Stanford professor studies evangelicals who hear God's voice

Stanford anthropology professor Tanya Luhrmann has spent ten years studying how evangelical Christians train themselves to hear the voice of God.
Stanford University:
www.stanford.edu/
Stanford News:
news.stanford.edu/
Stanford University Channel on KZbin:
/ stanford

[@erasmusso]

The fact that you FEEL like you're having an OBE does not mean your spirit is really leaving your body, it only means you FEEL like it does and I have no problem with feeling something, I practise meditation btw, but I don't believe there's anything supernatural about it, everything I feel is in my head and not in some other plane of existence. I'd like to try astral projection, from what I heard it's very cool, our brains can produce wonderful illusions and hallucinations.

[@lucerfarul]

"When a person is determined to believe something, the very absurdity of the doctrine confirms them in their faith." - Junius

[@zapproowsdower]

Any reasonable, objective person would call being 100% convinced that you're holding a dialogue with a character from a storybook a sign of ADVANCED psychosis. They can no longer discern their fantasies from reality.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

Part 2) The nature of introspection creates need for complex techniques that go beyond asking "what do you feel?" as being reliable. There's need, most importantly, for the studies to be random, double blind, unbiased, and analyzed by robust statistics where assumptions are met. Non of these requirements are met by the video's study, at least not by the way it is represented in the video (book may be different) as I have shown her to be biased, studies were also nonrandom.

[@EclecticSceptic]

And that we ought not to be enemies just because we disagree. That's an awful situation.

[@erasmusso]

Then we have a semantic problem: what exactly do you mean with the words "spirits", "channeling" and "clairaudience"?

[@giorgiv18]

Umm, well. I can't show the whole lecture, because I don't have it. Now, putting aside the question of God's existence, why wouldn't an anthropologist get interested in religious experience? Like, what mechanisms are involved in generating it, or what actually is happening to people? Should an attempt to demystify the phenomenon a little cause so much negative reaction?

[@Fabianstarr22]

God has many voices, Gods voice is the one you speak with so speak, and think well of others.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

If you want these articles I can email you the pdfs.

[@theprogen2003]

I'm not religious at ALL, but I think the three crosses represent the trinity (father, son

[@Katalyzt]

Interesting... In reference to what Tanya Luhrmann said at position 0:22 “audible” voices can be measured; so where is this anthropology professor evidence of this “voice”? Katalyzt

[@disquietawe]

This is a study to be conducted by Psychologists, Psychiatrists or Neuroscientists. Not a humanities teacher. How can she just claim "They DID hear what they described... This is not the lunatic fringe." so matter-of-fact as if there couldn't possibly be another explanation?

[@erasmusso]

She said "over 1/4 of all americans had received a direct revelation from God" - what kind of psychology is this? how do they know this? what kind of experiments did they do? how do they know what those people heard or how clear the voices in their heads were?

[@giorgiv18]

I wonder why this has so many dislikes.

[@EclecticSceptic]

By the way, you are the second person to reply to my comment who superimposed their own meaning onto the lady's words. This was not a study on the results or effects of prayer. This was a study about evangelical Christians' subjective experience of prayer. I find it objectionable that you would feel entitled to cast such aspersions on a study which you fundamentally misunderstood.

[@john.summerton]

I read the book by her, and it is not leaned the way this video seems to be leaning. Her study was not whether or not these people could actually hear god, but rather why they think they do. It was about how the evangelical churches encourage using imagination in prayer and pretend you are seeing and talking to god, and it creates a more personal experience with him. And many of those who do this do get the illusion of an unusual sensory experience, based mostly off of imagination.

[@generationalist]

Thank you. I agree with what you stated regarding "archaeology, physical anthropology and even clinical psychology". I was simply trying to avoid the arguments between different fields of psychology, many of which are not based on science. Psychology is a rapidly changing study which really is very exciting to see how this field of thought and or research is changing. I think this video expresses a serious problem with society today. People can't discern a testimonial from empirical evidence.

[@Aletheia216]

Granted that the low blow to anthropology was just comic relief. It doesnt take a physics student to understand why the methodology is intrinsically flawed (regardless of the conclusion) it just takes someone who is knowledgable about the scientific method. I agree that the experiment is interesting(never said it wasnt) but please inform me as to how the conclusion is justified from the anecdotal evidence? And you accuse me of making myself look stupid?

