But in my experience, even someone as rational and pleasant as the religious friend in this anecdote rarely accept the need to seek such alternative explanations. I have yet to meet a religious person who responded to hallucinations of communicating with God the way any of us would to hallucinations about communicating with Venusians.

At first I too think that God was trying to communicate to me in a personal way and prove his existence.

Afterall, many others have suffered the embarassment of farting in social settings, in elevators with fellow workers and in the privacy of your bathtub.

I later found out that it was not God and that a good anti-acid tablet brought an end to the communications.

At first I too think that God was trying to communicate to me in a personal way and prove his existence.

Afterall, many others have suffered the embarassment of farting in social settings, in elevators with fellow workers and in the privacy of your bathtub.

I later found out that it was not God and that a good anti-acid tablet brought an end to the communications.

His internal experience is meaningless unless it can be measured in meaningful ways. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Experiencing something odd and giving it more significance than it deserves is one of the most common experiences in the human condition.

If he’s used the method to “discover god” as others have to discover ghosts witches and aliens then certainly there is a problem here.

If these experiences convinced him god exists, ask him at what time he was certain god did not exist; or if they are just a new way of trying to accept god despite his increasing intelligence but continued lack of evidence.

His internal experience is meaningless unless it can be measured in meaningful ways. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Experiencing something odd and giving it more significance than it deserves is one of the most common experiences in the human condition.

If he’s used the method to “discover god” as others have to discover ghosts witches and aliens then certainly there is a problem here.

If these experiences convinced him god exists, ask him at what time he was certain god did not exist; or if they are just a new way of trying to accept god despite his increasing intelligence but continued lack of evidence.

Instead of forcing God into some sort of tiny magical mystical lamp (ala Aladdin) and making up data, just redefine the problem. Expand your definition of God.

The notion that God has to be some sort of bearded entity who casts judgment or controls destiny with a bony finger, meddling in the affairs of cancer aflicted humans etc, has to be left behind as with children’s fairy tales.

But don’t throw it out entirely, just let it grow up, let you notion expand to include love. Let prayer blossom from magic to making manifest your dreams or the dreams of others. Let faith be a commitment to justice and love even when the outcome is uncertain. Know that you are the answer to someone’s prayer. Your faithfulness to that end is your commitment to God.

You see? This is easy stuff. All the other orthodoxy stuff is just a coat of paint.

Instead of forcing God into some sort of tiny magical mystical lamp (ala Aladdin) and making up data, just redefine the problem. Expand your definition of God.

The notion that God has to be some sort of bearded entity who casts judgment or controls destiny with a bony finger, meddling in the affairs of cancer aflicted humans etc, has to be left behind as with children’s fairy tales.

But don’t throw it out entirely, just let it grow up, let you notion expand to include love. Let prayer blossom from magic to making manifest your dreams or the dreams of others. Let faith be a commitment to justice and love even when the outcome is uncertain. Know that you are the answer to someone’s prayer. Your faithfulness to that end is your commitment to God.

You see? This is easy stuff. All the other orthodoxy stuff is just a coat of paint.

The flaw is that if you believe in the scientific method, then “extending your epistemological criteria” to allow magical personal experiences is either meaningless or wrong.

Your considers the scientific method to be “the best means available for acquiring knowledge”. So when he believes he has acquired a piece of knowledge from his own personal experience, he must subject it to scientific scrutiny, and will reach one of the following three outcomes:

1. The scientific method confirms it (e.g. he gets a revelation that the sky is blue). A personal revelation of this kind is indistinguishable from a rational thought.

2. The scientific method reveals that it is wrong (e.g. he gets a revelation that the Earth is 6000 years old). This is where most of Mormonism falls, if taken literally.

3. The scientific method has no say about it (e.g. he gets a revelation with no other content than to make him believe that “some sort of God exists”). But hypotheses which no evidence can confirm or deny are meaningless, because their truth or falsehood can’t ever have any effect on the physical world (for if you could describe its effect, you could test for it, at least in theory).

If your friend believes in revelations of the #2 variety, then in his mind the scientific method is entirely subordinate to some other epistemological framework, in which case he is no scientist in my book.

If your friend believes in revelations of the #3 variety, then those revelations must not have any meaningful implications to his worldview. Ask him to name one of his special non-scientific hypothesis, and confirm that it can’t be proved or disproved even in theory. Then ask him why he finds meaning in a hypothesis whose effects are indistinguishable from the effects of its logical negation.

The flaw is that if you believe in the scientific method, then “extending your epistemological criteria” to allow magical personal experiences is either meaningless or wrong.

Your considers the scientific method to be “the best means available for acquiring knowledge”. So when he believes he has acquired a piece of knowledge from his own personal experience, he must subject it to scientific scrutiny, and will reach one of the following three outcomes:

1. The scientific method confirms it (e.g. he gets a revelation that the sky is blue). A personal revelation of this kind is indistinguishable from a rational thought.

2. The scientific method reveals that it is wrong (e.g. he gets a revelation that the Earth is 6000 years old). This is where most of Mormonism falls, if taken literally.

3. The scientific method has no say about it (e.g. he gets a revelation with no other content than to make him believe that “some sort of God exists”). But hypotheses which no evidence can confirm or deny are meaningless, because their truth or falsehood can’t ever have any effect on the physical world (for if you could describe its effect, you could test for it, at least in theory).

If your friend believes in revelations of the #2 variety, then in his mind the scientific method is entirely subordinate to some other epistemological framework, in which case he is no scientist in my book.

If your friend believes in revelations of the #3 variety, then those revelations must not have any meaningful implications to his worldview. Ask him to name one of his special non-scientific hypothesis, and confirm that it can’t be proved or disproved even in theory. Then ask him why he finds meaning in a hypothesis whose effects are indistinguishable from the effects of its logical negation.

But we don’t base our core beliefs about life, identity, society, morality, eternal destiny, etc. on those experiences.

If your friend lives his life in obedience to a feeling, and believes that it is just for his eternal destiny to be determined by nothing more than warm fuzzies, does he apply that same standard to the lesser decisions in life?

Does he also believe that others should believe in god based on his experiences? For example, if I never “feel” god, does that mean that god doesn’t exist for me?

What standard is your friend using to determine what is and is not legitimate evidence? Just because he believes that feelings are a legitimate epistemological source does not mean that they are.

There are so many problems with this that I’m not really sure why you take it seriously.

But we don’t base our core beliefs about life, identity, society, morality, eternal destiny, etc. on those experiences.

If your friend lives his life in obedience to a feeling, and believes that it is just for his eternal destiny to be determined by nothing more than warm fuzzies, does he apply that same standard to the lesser decisions in life?

Does he also believe that others should believe in god based on his experiences? For example, if I never “feel” god, does that mean that god doesn’t exist for me?

What standard is your friend using to determine what is and is not legitimate evidence? Just because he believes that feelings are a legitimate epistemological source does not mean that they are.

There are so many problems with this that I’m not really sure why you take it seriously.

Are scientific observations capable of supporting the existence of God?

-=T=-

Are scientific observations capable of supporting the existence of God?

-=T=-