

What I dispute is that said "enlightment" therefore scientifically proves whatever particular religion that said meditator pursues.

Whoa, whoa.... I never said it "proves" that religion. I only said that the ONLY WAY to test the claims of a meditator is to engage the injunction and see the results for oneself. If there is no injunction to engage, if the claim cannot be possibly falsified, then you know that you are in the presence of dogma.

Now, you are free to dispute the claims of that meditator all you want --- but, if you don't engage in the injunction and test their results for yourself, then you're really just doing it out of blind faith (i.e., more dogma). Not all that different from the Church leaders that denied Galileo's claims, yet refused to look through the telescope.

Of course, then again.... "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, as well.

The "leap" goes from "people who practice meditation tend to have this set of responses" to "I have now communed with a skygod/a pantheon of skygods/the earth spirit/etc". There is *nothing* scientific about the last leap.

Sure there is. You just may not particularly like their response.

Again, the ONLY WAY to test what you are saying is to engage the particular meditative practices/injunctions/paradigms/exemplars that they have, and aquire the datum/illuminations/results for yourself. Then, you must communally check your datum with others that have performed the injunction --- is it similar?? Is it different?? If so, how is it different?? I'm not talking about the interpretation you give to the datum, but the phenomenological report of the datum itself. This is what is liable to Popperian fallibilism.

All of the above is pure science, even if you don't particularly like it.

Of course, barring that, you could go for a more hermeuntical account and go at the actual interpretations of meditators themselves. This doesn't require meditation, per se. But, instead, you collate the claims and phenomenological data of various meditators and contemplative practitioners in various cultures, and test them against one another. Do we see any common threads?? Any commanalities at all?? What are their differences, if any??

That would actually make a pretty interesting paper, now that I think of it....

In any event, there is plenty of scientific method to go around --- you just have to realize the difference between phenomenology (i.e., the direct experience itself) and hermeneutics (i.e., the interpretation given to the experience). Both are an equally important part of the puzzle.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

As an athiest, I was really trying to stay out of this discussion. I have read some of the posts, but not all of them. But, I am going to throw in my two pennies anyhow.

Mathematics are also highly subjective.

You're kidding, right. While there are some areas of mathematics that still are in the outer boundaries of theory, most of this information is pretty concrete (if you don't want to call it 'Objective', more power to you).

Prime numbers can not be divided by any whole number other than 1 or itself. There is nothing subective about it.

Again, the ONLY WAY to test what you are saying is to engage the particular meditative practices/injunctions/paradigms/exemplars that they have, and aquire the datum/illuminations/results for yourself.

And if I engage in the particular meditative practices / injunctions / paradigms / exemplars, am I going to have the same experience as they have? Can we construct an experiment to test this theory? Can we replicate the results of this experiment? Can we codify our results and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal?

While I agree, that from the outside, it is difficult to understand what is going on inside, I came to my athiesm through the church, and evangelical experiences.

Mike

 

[heretic888]

You're kidding, right. While there are some areas of mathematics that still are in the outer boundaries of theory, most of this information is pretty concrete (if you don't want to call it 'Objective', more power to you).

Prime numbers can not be divided by any whole number other than 1 or itself. There is nothing subective about it.

"Concrete" is not a synonym for "objective". Many subjective phenomena/observations are also quite "concrete" and generally unquestioned.

In any event, I presented a list of mathematical elements that do not objectively exist "out there" --- meaning, I can not "point to" them with one of the five physical senses or their extensions (i.e., miscroscope, telescope, etc).

This includes the Pythagorean Theorem (all theories and hypotheses actually, since they're really just ideas), nonreal numbers, the square root of negative 2, a "perfect square" or "perfect right triangle" (a purely abstract concept), and so on. Actually, most of the more "heady" mathematics that lay the foundation of physics are asbtractions with little, if any, objective basis (although, again, they may be objectively applied in a pragmatic fashion).

All of those are completely subjective phenomena (although they may have objective correlations in the physical organism, as well as practical applications in the "real world").

And if I engage in the particular meditative practices / injunctions / paradigms / exemplars, am I going to have the same experience as they have?

Phenomenologically speaking, one should --- this is where we would apply the Popperian principle of fallibilism (ie., see if it is really case of "if you do this, then you will get this"). Remember, however, that we are referring to the "immediate" phenomenological experience itself and not the hermeneutic interpretation an individual may have of it.

Can we construct an experiment to test this theory?

You could, most definately --- in one of two ways.

One) You collect a group of individuals and have them actively engage in a particular meditative practice said to yield particualr results over an extended period of time. Collate the phenomenological reports of each individual, and contrast them against one another. See if there are any commonalities with the traditional reports of what said meditative injunction is supposed to unveal.