[@EclecticSceptic]

I watched the whole video again just for you. Everything I said still applies. Please provide a quote which contradicts me.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

Part3) I really suggest reading the article by Wilson (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. as it has 6000citations (more than Watson and Cricks paper on DNA structure) and is a very popular, and criticized, paper. There is huge debate in psychology on whether introspection is valid or if the question is simply when is introspection valid. However, it is unarguable that introspection can be an invalid form of analyses and arguably is.

[@GSpotter63]

In an environment with no space/time math as we know it will not work. With no absolutes, no zero, no starting point, no end points, no means with which to measure a place that has no space, no means with which to measure a period that has no time, there is no point of reference. 1+1=2 only works in a place where the 1+1 comes before the 2. In a place with no time there is no causality. 2 can happen before the 1+1.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

No, they are complaining because the professor is presenting the topic with bias stating that the people are indeed hearing god and that "People have to learn to enable themselves to have such powerful, vivid experiences with god."-Tanya which is absurd. She also stated "...a quarter of all Americans had received a direct revelation from god" which is in no way a professional statement. I could quote anything from her here and it would be an unprofessional statement.

[@negrosaurus]

Yes, she is an anthropologist, and she's studying a subculture of people who think they can talk to god, as well as the phenomenology of their experience. But she's not claiming that they really are communicating with god.

[@erasmusso]

And how accurate and reliable are reports from people who hear voices in their heads? How do they know those people really heard voices? What kind of equipment did they use to measure the voices? Did they use the fMRI? This video says nothing, it's completely useless and it's also misleading because people watching it might think there's actually a connection between God and the voices or the hallucinations.

[@EclecticSceptic]

People have given this thumbs down just because the study attempts to understand religious believers. That's pathetic.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

For goodness sakes. Please try to understand the opposition before criticizing it. People are complaining because of how unprofessional this professor is carrying out this study. It has nothing to do with the topic of the study, just how it is being represented. I already addressed this with Eclectic and s/he ended up found wanting. Please, do not find yourself in the same position.

[@Yakushii]

Nor have I stated that the existence of a true deity should not be looked into. I just feel like the study should not be made by those who seek to prove or disprove it, because it taints the study with bias. A Christian professor will read outcomes with bias. Also, religion cannot monopolize morality or conciseness, although I do not see how conciseness came into the debate. Both values are still up for anyone to use or misuse, whether they are theist or atheist.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

No, we are giving it thumbs down because the professor is claiming that these people are objectively having experiences with "God" and are somehow better in touch with their surroundings than the rest of us. I am sorry, but if one wants to study anything they have to be objective and unbiased in their analyses and can not state something as fact when they have not demonstrated that it is indeed fact. This "professor" needs to change her rhetoric to that of a more professional wording.

[@sunlitweb]

I don't understand some of the comments below attacking her. Or why there even needs to be hostility. She said the people "enable themselves" to have powerful, vivid experiences of God. She is calling this a manufactured experience. It doesn't prove or disprove whether or not they are hearing from God. She obviously thinks they aren't.

[@gr0gg0]

Uploaded 11 days too late...?

[@izaccy]

How did I go from listening to lectures about Quantum Mechanics, and Neuroscience to people hearing their own thoughts and believe it is god speaking to them. WTF!

[@metralla]

Maybe stanford would be interested in running an experiment where volunteers sing the Marseillaise until they communicate with Napoleon...

[@1sanremy]

i wonder why STANFORD university youtuber toke the decesion to release such a short document ? what is the aim ?

[@ArielBGlenn]

Never expected this from Stanford

[@Aletheia216]

For Christ's sake even the wiki page on cognitive psychology says "It accepts the use of the scientific method, and generally rejects introspection as a valid method of investigation - in contrast with such approaches as Freudian psychology". I have taken college psych. courses as well and this is literally material we learned in the first week. Now you are just being willfully ignorant and decitful to save yourself from the "embarrassment" of being wrong. This is just sad.

