God On The Brain

[MaskedMentalist]

Those of you in the UK and Europe that can get BBC 2 might like to know that tonight (Thursday 20th) at 21:00 there is showing an episode of "Horizon" (a science programme) that explores the theory that people's belief in god(s) is biologically based.

According to the blurb on the BBC's website, A doctor (Michael Persinger) will attempt to induce a religous experience into arch-atheist Richard Dawkins by stimulating his temporal lobes.

Sounds like it could be worth watching!

 

[Guest]

Those of you in the UK and Europe that can get BBC 2 might like to know that tonight (Thursday 20th) at 21:00 there is showing an episode of "Horizon" (a science programme) that explores the theory that people's belief in god(s) is biologically based.

According to the blurb on the BBC's website, A doctor (Michael Persinger) will attempt to induce a religous experience into arch-atheist Richard Dawkins by stimulating his temporal lobes.

Sounds like it could be worth watching!

If Dawkins actually had a bona fide mystical experience he would probably go instantaneously insane.

 

[Q-Source]

According to the blurb on the BBC's website, A doctor (Michael Persinger) will attempt to induce a religous experience into arch-atheist Richard Dawkins by stimulating his temporal lobes.

Sounds like it could be worth watching!

Thank you.

I had another plans for tonight, but I think this sounds interesting.

Although, we all know what Dawkins will have to say about his "religious" experience....

Thanks for the info.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Re: Re: God On The Brain

If Dawkins actually had a bona fide mystical experience he would probably go instantaneously insane.

If anyone actually had a 'bona fide' mystical experience I'd go insane.

 

[Soubrette]

I'll bring the popcorn

And this programme seems to links in with some of the things that Lucifuge has discussed before in R&P

Sou

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: God On The Brain

If anyone actually had a 'bona fide' mystical experience I'd go insane.

Interesting that you have absolute knowledge regarding the subjective experiences of others.....

You believe there is no such thing as a mystical experience.

You do not know.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course there are subjective mystical experiences. The question is whether they are anything more than personal fantasies.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Of course there are subjective mystical experiences. The question is whether they are anything more than personal fantasies.

~~ Paul

Of course there are subjective scientific measurements of the world of perception. The question is whether they are anything more than personal -- albeit widely shared -- fantasies. It is agreed that science provides a working map for the world of perception.

Is *I* thinking subjective or objective?

Unfortunately, mystical experiences are each individual's problem to grasp. And are they subjective or objective?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I'll bring the popcorn

And this programme seems to links in with some of the things that Lucifuge has discussed before in R&P

Sou

It is my pet topic. Can anyone post a comment about the show once presented?

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Of course there are subjective mystical experiences. The question is whether they are anything more than personal fantasies.

~~ Paul

Yep. And here we have a skeptic materialist (who "knows" they can't be "real", because they have assumed a metaphysic that renders such things theoretically impossible) claiming that "If anyone actually had a 'bona fide' mystical experience I'd go insane." i.e. that such things *do not happen*. What right does this skeptic materialist have to claim that such things *do not happen*? How does their opinion carry more weight than those of generations of mystics from every tradition and every corner of the world reporting that very similar experiences *do happen*?

A true skeptic must surely be agnostic on this issue, not certain such experiences are not real. A hard atheist must believe they are not real, but that is also a belief. The only person in a position to determine whether this experience is truly something more than a personal fantasy is the person who has had it.

And I know what the response to this is....that even if the person who has experienced this claims it must be more than a personal fantasy then we still can't objectively see it is. And we never will be. But make no mistake - every person - even the hardest of atheists and the most skeptical of materialists - does have their own existential 'price'. What I mean by this is that up to a certain point (self-defined) one can rationalise away such experiences. But over and above that point there can be no rationalisation. Eventually the experience becomes so intense, so profound, so unlikely to be a fantasy and so impossible to rationalise that one must accept that something truly 'paranormal' has occured. The skeptics here simply believe that nobody ever experiences anything which would bust their own limit of what can be rationalised - based on their own metaphysical beliefs. They have no way of knowing that this is actually true, their certainty is based on nothing but their own personal bias.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Those of you in the UK and Europe that can get BBC 2 might like to know that tonight (Thursday 20th) at 21:00 there is showing an episode of "Horizon" (a science programme) that explores the theory that people's belief in god(s) is biologically based.

According to the blurb on the BBC's website, A doctor (Michael Persinger) will attempt to induce a religous experience into arch-atheist Richard Dawkins by stimulating his temporal lobes.

Sounds like it could be worth watching!

Excellent! Thanks for telling me! I'll be watching that. Pity that total retard Dawkins in going to be in it though. Oh well.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

UcE, we were just discussing this with II (and you...I'm not sure) a couple of days ago. Do you remember the thread?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I'll bring the popcorn

And this programme seems to links in with some of the things that Lucifuge has discussed before in R&P

Sou

Well yes. Exactly what lucifuge was arguing with me about a few days ago. I quote from what it stays in the Sunday Times.

