Re: Review of the 36 Arguments for the Existence of God #22. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE CONSENSUS OF MYSTICS
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Pastor Jennifer v2
Feb 23, 2012, 8:54:16 PM2/23/12
to Evidence For God
22. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE CONSENSUS OF MYSTICS
(by R Goldstein)
1. Mystics go into a special state in which they seem to see aspects
of reality that elude everyday experience.
2. We cannot evaluate the truth of their experiences from the
viewpoint of everyday experience (from 1).
3. There is a unanimity among mystics as to what they experience.
4. When there is unanimity among observers as to what they experience,
then, unless they are all deluded in the same way, the best
explanation for their unanimity is that their experiences are true
5. There is no reason to think that mystics are all deluded in the
same way.
6. The best explanation for the unanimity of mystical experience is
that what mystics perceive is true (from 4 and 5).
7. Mystical experiences unanimously testify to the transcendent
presence of God.
8. God exists.
FLAW 1:
Premise 5 is disputable. There is indeed reason to think mystics might
be deluded in similar ways. The universal human nature that refuted
The Argument from the Consensus of Humanity entails that the human
brain can be stimulated in unusual ways that give rise to widespread
(but not objectively correct) experiences. The fact that we can
stimulate the temporal lobes of non-mystics and induce mystical
experiences in them is evidence that mystics might be deluded in
similar ways. Certain drugs can also induce feelings of transcendence,
such as an enlargement of perception beyond the bounds of effability,
a melting of the boundaries of the self, a joyful expansion out into
an existence that seems to be all One, with all that Oneness
pronouncing Yes upon us. Such experiences, which, as William James
points out, are most easily attained by getting drunk, are of the same
kind as the mystical: “The drunken consciousness is one bit of the
mystic consciousness.” Of course, we do not exalt the stupor and
delusions of drunkenness, because we know what caused them. The fact
that the same effects can overcome a person when we know what caused
them (and hence don’t call the experience “mystical”) is reason to
suspect that the causes of mystical experiences also lie within the
brain.
FLAW 2:
The struggle to put the ineffable contents of abnormal experiences
into language inclines the struggler toward pre-existing religious
language, which is the only language that most of us have been exposed
to that overlaps with the unusual content of an altered state of
consciousness. This observation casts doubt on Premise 7. See also The
Argument from Sublimity, #34.
(by R Goldstein)
1. Mystics go into a special state in which they seem to see aspects
of reality that elude everyday experience.
2. We cannot evaluate the truth of their experiences from the
viewpoint of everyday experience (from 1).
3. There is a unanimity among mystics as to what they experience.
4. When there is unanimity among observers as to what they experience,
then, unless they are all deluded in the same way, the best
explanation for their unanimity is that their experiences are true
5. There is no reason to think that mystics are all deluded in the
same way.
6. The best explanation for the unanimity of mystical experience is
that what mystics perceive is true (from 4 and 5).
7. Mystical experiences unanimously testify to the transcendent
presence of God.
8. God exists.
FLAW 1:
Premise 5 is disputable. There is indeed reason to think mystics might
be deluded in similar ways. The universal human nature that refuted
The Argument from the Consensus of Humanity entails that the human
brain can be stimulated in unusual ways that give rise to widespread
(but not objectively correct) experiences. The fact that we can
stimulate the temporal lobes of non-mystics and induce mystical
experiences in them is evidence that mystics might be deluded in
similar ways. Certain drugs can also induce feelings of transcendence,
such as an enlargement of perception beyond the bounds of effability,
a melting of the boundaries of the self, a joyful expansion out into
an existence that seems to be all One, with all that Oneness
pronouncing Yes upon us. Such experiences, which, as William James
points out, are most easily attained by getting drunk, are of the same
kind as the mystical: “The drunken consciousness is one bit of the
mystic consciousness.” Of course, we do not exalt the stupor and
delusions of drunkenness, because we know what caused them. The fact
that the same effects can overcome a person when we know what caused
them (and hence don’t call the experience “mystical”) is reason to
suspect that the causes of mystical experiences also lie within the
brain.
FLAW 2:
The struggle to put the ineffable contents of abnormal experiences
into language inclines the struggler toward pre-existing religious
language, which is the only language that most of us have been exposed
to that overlaps with the unusual content of an altered state of
consciousness. This observation casts doubt on Premise 7. See also The
Argument from Sublimity, #34.
Brock
Feb 25, 2012, 11:08:06 AM2/25/12
to Evidence For God
On Feb 23, 8:54 pm, Pastor Jennifer v2
<jennifer.s.jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 22. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE CONSENSUS OF MYSTICS
> (by R Goldstein)
> 1. Mystics go into a special state in which they seem to see aspects
> of reality that elude everyday experience.
> 2. We cannot evaluate the truth of their experiences from the
> viewpoint of everyday experience (from 1).
> 3. There is a unanimity among mystics as to what they experience.
> 4. When there is unanimity among observers as to what they experience,
> then, unless they are all deluded in the same way, the best
> explanation for their unanimity is that their experiences are true
> 5. There is no reason to think that mystics are all deluded in the
> same way.
> 6. The best explanation for the unanimity of mystical experience is
> that what mystics perceive is true (from 4 and 5).
> 7. Mystical experiences unanimously testify to the transcendent
> presence of God.
> 8. God exists.
Again, the same limitations apply to this treatment:
> 22. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE CONSENSUS OF MYSTICS
> (by R Goldstein)
> 1. Mystics go into a special state in which they seem to see aspects
> of reality that elude everyday experience.
> 2. We cannot evaluate the truth of their experiences from the
> viewpoint of everyday experience (from 1).
> 3. There is a unanimity among mystics as to what they experience.
> 4. When there is unanimity among observers as to what they experience,
> then, unless they are all deluded in the same way, the best
> explanation for their unanimity is that their experiences are true
> 5. There is no reason to think that mystics are all deluded in the
> same way.
> 6. The best explanation for the unanimity of mystical experience is
> that what mystics perceive is true (from 4 and 5).
> 7. Mystical experiences unanimously testify to the transcendent
> presence of God.
> 8. God exists.
* there is no one "THE ARGUMENT ...", rather it refers to a general
category of arguments, thus to defeat one specific example is not
adequate to dismiss the category
* the argument, to the degree it is a paraphrase, doesn't adequately
represent (either intentionally or accidentally) the argument as put
forward by a proponent, and faces the danger of being simply a straw-
man
Regards,
Brock
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages