Robert Epstein wrote:
> Darrell Stec wrote:
>
>> Robert Epstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Darrell Stec wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Suzanne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Darrell Stec"
webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:47b42cd8$0$6153$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Robert Epstein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Robibnikoff wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Suzanne"
flash.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Robert, I am answering you from my own experience.
>>>>>>>>>I am saying that faith is not just deciding something
>>>>>>>>>blindly like conjuring it up with all your might. I am
>>>>>>>>>saying that faith comes about by the interaction of
>>>>>>>>>the Holy Spirit, a being outside of yourself, acting
>>>>>>>>>upon your innermost being, or what we call our
>>>>>>>>>heart. He makes his presence known to the person.
>>>>>>>>>The person KNOWS there is a presence there that is
>>>>>>>>>beyond himself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How do you know it's a real "presence" and not a symptom of mental
>>>>>>>>illness?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Personally I find what Suzanne says convincing. She does not sound
>>>>>>>mentally ill to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you. I'm not mentally ill.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That is only because you were subjected to your own wife's mental
>>>>>>illness and do not even recognize THAT for what it was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now that's kind of mean to say that to him, don't you think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Most of the time, those who are mentally ill do not
>>>>>>>express their hallucinations in such a calm manner; it is usually
>>>>>>>part of a system of pretty obviously far-out ideas that get worse
>>>>>>>over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And you got your degree in psychology where? You are simply
>>>>>>incorrect. And
>>>>>>before you ask, I was once an assistant professor of psychology at KSU
>>>>>>albeit many, many years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He is simply not incorrect. But it is interesting that you
>>>>>were a prof. many years ago. A very admirable position.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you taught psychology too? Or is that your opinion of Robert from a
>>>>layman's ignorant point of view?
>>>
>>>Laymen are not ignorant. There are more sources of knowledge than your
>>>ABC's of psychology. It doesn't allow you to claim superior knowledge
>>>in all areas of living. You are like a parrot repeating "I am an
>>>assistant professor. I am an assistant professor." Who really gives a
>>>shit? I've heard of an ad hominem attack before, but this is an ad
>>>hominem defense, and it is lazy and arrogant. Try making an argument
>>>based on its merits instead of some imaginary wisdom that you think you
>>>have by having a past basic professorship. "I was a professor. I was a
>>>professor." Wow! I'm so impressed.
>>
>>
>> Of course you're not. Every post you make shows your disdain of
>> education.
>
> I don't have disdain for education, and as I said, know quite a few
> academics and psychologists myself.
Every body knows them even those who disdain them. It is obvious by your
posts that you think scientists do not know what they are talking about
because there is some higher power at work.
> But I do have disdain for someone
> who tries to dismiss others' equally legitimate views in a debate by
> flashing a minor credential that is not necessarily relevant. Most
> psychologists would not look kindly on your "usenet diagnoses" which are
> unethical and unprofessional.
They aren't diagnosis. And most psychologists would accept what I wrote as
factual. In fact most psychologists would think people who
have "personally met the holy spirit" do have problems. Please read what
you wrote about your wife and what Suzanne writes about herself. In both
cases the story is not related as some kind of feeling but rather a face to
face personal meeting with a god, a god in fact for which there is no
objective evidence.
> You will never get a psychologist or
> doctor of any kind to offer a diagnosis by phone or mere written
> description of a couple of anecdotes.
So what you wrote and what Suzanne wrote are not truthful stories but rather
anecdotes? And again you do not know the difference between a diagnosis
and pointing out behavior that conforms to certain norms. Some behavior is
so aberrant that it does not take a profession to point it out.
For instance would you qualify a father who checks his teenager daughters
vaginally every day to insure they are virgins and following scripture as
normal behavior? Do you think it takes a professional psychiatrist to
determine that? It pointing the grotesque behavior abnormal a diagnosis?
You seem to know as much about psychology as you do science, which doesn't
seem to fill a thimble.
> But you are happy to flash your
> "professor" badge to win an argument based on your exalted position
> rather than by making a credible argument.
>
> As a jaded theological student your point of view towards religion is
> also highly suspect, as any good psychologist would tell you.