"Could it be that the make up of our brains programmes us to believe in God"? The thesis explored in this intriguing Horizon is that simulation of, or damage to, the temporal lobes may generate experiences that may be interpreted as "religious" or indicative of a "presence". It is an idea with profound implications: the "blinding light" experienced as an epiphany by Paul on the road to Damascus may have been a result of temporal lobe epilepsy, the new discipline of neurotheology might argue, and perhaps the "burning Bush" seen by Moses had a similar physical basis.

The programme hears from epileptics who describe feelings of being in hell, or the belief that their son was Christ, and makes reference to the case of Ellen White, the founder of the seventh day Adventists, whose religious visions could be traceable to her being hit on the head by a large stone and left comatose for three weeks. Catholic nuns at deep prayer and meditating Buddhist monks are shown to have the same areas of their brains suffused with blood; and it is suggested that for some people, the proximity of electromagnetic fields may make them suspect paranormal activity.

Dr Michael Persinger, a specialist in the field, insists he is able to induce "religious" experiences in anyone, and the avowed atheist Professor Richard Dawkins volunteers to have his lobes electronically tweaked to test the claim.

 

[Guest]

UcE, we were just discussing this with II (and you...I'm not sure) a couple of days ago. Do you remember the thread?

I do. But my point remains. The only person who can judge the true status of a mystical experience is a mystic, and that judgement can only ever be subjective. And that is the way it must be, forever.

My own personal limit of what can be rationalised away was not only breached, it was repeatedly blown to pieces. And I speak as a person who was a materialistic skeptic most of his life, previously an atheist activist who moderated the science&skepticism forum on the biggest atheist website on the net. From my POV the experiences were such that I was left feeling it had been done deliberately in such a way that even someone with my history could not deny what had happened. I found myself on numerous occasions dearly wishing I could have found a way of rationalising what happened, but it would have been impossible to do so without knowingly decieving myself. I would also say that right up until the moment it first happened, I did not believe such things were possible.

Now - none of this I offer as useful evidence to the skeptic. I wouldn't believe it if I was you. All I am saying is that YOU have no right to tell me that my experience could be rationalised. You weren't there. All you can really say is you do not believe such things are possible, not that they *do not happen*. They do.

 

[synaesthesia]

Re: Re: God On The Brain

If Dawkins actually had a bona fide mystical experience he would probably go instantaneously insane.

UndercoverElephant,

That reminds me of the scientologist claim that any uninitiated who reads their advanced texts will have their brain explode.

I find your claim that a materialist cannot have every bit as powerful of a 'mystical' experience as anyone else utterly preposterous. Granted it is not likely to have any sort of magical-fairy-godmother quality. If that's what you mean than Dawkin's inability to have a "bona fide, UE approved" mystical experience is due simply to his lack of delusion.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Of course there are subjective mystical experiences. The question is whether they are anything more than personal fantasies.

~~ Paul

Ask the people who experience them whether they seem like fantasies. They're in the best position to know. Of course some people, such as Dawkins, will declare that the experience seems like a fantasy no matter how "real" the experience appears.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Of course there are subjective scientific measurements of the world of perception. The question is whether they are anything more than personal -- albeit widely shared -- fantasies.

Indeed, arguably just as plausible.

 

[synaesthesia]

PLEASE people, nobody is denying that people have mystical experiences. We materialists believe that we have objective access to the mind. Accordingly we can - and have - established the reality of such experiences.

What we do deny is that the claims about them are even remotely plausible. This is just a manifestation of man's tendency to attribute remarkable experiences to some bizarre metaphysical anomaly rather than admit that nature itself is every bit as impressive and unfathomable as 'bona fide' mystical experiences.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I do. But my point remains. The only person who can judge the true status of a mystical experience is a mystic, and that judgement can only ever be subjective. And that is the way it must be, forever.

My own personal limit of what can be rationalised away was not only breached, it was repeatedly blown to pieces. And I speak as a person who was a materialistic skeptic most of his life, previously an atheist activist who moderated the science&skepticism forum on the biggest atheist website on the net. From my POV the experiences were such that I was left feeling it had been done deliberately in such a way that even someone with my history could not deny what had happened. I found myself on numerous occasions dearly wishing I could have found a way of rationalising what happened, but it would have been impossible to do so without knowingly decieving myself. I would also say that right up until the moment it first happened, I did not believe such things were possible.

Now - none of this I offer as useful evidence to the skeptic. I wouldn't believe it if I was you. All I am saying is that YOU have no right to tell me that my experience could be rationalised. You weren't there. All you can really say is you do not believe such things are possible, not that they *do not happen*. They do.

I do remember now. You jumped to the discussion in the middle, missing some of the posts. My point was that mistycs were also estimulated and declared to have had the exact same experience, so for THEM their SUBJETIVE experiences, were the same, via god or via TMS.

Now, if you remember the thread could you please tell me wich was?

 

[MaskedMentalist]

Re: Re: God On The Brain

Pity that total retard Dawkins in going to be in it though. Oh well.

I'm curious as to why you think he's a retard?