Here's another ridiculous free for all with the great minds on carm. This is about the 200 studies I talk about that show that religious experience is very good for, it changes your life dramatically for the better, than people who have these religious experiences do better than those who don't (including atheists) and that such experience is not mental issues or delusion. If that was allowed to stand 90% of atheist assumptions would be blown away. It's no wonder they would do anything to deny them validity.
Once again, without having read a single study they talk like they know all about them, they mock and ridicule them for silly things while giving no valid methodological attack:
So, Meta's 200 studies that support his claims have come up again. Here: http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...57#post5410557 I asked him to provide links to the studies and he reacted with what appears to be anger, stating that he had already done this. I would have thought that the best way to react to this (and really put me in my place) would be to post a link to where he detailed the studies.
I have been involved in trying to get Meta to provide links to these studies before and as far as I am aware he has never provided a full list. I know that he has provided a couple of examples in the past but if you are going to claim 200 studies then you really need to provide a sizable portion of that 200 to be taken seriously. Also, the nature of his reaction leads me to the unfortunate hypothesis that he doesn't in fact have 200 studies that support his claims - if he did then he would just simply post a link to the list and then it would be my job to demonstrate that his studies don't support his conclusions. As he didn't, and reacted with what I saw as anger, I think I have a good case for my hypothesis.
In short, Meta, I am willing to go through the studies that you claim to have if you post a list. I have a few weeks between contracts coming up - once my current contract ends next week - and I have access to a University Library so I can get to pretty much any study that I need to. So, if you can provide me with a list of the studies I will start looking into them and doing the necessary research for me to be able to fully understand them.
Meta: He issued the very same challenge two years ago. I gave him a biboliogrphay and he never did a damn thing with it. I have had a biboliogrpaphy up for years, with most of the studies on it. It also contians some artilce that are not studies.
This whole controversy is based upon half truths. I have never refused to "put up" a study. Look what they are asking. most of these studies were done in the 70s and 80s and not many of them are on the net, those that are usually cost money to see. I refuse to type a whole study into a text box. I've done everything else short of that to show them what to look for. The point is they refuse to accept the responsibility to get the studies themselves. They want to pretend like if I don't put the study in the text box then it doesn't exist. That's clearly just an excuse to dismiss the studies.
this is a post I made to MikeWC on another thread It's linked but it's an imporant summary of the history of these discussion about the various studies on this board.
First of all, I have never argued anytying about the sign of Jonah. Second:
the charge that "he refuses to put them all on the board" one of the first things they said about the studies when I first started talking about them years ago. I've answered over and over and OVER and OVER. here it is again. again the pretend the answer was never given.
Originally Posted by MikeWC View Post
Meta, you should just settle this once and for all. Pick, say, the strongest 10% and make the texts available. Give us PDFs if they are behind paywalls, links if they are not.Otherwise, stop it with this variation on the ever-weak "no sign but the sign of Jonah" junk.
that's silly. I have done that before many times. everything I put up something that I work no a lot with a bunch of evidence you just refuse to read it.
I worked for Days on a paper why Tillich is not really anti-supernatural and posted he whole thing in the text box. noe of you would read it. it was right there in front of yiour faces.
if you were willing to read the material you wild go get it.
*I have given you the sources on every study. Except the Hood studies and it's easy to see his vita and get them.
* Teabagsalad ask for a short bib of the top sources he was going to look them all up and show how bad they all are. nothing ever came of it.
*that's not hte only time I've done that. I've given that short big and the full big both many many times. no one every does it.
*People have found, or looked up or gotten whole studies about three times. everyone of them says the M scale is good. none of them say it's bad none of them say Hood is no good none of them say religious experience is bad. no one cares. It did not mean a thing to anyone.
*one of those was the Carid study, Backup paid to get it and put it up. We went round and round. The conclusion said the M scale works but he went over and over trivial side bar stuff trying to make it say it's not good.