>
>>
>>>>>>> Simply saying that she has experienced something supernatural,
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>it may go against your belief system, is no reason to think she is
>>>>>>>mentally ill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no evidence of any supernatural and never has been. And
>>>>>>there is
>>>>>>plenty of reason to think she is mentally ill but you would need to
>>>>>>be a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist to give a detailed
>>>>>>explanation why. But for many of the non professionals here, is is as
>>>>>>the saying goes --- I can't give a definition of good art, but I know
>>>>>>it when I see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If YOU have no evidence, then that means that you can't
>>>>>know if you are right, and therefore it would not be
>>>>>scientific or logical for you to condemn another person
>>>>>to being loco in la cabeza just for being honest to try to
>>>>>explain something to you that you probably have not
>>>>>yet experienced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If Robert's writing about his wife is correct, then we do indeed have
>>>>evidence just as we have evidence concerning your state of mind from
>>>>your
>>>>posts. Those do qualify as evidence.
>>>
>>>They don't qualify as the evidence you think they are. People do
>>>experience things. Sorry that you have a prefab category for everyone's
>>>experiences. My wife does not have delusions, is not mentally ill and
>>>had one solitary extraordinary experience. For you to assess her mental
>>>state based on this one event of several decades ago that lies outside
>>>your belief system shows that it is you who are mentally deficient. Go
>>>get evaluated!
>>>
>>>
>>>>And it is just that experience that condemns you. It simply is not
>>>>normal.
>>>
>>>You are self-condemned as an arrogant knave. I know more psychologists
>>>and professors than I can shake a stick at. They are rampant in my
>>>world, and I have never heard one talk with the self-assurance and
>>>one-dimensional self-adulation that you do. I think you most likely
>>>have narcissistic personality disorder yourself.
>>
>>
>> Well there's a laymen for you. You found some fancy words in a book and
>> decided they looked impressive.
>
> You don't know my background or where I've found anything. But if you
> had any professionalism you would not diagnose people based on one or
> two second-hand anecdotes.
OK please forgive me. I thought you and Suzanne were writing the truth.
Since they were merely anecdotes and did not actually happen, I withdraw my
observations. It seems you must have been writing to see your own print.
> You would reserve judgment. You are a bad
> psychologist and a terrible scientist.
>
Coming from someone who postulizes a god that created the world but is part
and parcel of it, your opinion is less than nothing.
> And I doubt you've read much about what
>> they say about experiences such as your wife and Suzanne claim to have
>> had.
>
> You are incorrect.
>
I do not mean reading luny fundy books on the subject but rather well
researched psych books. I am correct otherwise you would have known that
such experiences are very, very typical of epilepsy patients who DO have
religious hallucinations and tend to be ultra religious.
>> Now don't get me wrong, the cathedral effect is real. What makes it a
>> mental problem is that the person does not recognize it for what it is
>> and tailors their whole life around that experience and attributes it to
>> an invisible pixie in the sky for which there is no evidence.
>
> You have no evidence that any of the above has taken place, only your
> own credulity towards your own view, and you are wrong. The experience
> I described had *no* effect on my wife's lifestyle or behavior. It was
> an isolated experience. Now that we've established that, I'd appreciate
> it if you'd choose another example and talk about someone else, since my
> wife has now become an unwilling subject in this discussion. Yes, I
> mentioned her, and now I am asking you to stop speculating about her.
> Surely a person with your evidentiary storehouse can come up with an
> example of your own and leave my family out of it.
>
But it was YOUR example of the truth of the holy spirit. We will continue
to discuss it until you read some real books and find out that the
cathedral effect is a real emotion that gives rise to making people believe
in some holy ghost. You yourself described how religious your wife became
from an experience that can be duplicated in any laboratory or by any
charlatan cult leader. Since you offered your wife's experience as PROOF
of god, it is fair game to explore that experience.
See you made the mistake of taking personal, subjective experience as
evidence of anything.
>>>>>>>Now I have heard some folks around here who did strike me
>>>>>>>as mentally ill, and even then I may have been wrong, but that was
>>>>>>>based
>>>>>>>on some really far-out ideas. The idea that there is a supernatural
>>>>>>>presence that can communicate to the inner self is a staple of almost
>>>>>>>every religion in the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And it sufficed in a world without science. It no longer suffices as
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>explanation. There is no evidence of any supernatural.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Even science has to be believed blindly at some point....