Two) You could engage in the particular meditative injunction yourself, and create a journal of your phenomenological experiences. Then, compare these results with the traditional accounts of that meditation.

In either event, it would take several years and much hard work/discipline to complete the experiment --- which is probably the real reason it's not likely to be taken seriously. No microwavable pop 'n' fresh here.

Can we codify our results and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal?

Certainly. Of course, this "peer-reviewed journal" would technically have to consist of fellow meditators. Or else, they wouldn't actually be "peers" (i.e., those involved in the same or similar injunctions).

While I agree, that from the outside, it is difficult to understand what is going on inside, I came to my athiesm through the church, and evangelical experiences.

See. That's a good example of fallibilism at work on an individual level. Of course, it would require communal checking to be truly valid.

Laterz.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Phenomenologically speaking, one should --- this is where we would apply the Popperian principle of fallibilism (ie., see if it is really case of "if you do this, then you will get this"). Remember, however, that we are referring to the "immediate" phenomenological experience itself and not the hermeneutic interpretation an individual may have of it.



You could, most definately --- in one of two ways.

One) You collect a group of individuals and have them actively engage in a particular meditative practice said to yield particualr results over an extended period of time. Collate the phenomenological reports of each individual, and contrast them against one another. See if there are any commonalities with the traditional reports of what said meditative injunction is supposed to unveal.

And how, in these studies, are we supposed to separate the phenomenological experience from the individual's interpretation? I believe this is a main contention point between you and michaeledward. Let's say you got 300 people to sit in a room, assume whatever Smoking Lotus position is needed, meditate for a while, and then relate their "experiences". All we would have to go by is their own subjective interpretation. There would be no measurements, or graphs, or external logic, or any type of objective means of relation--only their own subjective experience. I really can't see how the experimenter is supposed to separate the phenomenological "what's going on in his/her head" from the ego-interpretational "what's going on in his/her head" (my apologies for the improvised terminology). In short, what would be there to prove that it's not all just interpretation and that, in fact, there is no universal phenomenon occurring?

 

[heretic888]

And how, in these studies, are we supposed to separate the phenomenological experience from the individual's interpretation?

Well, ultimately, they cannot be completely separated --- there is always going to be some degree of overlap between the two (just as, for example, there will always be some degree of subjective filtration or interpretation in the natural sciences, as well). Still, it would be incorrect to reduce one to the other --- the two are ultimately inseparable, but very disinguishable phenomena.

To answer your question, phenemonology is an entire discipline unto itself. There are several different approaches one could take.

I believe this is a main contention point between you and michaeledward.

There is no "contention" between the two of us as far as I can see.

Let's say you got 300 people to sit in a room, assume whatever Smoking Lotus position is needed, meditate for a while, and then relate their "experiences".

Its extremely unlikely (although not impossible) that anyone would have any sort of altered state, peak experience, or whatnot within a single meditation session.

There would be no measurements, or graphs, or external logic, or any type of objective means of relation--only their own subjective experience.

None of the things you mentioned are "objective" --- except in the rather crude sense that they can be written down on paper (as opposed to being objectively observed directly). Of course, phenemenological accounts can be written down and/or graphed, too.

Logic of any kind most definately can't be "pointed to" objectively. Its completely subjective abstraction.

I really can't see how the experimenter is supposed to separate the phenomenological "what's going on in his/her head" from the ego-interpretational "what's going on in his/her head" (my apologies for the improvised terminology). In short, what would be there to prove that it's not all just interpretation and that, in fact, there is no universal phenomenon occurring?

You may want to familiarize yourself with psychology as a whole, then, and introspectionism and phenomenology in particular.

As before, there are several ways of approximating these sorts of things --- control samples (a group that does a different meditation or no meditation at all), cross-cultural analyses (report the accounts of different people from different cultures and religions), physiological validation (different meditative experiences have patently demonstrated particular physiological responses in the organism, most especially in brainwave patterns), and probably a few more I'm missing.

A very interesting approach, one taken by some of the TM folks, is track various levels of ego-development, moral development, cognitive developmemnt, stress-management, and so forth among meditators --- using, of course, standard tests such as Kohlberg's, Piaget's, and so forth. The research done thus far has yielded some extremely interesting results.

Again, I suggest familiarizing yourself with psychological research methodologies. Its a very vast discipline.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

I believe this is a main contention point between you and michaeledward.

There is no "contention" between the two of us as far as I can see.

Hmmm, tha'ts odd ... because I do see a point of contention.

I wonder what that means?

Mike