[@EclecticSceptic]

You superimposed your own meaning onto her words. She never stated or implied that people were having a real experience with their god, she stated that they heard an actual voice in their head. She did not comment on whether or not this was an imagined voice. Putting her title in quotation marks isn't an argument for anything and is merely petty.

[@EclecticSceptic]

Ok this is the my final reply. Just to delineate exactly my point. I was taking issue with the fact that you would be insulting (insulting at all), not with your insults detracting from the validity of your argument. I'm not one of those people that says if you curse, your argument is suddenly void. The arguments being made is irrelevant to this point. I was saying that there is no justification to be insulting. Anyway, this video has been wrung to death by now.

[@EclecticSceptic]

Anthropology is a very important field of study. I find it bizarre that the person who is asserting to defend the side of reason (you) is repudiating an entire field about which you are patently ignorant. Anthropologists can use different methodologies to scientists because they have different desired outputs. Your brutally simplistic criticism is like saying the philosophy of aesthetics is rubbish because it is 'touchy feely'.

[@EclecticSceptic]

The first quote merely recounts that people thought they could hear their god. The second quote is actually 'The Pew Foundation found that over...', so that's just relaying what the Pew Foundation said. The third quote I suppose could be interpreted as her asserting that their experiences were real if you were so inclined, but it's quite obvious in the context of the whole video that she is not. I couldn't care less that you think I'm a ponce, big faceless internet guy.

[@L00NGB00W]

I don't understand. Are you sure you replied to the right person?

[@generationalist]

Actually, you can put entities with cognitive thought into an equation. It's called a probability equation. Probability statistics are used every day to measure market responses. You say gravity and light are impossible to PROVE. That is a deceptive two faced statement. The scientific method is NOT used to PROVE things truly exist. Scientists believe ONE thing: reality exists therefore there are laws that all things including cognitive things must obey. Science pursues the questions of the laws.

[@MaximilianoMendes]

Lots of thumbs down possibly means atheists got pissed off, so this must be good!

[@EclecticSceptic]

Actually, just to further qualify what I said: I make a point of not getting offended by things. The only thing I will get offended (~generally speaking) about it is moral transgressions. So when I complained about your insulting demeanour, I did so on the principle of what you were doing, not on the effect it had on me. It had no effect. So you must understand that I did not mean to have a go at you, but merely I want to have a more friendly environment on KZbin.

[@theprogen2003]

It reminded me of Jung's theories on autonomous archetypes operating within the human psyche - implying it is more complicated than "deficient faculties" in a segment of the population. But it may relate to Freud's superego. Re Bernays - his model is the primary influence of our political/pr/advertising systems and dominates almost every aspect of our lives in the industrialized world - it's effective at influencing the majority, but groups are more suggestible than individuals... So who knows.

[@Aletheia216]

Calling me stupid is not a great way to have an honest disucssion dont you think? I believe you are referring to psychoanalysis. Modern psychology does not rely on first person accounts and most experiments have both quantifiable data as well as the application of double-blind trials. Much of modern psych. is dedicated to identifying cognitve biases (not psychiatry) like the introspection illusion which leads people to believe that they have direct, unbiased access to their mental states.

[@rcmeyerson]

Just an observation on this video, it mostly seems to be non-believers complaining.

[@Danimal6251]

Gravity and light are impossible to prove you can only prove things in mathematics and the theory of relativity is the equation of how gravity acts, not gravity itself. Any equation is only making predictions of the phenomena. In other words you can not put things with a conciseness into an equation since we cannot accurately show how they will react in different situations they can make their own decisions.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

He says as he sticks his fingers in his ears and screams "lalalalalala". No, she wasn't. She stated clearly that they DID hear voices of god, not that they thought they heard, not that they imagined voices, not that they claimed voices but that they did hear voices. She stated, clearly (except for goof-ponce), that the study found Americans HEARD voices, not that they claimed to imagine voices, not that it was reported, the rhetoric was clear and the dislike ratio of the video reflects that.

[@Aletheia216]

Anyway AgApE010, I apologize for being short with you in my last two posts. From the Psych. classes I took and the numerous books I have read (mainly Kahneman and Gilbert) have emphasized that introspection plays no role in modern psychology. As daiitokumyouou899 said "The nature of introspection creates need for complex techniques that go beyond asking "what do you feel?" as being reliable.". The empirical methods of CP have rendered introspection to not only be unreliable but superfluous.

