tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post115414812036178643..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Answering Objections to Visions: Part FourUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1154406701145136772006-08-01T00:31:00.000-04:002006-08-01T00:31:00.000-04:00Matthew, I was interested by this series of yours,...Matthew, I was interested by this series of yours, being both a neurologist and someone who had a road-to-Damascus experience 17 years ago. I am sure today that it was not entirely natural, but then one has to say what "natural" means here. I was certainly breathing during this state. Most of my biological functions were just fine. But there were a few aspects that make me wonder.<BR/><BR/>First of all it takes an understanding of modern science to know just how bad the phenomenon of garbage in, garbage out can get, from examples like cold fusion, from many things. I can't believe so many people try to argue based on Bible accounts being accurate, and from that draw distinctions like "vision" vs. "appearance". <BR/><BR/>I know of one experience like mine in the Bible described first-hand, Paul's (I suppose the Old Testament has some, but they seem even more embellished by belief.) There are differences. There may have been no sensory change with my experience. Maybe the sunlight streaming into my room brightened, but I doubt it. It just suddenly became the presence of God as a cognitive change, not a change in perception. It was dramatic this cognitive change, unquestionable, though I did question that a rationalist like me would be in the presence of God. Then God said, "You've always believed in Me." I either heard this subvocally as a voice like mine or mouthed the words myself. I don't remember. That was it for God, but I went through more. Immediately on these words, a cascade of words and images came through my mind to illustrate God's point. I conceded He was right, and I was wrong. It was the greatest debating technique I've ever seen. I would say I had perfect faith for about four hours after that.<BR/><BR/>Now there's more, but all of that one could push into a category of dream-like episode. Only what is that? Neuroscience knows brainstem mechanisms to produce REM sleep, but that says nothing about what generates the content of a dream or how this could take off in the daytime or some intermediate level of consciousness. Who says all of that has to be natural? <BR/><BR/>The Spirit is said to do many things for our mind, help with prayers, help with memory, teach us things. I've experienced all of this. Could it all be natural? Of course it could, but is it? So many things of spiritual experiences are just completely unknown except for charlatans like Michael Persinger claiming to reproduce spiritual experiences for magnetic stimulation of the brain that reputible researchers can't reproduce.<BR/><BR/>So to say such a thing is natural is going to be a guess for a while, unless one wants to say enough of the world is natural that it must all be natural, a conclusion I think is reckless.<BR/><BR/>The strangest thing to me about this episode, apart from it being God, was this cascade of words and images that took me from being skeptical about this whole thing to having no doubt whatsoever, a state of certainty I never knew before and have only briefly known since. Propose for me a detailed explanation of the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of this event. I'm quite sure I know enough of those disciplines to tear such an explanation to pieces. It's one thing to claim we have a God module in our brain. It's very different demonstrating a wiring diagram for it.<BR/><BR/>The closest thing I know to what I descibe here is the phrase, "his life passed before his eyes". I haven't looked hard, but I haven't found serious descriptions of such an experience. One just can't say if that ever occurred naturally or not. The only legitimate thing to do scientifically is accept that it is unknown whether this sort of spiritual experience is beyond nature. To argue nothing is beyond nature is philosophical, not science. People can argue that, but I trust experience and science.<BR/><BR/>I find no significant difference between Paul's experience and mine. No, I didn't see Jesus, but so what? It was a dream-like experience. What do different sensory modalities matter?<BR/><BR/>There is still that issue about shared experiences, but who says any of the Bible is accurate about those? Not me. I've seen a lot of people at a charismatic church be moved by the Spirit together, myself included. That's almost as hard to explain naturally as an "appearance" if you don't assume trivial responses to excitement.<BR/><BR/>6 months after my experience, and a second lesser one, I decided as the empiricist I am that either this is real or something in me really wants it to be real, so I should explore it. I've been drawing closer to God ever since, and today recognize what many conservative Christians deny in what Paul wrote, that he's not writing about abstract features of the Spirit, but ones he could experience in a very real way, visually, tactilely, emotionally, cognitively, verbally, all coordinated in a way that makes it as easy to say, "Christ lives in me" or "the Spirit lives in me" as to say I have 10 fingers.<BR/><BR/>Could all of that be natural? Of course, but if it is I want to know what can do that, because such a natural phenomenon that can give me direction, strength and comfort like this is just as significant as if there really is a God who will do the same thing.<BR/><BR/>So what difference does the uncertainty make? Christianity doesn't work for a lot of people as it's worked for me. I don't know if they don't do it right or what. But I know there's something to it that can do a lot. I've seen it in me. If it has a natural cause, I don't understand it. If it has a supernatural cause, I don't understand it. I do understand only prejudice makes anyone say it is trivial.DavidDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416775522057787866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1154202103194363712006-07-29T15:41:00.000-04:002006-07-29T15:41:00.000-04:00Exapologist, You're right. My only problem, howe...Exapologist,<BR/><BR/> You're right. My only problem, however, is that so many Christians take him seriously. I don't want so much to give him the time of day rather than answer his arguments less people think that Mr. Holding is the new king of biblical apologetics.<BR/><BR/> I answer Mr. Holding in much the same spirit that Farrell Till answers him, although, I have to say that you're right in the long run.<BR/><BR/> MatthewMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301708892076758582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1154150069502120292006-07-29T01:14:00.000-04:002006-07-29T01:14:00.000-04:00Please don't worry about what Holding or his acol...Please don't worry about what Holding or his acolytes think. He's a crank. It's astonishing that anyone listens to someone with a zero-concession policy and information-evaluation practices that are aimed at *winning* rather than *truth*. How can someone listen to a person (like Holding) who doesn't allow himself to a sympathetic hearing of arguments and evidence in conflict with their own? How can such a person think that such a practice is a reliable method at aquiring true beliefs? How can anyone?exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.com