>>>>>like for example the unproven idea that live began on
>>>>>earth when a spark of electricity passed through an
>>>>>ancient soup mixture of elements laying in a puddle on
>>>>>a muddy field.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Science does not say that. You haven't studied science, otherwise you
>>>>would not have made such a silly statement.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>If I told you there are cosmic rays, and
>>>>>you didn't know about them, and I told you I could
>>>>>show you their pathway by making a McKesson cloud
>>>>>chamber, what would you do? Beat your chest like
>>>>>Tarzan and exclaim "Well...that's SCIENCE?" Would
>>>>>you believe me if I had not shown you the action in a
>>>>>cloud chamber? Probably...if I said to you, "this is
>>>>>SCIENCE!" Or, if you didn't know about a cosmic
>>>>>ray would you tell all your friends present, "She needs
>>>>>to see a psychiatrist." : )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If had never come across such an experiment, I might disbelieve you>
>>>>However if it is science then I could duplicate the experiment or study
>>>>the
>>>>exact tests. You are using the wrong definition of belief here. One
>>>>means acceptance of the facts because the evidence is duplicable but you
>>>>are equating it with a belief, faith, which is accepting something for
>>>>which no evidence exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you think that millions and millions of
>>>>>>>people of every faith around the world are all mentally ill, just
>>>>>>>because they are having an experience that is not within your belief
>>>>>>>system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Many indeed are. Others are simply lying to themselves or are
>>>>>>abysmally ignorant of science so any explanation will do no matter how
>>>>>>irrational.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All things science can't YET explain are supernatural
>>>>>to a human being. Your science is only based on what
>>>>>you can perceive of with your 5 senses. There are other
>>>>>dimensions of things that I'm sure you don't yet know
>>>>>about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Really? What evidence do you have?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I mean surely you don't think that we know
>>>>>scientifically all things. If you lived 200 years ago,
>>>>>and someone told you that people would one day go
>>>>>to the moon, would you think they needed a psych?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, because there would have been no evidence that man could reach the
>>>>moon. Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is the
>>>>norm, the
>>>>default position. Believing in something for which their is no evidence
>>>>is the unstable position.
>>>
>>>That is idiotic. When Newton proposed his laws of physics, the world
>>>was not ready to believe him or digest his evidence.
>>
>>
>> You don't know much about science or history do you. Newton was
>> appointed to the chair of mathematics only two years after he privately
>> circulated
>> his papers, just two years after receiving his Masters. It wasn't so
>> much acceptance as it was that he did not make his papers publically
>> known.
>>
>>
>>>Galileo was
>>>pronounced a heretic - do you agree that the Church was correct at that
>>>time because they could not see or understand his evidence?
>>
>>
>> They both saw and understood his evidence. He was after all the Vatican
>> astronomer. The problem was that the bible said that the heavens
>> revolved
>> around the earth. And even though they could see that was not so, the
>> still believed in the bible. See right there is a sign of mental
>> illness, to put the bible before observational science.
>
> So everyone in the Church was and is mentally ill? In other words, you
> believe that entire cultures, in fact most, are mentally ill, since most
> cultures highly revolve around religious belief. Is that your thesis?
> Everyone is psychotic but you?
>
>>>Pasteur was
>>>jeered at, his evidence was not taken seriously. There is still no
>>>*direct* evidence that many of Einstein's theories are true, certainly
>>>not Brian Greene's theory of 10 or 11 dimensions. There are not current
>>>experiments to prove or disprove such a theory but physicists still take
>>>them seriously. The default position that what cannot be seen or
>>>understood at the time is WRONG. And you are wrong. You are not a
>>>scientist, just a technician.
>>
>>
>> Like most fundies, you don't have a clue about evidence.
>
> Shows you how much you know. I'm not a fundy. What do you think I am,
> based on your shoddy collection of evidence?
>
> I have stated here, a/ I am not a Christian; b/ I am not a practicing
> [religious] Jew, although I was born Jewish. And yet you call me a
> Fundy based on the fact that I am willing to defend Suzanne's experience
> as possibly valid and do not consider it a hallucination. Do you see
> how prejudiced you are?
I am not prejudiced at all. You definitely are a fundy whether you want to
call yourself that or not. All along in posts your have denigrated
science, big bang, evolution etc. That is a fundy position.
>
> I am agnostic with strong mystic tendencies based on my own spiritual
> experiences.
In other words you are a believer. You are not an agnostic. Your next
sentence underscores it.
]
> In practice I am about 80%% Buddhist and 20%% Advaita
> Vedanta. Any familiarity with those traditions?
>
> And I understand the nature of evidence and the realm in which it
> applies. I have great respect for science and find it quite attractive.
> Your dogmatic view however is a different story, so please
> differentiate between my distaste for your smug version of science and
> how I feel about *real* science and genuine scientists.
>
We've seen what you think of real science. We know how you feel about
scientists.
> When science tries to deny or verify subjective experience it gets into
> a lot of trouble because it is out of its realm.
Bullfeathers.
> That is the trickiest
> area of science, still a very murky area in scientific research, and it
> either reduces experience to that which is measurable or ignores it
> altogether. If you doubt that this is true, go read a book.
