Posted: Apr 27, 2019 7:35 pm
by Sakon
Hermit wrote:The latter is made obvious by the fact that all of his posts are made in the Debunking section. and all but two of them are limited to contributing to two threads. The two exceptions were posted in the Climate Change Denial thread, and neither of them are actually about climate change. One argues that scepticism is inimical to actually doing anything. The other argues that morals without god are not moral.


Those posts didn't start out in the debunking section. They were moved there by administrative users. I believe they started in the theist thread, a different area of the board index. I've been following Kafei's stuff for a while. I just don't know enough about the topics to say anything. In retrospect, I even made this profile to post here only to realize Kafei was banned. Which is fine, of course, but the research he referenced was recently published April 23rd, 2019. Has anyone taken a look at it? If Kafei were here, here's one thing I'd like to highlight taken from the discussion portion of the study and one thing I don't think has sunk in for Kafei:

Can psychedelic drugs occasion genuine God encounter experiences?
Although some scholars of religion have argued on conceptual grounds that drug-occasioned experiences are not genuine religious experiences [32–34], Stace [4] and Smith [35,51] counter with the Principal of Causal Indifference, which asserts that if two experiences are phenomenologically indistinguishable, it cannot be concluded that one is genuine but the other is not. Although there are both similarities and differences in the God encounter experiences described by the Non-Drug and Psychedelic groups, the most robust generality across a wide range of questions is that the descriptive details, interpretation, and consequences of these experiences are markedly similar. The findings that the preferred descriptor of that which was encountered was "God" in the Non-Drug Group, but "Ultimate Reality" in the Psychedelic Group suggest that such labels may reflect differences in semantics and conceptual interpretation rather than phenomenological or functional differences in the experience.

It should be noted that neither descriptive studies of such experiences, no matter how detailed, nor the emerging science of neurotheology, no matter how strong the associations demonstrated between brain processes and religious experience, can definitively address ontological claims about the existence of God [5,52,53, 54]. We acknowledge that contentious issues arise from attempting to draw ontological conclusions about participants’ phenomenological experiences of "God" or "Ultimate Reality," which some believe to be beyond ordinary material reality/consciousness [55–56]. Such conceptual issues have been discussed at length by scholars of the psychology of religion who routinely use empirical methods in the study of religious, spiritual, and mystical experiences [6].