[@sspirits8]

Hahaha! Did she just say, "this is NOT the lunatic fringe...23% of Americans..."? Perhaps this simply signifies that a large percentage of Americans have gone mad.

[@Danimal6251]

Take or instance Schrodinger's cat thought illustration the cat is in a state of super position until it is observed and observations can only be made by a concise being. Without a being to be there to create the universe, the universe would be only a possibility and you can not see a possibility but only what is there.

[@EclecticSceptic]

No she wasn't endorsing the claim. That's you hysterically trying to impugn her for averring the existence of a god. She was using that study to highlight how these people think they are really communicating with their god. That was the topic of the whole study. I didn't quote mine, I provided the context for the quote you gave. That's the opposite of quote mining. She wasn't being unprofessional because the origin of that accusation is just your anti-god hysteria.

[@EclecticSceptic]

She never said that it was true. Watch the video again, and provide me with a quote where she says that the people are genuinely making contact with a god. All she says is that people are hearing voices. She never commenting on whether they are imaginary or real.

[@generationalist]

This video does NOT line up with ANY scientific LINE of thought. Testimonials are NOT evidence they are testimonials; as in, I feel it's true so it must be true. Tanya Luhrmann said she did "RESEARCH". She did NOT do any research, what she did was a study based on begging the question testimonials. Tanya Luhrmann's results of this study were as follows. These people feel really strongly that their prayer was so strong that it provides a special and evidentiary proof of the voice of the skydaddy.

[@jayleeds2006]

0:21 - 0:31 Invalidates Luhrmann's entire study- because she did not produce evidence of this. If God's voice was audible that means it could have been recorded. She did not produce this evidence. If she did, this would be international news. These religious people were simply hearing voices in their heads and only describing the voices to Luhrmann. She is not reporting the truth and may be misleading some people, which is an awful thing to do in my opinion, especially from a faculty position.

[@kbcrittenden]

The comments posted to this video don't seem to line up with any scientific line of thought. The majority of the comments at this point are broad generalizations, many of which are basically discrediting another person's experience as "crazy". That is hardly a scientific approach. Also, the name calling and profanity do little to strengthen an argument, in fact those things damage the validity of the argument being made, in my opinion. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of these

[@Yakushii]

Also, calling light waves "unseen" is what I would call "absolute stupidity", given that these are the things we actually DO see. VIsion is your eyes seeing light waves. Why would you even come here and argue scientifically, when you clearly have no expertise in the field?

[@Aletheia216]

Psychiatry is the study and treatment of mental disorders, that's not cognitive psychology. The whole reason why Freudian psych. was toppled by behaviorism and cog. psych. was that introspective evidence was non-verifiable. I agree that there are many different schools of psych. but many like psychoanalysis (and even today psychiatry) are becoming obsolete due to the empirical methods of CP. Introspection is as useful to CP as using kinematics to calculate the value of a wave function.

[@Bubby91]

well there is no point arguing on youtube, as we have already been doing. However i am not understanding your bible quotes? In Gen 11 7-9, he is stopping the people from building the tower of babel, that was when he created different languages and spread people amongst the earth as they were detesting God and their faith in him. The Proverbs quote, is simply put about spreading conflict/discord in your community, none of us have need to spread conflict, God had a reason with the disobedience.

[@erasmusso]

I have no problem with psychological conditions or techniques that make you hear voices, but I don't believe there's anything supernatural about them. Do you believe those people really hear the voices of God or their ancestors?

[@theprogen2003]

Hmmm, yeah I dunno... it's hard to make such a strong value judgement based on two minutes of video. It seems like the professor was suggesting that this actually appears to be a normal human experience (>20% of the population). Since religious beliefs/experiences are universal, perhaps we are wired to personify abstract symbols in this way to make sense of/deal with reality. But yeah, ideologies (religious, political or economic) scare me too and seem ill-suited for our modern, complex society.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

We are, you stated introspective studies were, erm, appropriate. Since professor in question has used introspective studies then the professionalism is contingent on the validity of used methodology. Goof-ponce needs to understand this, and the problems of used rhetoric and why it is wrong for the use of such rhetoric (what was used in the video).