Which one do you suggest that supports your stupid little theory?
>
> Robert
>
> =========================================
>
>>>>>>>Or maybe you are mentally ill for insisting that everything is
>>>>>>>merely material and mechanical without any evidence for that either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not logical. If it is material or mechanical (movement of the
>>>>>>material) than evidence does indeed exist although not necessarily
>>>>>>available at any particular time or space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sometimes even logic is illogical.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now that is a gem. Can we nominate that for something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So, how to scientists
>>>>>"probe?" With theories!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You mean hypothesis. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. It is
>>>>not
>>>>guesswork. You labor under the same ignorance of science that all
>>>>fundamentalists do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And what are they, but ex nahilo
>>>>>tests? There are also many scientific things that defy
>>>>>logic, that have to be met with some kind of faith in
>>>>>order to understand them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, that is not true. The whole point of science is evidence which can
>>>>be
>>>>documented, tested and repeated. You are confusing science and
>>>>acceptance of scientific theory with faith.
>>>
>>>And you are confusing scientific theory with scientific experimentation.
>>> There is often a time-lag between theorizing something and being able
>>>to test a working hypothesis. In that gap theory continues without
>>>being discouraged by current lack of evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>After all, you experience consciousness, you see a giant universe
>>>>>>>around you with only a cursory explanation by science, and you cling
>>>>>>>that little knowledge as if it explains everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your ignorant caricature is noted. Those who study science do indeed
>>>>>>know its limitations and can quite acceptably say, "We don't know"
>>>>>>while those who believe in superstition must claim to know in spite of
>>>>>>the lack of evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, people who study science and get things done are
>>>>>people that have faith that there is an explanation, and
>>>>>keep on probing until they find it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They have an unproven hypothesis. Besides it is bad science to have a
>>>>conclusion then look for the evidence to support it. That is what
>>>>fundamentalists do, especially in regards to scripture.
>>>
>>>It happens in science all the time, and is not bad science if the
>>>conclusion is not regarded as true. Many scientific discoveries are
>>>based on necessity so of course the scientist is trying to accomplish
>>>something whose conclusion has already been determined. He then tries
>>>to discover whether it is possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>A true scientist really
>>>>>has to have a lot of faith if he is going to accomplish
>>>>>something like Jonas Salk did.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You never read much about Salk, have you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>That does not seem all
>>>>>>>that healthy to me. What about you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are right. It isn't. But then science doesn't act like your
>>>>>>strawman pretends it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't agree with that. Explain a black hole, a quasar, or how
>>>>>electrons can jump from one valence bond to another and
>>>>>defy explanation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your personal incredulence has nothing to do with real science. It
>>>>stems from ignorance.
>>>
>>>Physicists are amazed not only by what they have been discovering,
>>>particularly in cosmology, but the amazing gaps in knowledge that they
>>>reveal. They are in awe not only of the evidence they have discovered,
>>>but of the possibilties that they can't even figure out how to step into
>>>yet. You live only in the world of facts. The best scientists live in
>>>the world of possibility and vision and use facts to build bridges to
>>>new areas, not to conclude the limits of their understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Anyone for the theory of strings, or the
>>>>>theory of everything? : )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I do not think that I know that there *is* a God, or what its nature
>>>>>>>is.
>>>>>>> I am not a Christian and though born Jewish I am not much of a
>>>>>>>practicing Jew. I do believe, however, that one can have real
>>>>>>>experiences that are not explained by our very local modern belief
>>>>>>>system here in the scientistic West, and that we should be more open
>>>>>>>to other possibilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Aren't you afraid that your mind might be too open and everything will
>>>>>>spill
>>>>>>out? The default position of a reasoning sane person should be to not
>>>>>>believe in something for which there is absolutely zero evidence. You
>>>>>>take
>>>>>>the opposite view and that is not rational.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have some ideas about that you might want to consider...
>>>>>I don't mean to be unkind....
>>>>>I don't think that what you are describing is very scientific. A
>>>>>scientist does not exclude the possiblities of things that he
>>>>>knows nothing about. Have you ever heard of the Aristotalian*
>>>>>Square?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One of the majors a seminarian studies is philosophy, so yes I have.
>>>>But
>>>>philosophy is not science. Besides, I think you read this somewhere and
>>>>would be over your head if I were attempt any discussion on the Square
>>>>of Opposites with you.
>>>
>>>You're an arrogant knave and don't seem anywhere near as intelligent as
>>>you think you are.
>>>
>>>Robert
>>>
>>>- - - - - - -
>>
>>