* one of those was good Spanos an Moretti, Royce did that trip. It went on for 10 threads and never ended. The whole time Spanos and Morettie said the M scale works, they did not say it's bad, they did not say reilgious experience is bad. they were talking about a minor minor aspect. they trying to justify their studies by saying Hood didn't deal wit the negatives. they never said that means M scale is no good. they were just saying "it doesn't deal with negatives so we will."
I argued negatives are going to be very very small percentage. they also said the negatives aren't caused by mystical experience they are associated via the people who have both. Royce tired to blow that up into a major methodology indictment of the M scale. that went on endlessly into I found a study saying the percentage of negatives was from 4-9% no more. several studies mentioned by that study had it at 4%. So that proved my point and it all died down.
* Allman study I put up (link) becasue I found it became available. I said up front it's not a major study its not crucial to my work. It backs up a couple of minor points but it's an example of a study. some people acted like was the major disproof that destroyed the 200.
Bottom line: if you guys wanted to seem them you would go see them. I have given the sources. you can look them up.
Now I know these are good studies. I know this is a fine field. so I am gonna takl about it because It's been proved.
you are all science deniers.
Originally Posted by TeabagSalad
that is even more absurd and insulting. that proves you don't pay attentino to anything I say. You ask for stuff you wont listen to the answers. I provided a mountain of evidence on all of it. I've quoted endless. articles books bibs. I've shown you my bib.
where's your article? you wont look up on source. you want me to put the food in your mouth and move your teeth to chews.must I also digest it for you?
I think Metacrock is pulling our collective leg. The paper he links to is just a literature survey that grabs any halfway relevant paper:Meta:
It must be noted that they do refine the search, but at the end of the day this is an article about how to do a literature search.Since mystical experiences are designated by a number of different terms by investigators, our first computer run for the PSYCINFO search included the following key words for mystical experience: mystic$
Thus Metacrock's argument would be:
* There are 200 papers published that have been found by searching for the keyword "mystic$"
* Therefore the effects of mystical experience warrant belief.
This is one of the stupidest arguements they have ever come up with. First of all he's talking about the Lukoff literature search which I poted the day of all that bunck with Teabag above. Lukoff and Lu did a study of several studies, they read and summarize them. That I put up as an attempt to show them examples of the kind of study I'm talking about. It's highly revlivant because many of those studies in that lit search are the very studies I put on the list for the 200. They are all basically relivant.
The very stupid thing he says about "he just looking up anything with the name mystic by it" shows that he can't do research. That's basically how you research. Of course you must read what is found, which he didn't do becuase he can't figure out that they are relevant. they all show good stuff about mystical experience.
Originally Posted by fleetmouse
what he means by this is becuase these studies don't say "this study proves God exists," then the data from the can't be used in any sort of apologetic. I do use them as the back up for some God arguments so he's actually stupid enough to think that the studies have to say "God exists" as a finding or you can't use the data to argue for belief.
Of course use all sorts of studies that don't say "therefore the scientific conclusion is there is no God" as means of disproving belief. No study on the multiverse says "therefore there is no God" but the use it to argue against fine tuning.
if the study shows that people who have religious experience are better off than any people ever were but it doesn't say "so these guys are better off than anyone ever was" the I can't use teh data becuase the guy doesn't say it?
Delorean study shows air bags would save 25,000 lives a year from car crashes, but because he doesn't say "so we should force them to pub air bags in all cars" then I can' tuse that finding to argue that they should?
that is the argument of an imbecile.
you can't use the findings if the researcher doesn't use your exact words even though the findings clearly prove you are right. that's stupid.
that's an a par Major Major from cath 22 or with the Preisdent in Dr.Strangelove.
"Now Demitri one of our generals went a little bit funny in the head."
MY pages that talk about the studies:
God argument no 7: from co-determinate
No 8, argument from epistemic judgement (aka "the Thomas Reid argument")
Essays and arguments on reigious experience arguments,
defense of the M scale, biboliogrophy, ect. on Religious a priori