Beyond Disbelief: Religion as Human Invention

[Storm]

If by theophany you mean a divine disclosure, then no. Certainly mystical experiences have played a role, but unless such experiences lead to something that was prohibited in the OP (e.g. a specific prediction about the future) they are compatible with natural causes.

No, that's why I specified neurotheology. I mean the neurologically distinct event that people commonly interpret as divine experience. Whether that interpretation is correct or not is a separate issue.

EDIT: Not to be rude, but do you know what I'm talking about now, or do you need me to describe it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, that's why I specified neurotheology. I mean the neurologically distinct event that people commonly interpret as divine experience.

Of course, that would have an impact.

Whether that interpretation is correct or not is a separate issue.

If mystical experiences are caused by natural--rather than supernatural--phenomena, then there should be no example of a mystical experience that cannot be explained by natural means.

EDIT: Not to be rude, but do you know what I'm talking about now, or do you need me to describe it.

Oh yes, I understand what you're talking about, I think. I did a class project on the neuroscience of religious experience.

 

[Kungfuzed]

But there are many other ways the theory could be falsified. According to this theory, in the absence of divine intervention it is virtually impossible for two civilizations who have no contact with each other (say, the ancient Hebrews and the ancient Aztecs) to produce identical books of ancient scriptures with identical proper names and commandents (say, they both receive an identical Ten Commandments from YHWH as brought by Moses). If it were conclusively shown that such an event has occurred (either historically or in the present day), this would be very damaging to the theory.

I'll play devil's advocate and ask you if you think the Book of Mormon answers this requirement. As "another testament of Jesus Christ" it claims to have been written by prophets here in the Americas during ancient times and even quotes the prophet Isaiah verbatim.

 

[Storm]

Of course, that would have an impact.

Then I have no quarrel with your position.

If mystical experiences are caused by natural--rather than supernatural--phenomena, then there should be no example of a mystical experience that cannot be explained by natural means.

... yes... What's your point?

Oh yes, I understand what you're talking about, I think. I did a class project on the neuroscience of religious experience.

OK, just wanted to make sure.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I still do not understand how what I have offered as falsification is "no more than argument from absence".

To repeat Popper:

Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected. This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question were compatible with the most divergent human behaviour, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behaviour that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.

Your 'prediction', on the other hand, is risk free, being perfectly compatible with the 'theory' of revelation refracted through the lens of human fallibility.

 

[Yerda]

Compare your use of falsifiability with Popper's as found in Science, Pseudo-Science, and Falsifiability.

That was good, cheers.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your 'prediction', on the other hand, is risk free, being perfectly compatible with the 'theory' of revelation refracted through the lens of human fallibility.

No, because the predictions made in the OP prohibit a number of possible empirical observations that are not prohibited by the theory of revelation refracted through the lens of human fallibility.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

... yes... What's your point?

My point is that there is good evidence that mystical experiences are the result of natural causes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'll play devil's advocate and ask you if you think the Book of Mormon answers this requirement. As "another testament of Jesus Christ" it claims to have been written by prophets here in the Americas during ancient times and even quotes the prophet Isaiah verbatim.

I don't know enough about the Book of Mormon to analyze specific details, so admittedly, I can't say for sure. However, I would assume that the Book of Mormon does not answer that requirement any more than any other "divinely-inspired" text.

 

[Sunstone]

My point is that there is good evidence that mystical experiences are the result of natural causes.

Just for the record, I agree with Spinks here.

 

[sandandfoam]

Just for the record, I agree with Spinks here.

I'm scratching my head.
I think God is in everything, a mystical experience is one that involves the ultimate reality/God which is in everything. How could a mystical experience not be a result of natural causes? How could God be seperate from nature?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, because the predictions made in the OP prohibit a number of possible empirical observations that are not prohibited by the theory of revelation refracted through the lens of human fallibility.

For example?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm scratching my head.
I think God is in everything, a mystical experience is one that involves the ultimate reality/God which is in everything. How could a mystical experience not be a result of natural causes?

By positing a transcendent agency.

 

[sandandfoam]

By positing a transcendent agency.

Thanks Jay,
I'm going looking it up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll play devil's advocate and ask you if you think the Book of Mormon answers this requirement. As "another testament of Jesus Christ" it claims to have been written by prophets here in the Americas during ancient times and even quotes the prophet Isaiah verbatim.

I'd say it doesn't. We have two main possibilities:

- the Book of Mormon is fiction, and was written in 19th Century America. In this case, it was the product of a culture that had significant contact with the Bible.

- the Book of Mormon is substantially accurate on its main historical claims, and was the product of the descendants of one of several groups of Israelites who travelled to the New World long before the accepted date of European discovery. In this case, it's still the product of a culture that's had significant contact with Jewish culture and religion, and would be familiar with Isaiah.

Even for mentions of Jesus in the Book of Mormon, the problem still exists... even if you assume that the Book of Mormon and the process that produced it are valid. According to the traditional story of how the English Book of Mormon came to be, Joseph Smith translated the Gold Plates in the 19th Century; this still allows for him to recognize people and things using his 19th Century knowledge, including familiarity with the Bible, e.g.: "I see from how He is described in the story (and based on my own judgement, which has been shaped by the Bible) that this person, whose name is rendered 'XGYZWW' in 'Reformed Egyptian', is Jesus. Therefore, I will translate 'XGYZWW' as 'Jesus'."

Even if you accept the process of the Book of Mormon as 100% honest and accurate, it's still inexorably linked to a culture that has had significant contact with mainstream Christianity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

For example?

For example, as offered in the OP:

if religious rituals were demonstrably proved to have non-physical effects on the world significantly beyond what one would expect by chance (e.g. controlled studies show that rain dances increase the chances of rain, or intercessory prayer heals amputees)

​

Such observations are prohibited by human invention theory but not by 'the theory of revelation refracted through the lens of human fallibility'.

 

[Wandered Off]

if religious rituals were demonstrably proved to have non-physical effects on the world significantly beyond what one would expect by chance (e.g. controlled studies show that rain dances increase the chances of rain, or intercessory prayer heals amputees)​

I think I agree with your sentiment, but wouldn't "physical effects" be more accurate in this sentence than "non-physical effects"? If we can observe the results, they are physical rather than non-physical, right?​

 

[Storm]

My point is that there is good evidence that mystical experiences are the result of natural causes.

And I agree, so I don't know why you felt compelled to point it out.

EDIT: remember, I believe in a naturalistic model of God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For example, as offered in the OP:

if religious rituals were demonstrably proved to have non-physical effects on the world significantly beyond what one would expect by chance (e.g. controlled studies show that rain dances increase the chances of rain, or intercessory prayer heals amputees)

​

Such observations are prohibited by human invention theory but not by 'the theory of revelation refracted through the lens of human fallibility'.

And if I suggest that religion is the delusional effect of early contamination by Pixie dust my 'theory' would be similarly falsifiable. I am more than willing to grant yours the same epistemic status. But, again, this has zero to do with Popper's demarcation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And if I suggest that religion is the delusional effect of early contamination by Pixie dust my 'theory' would be similarly falsifiable.

True, but that theory posits the unfalsifiable and unnecessary entity of Pixie dust to account for the 'delusional effect', which can be accounted for by things we already know to exist.

I could just as well suggest that wave-particle duality is the quantum effect of the early contamination of the universe by Pixie dust, and that 'theory' would be falsifiable in the same ways as quantum theory. This would render quantum theory, by your reasoning, to the 'same epistemic status', no?