[@EclecticSceptic]

Can I please ask people to stop inventing their own purpose for this study? This was not a study stating that a god is real, or that a god can really communicate with people, or any kind of investigation into the existence of a god. It is purely documenting the subjective experience of some religious people when they think about god in an intense and ritualistic way. Some people are so zealously seeking an opportunity to attack religion that they can't see in front of their face.

[@generationalist]

As I posted earlier A study IS NOT research. Just because you FEEL that something is true does NOT make it true. Testimonials are NOT evidence.

[@robertlam18]

well. whats the conclusion......

[@negrosaurus]

Wow, why is everyone so mad about this video?

[@accentgrave1]

If I may be a little sarcastic, I tend to think this is a publicity stunt to sell a book. But I might be wrong. And I wonder what anthropologic tools permitted Mrs. Luhrmann to affirm that the voices heard are "the real thing". I kinda sense a lot of dissimulated bias in this project and (the voice in my head tells me) this research was funded by religious organisations... Let's wait and see if I am right :)

[@daiitokumyouou899]

part 1) 70 citations is quackery? How presumptuous my good sir! To be fair, the article is complex and delves more into a critical article by Dr. Wilson in the 70s where the article criticizes the use of some of his terminology and attacks his conclusions. More over, it shows that there exist a dichotomy of introspection being that sometimes there are strong correlations or weak correlations. This means such studies are circumstantial. You have only taken two college psych courses? erm...lol

[@erasmusso]

Astral projection is an interpretation of out-of-body experience that assumes the existence of an "astral body" separate from the physical body and capable of travelling outside it. Astral projection denotes the astral body leaving the physical body to travel in the astral plane. No, right now I do not believe in astral projection because there's no evidence for it, but I'm always willing to change my mind if scientific evidence supports it. Anecdotal subjective experiences are not evidence.

[@MichaelSizer]

I am mind boggled by these people. I just absolutely can not believe them. They really actually literaly believe this. Amazing. (scary as hell, but amazing)

[@saintpine]

I agree, I will follow.

[@pbezunartea]

Wow, amazing! How does she know when they are communicating with god? Which are the indicators? What are "unusual sensory experiences"? Is this serious?

[@daiitokumyouou899]

part 2) Actually using evidence from another organization was endorsing that evidence. I left out the "The Pew Foundation found that over..." part as it was irrelevant, she endorsed the claim, which was unprofessional because the claim was absurd. Sorry you failed to take away that point. As for your other points, I love that you accuse me for quote mining then go ahead and do it yourself, how lovely. I gave explanations why those quotes were unprofessional and you failed to address those.

[@EclecticSceptic]

Lastly, if you conducted yourself in a debate or in a proper academic setting as you do here, you would be laughed off the stage and page respectively. As you have resorted to an appeal to authority, contorting evidence, and often to insults (the mark of someone with little to say) this conversation is terminated. Freely call me whatever names you like. P.S. if you are so committed to name calling like a little boy on the internet, get better at it.

[@EclecticSceptic]

Yeah, I think I struck a nerve on the self-confidence issue.

[@Aletheia216]

Science attempts to be as objective as possible by reducing biases of the subjects and researchers. The problem is that introspection is not considered to be valid evidence considering that it is not verifiable. This makes it hard to reproduce by other scientists to confirm its validity, as well as the fact that intropective evidence is unfalsifiable. It simply does not adhere to the scientific method which is not suprising considering she is an anthropologist not a neuroscientist.

[@theprogen2003]

Hmm, good stuff. Thanks, NeuroLogica looks like a great blog. To add to your point, Freud's Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego may explain how Bernays is able to manipulate the majority to behave irrationally, while individual people tend to be less suggestible (aside from this 20%, perhaps). He proposes that people loose free will in groups - possibly due to the reinforcing feedback loops that perpetuate group beliefs and behavior. Obviously this applies to religion as well.

[@TheMathKing]

I think this is good. we should try to find out why so many religious people have this type of behaviour. There must be some sort of instinct that is responsible for it.

[@Yakushii]

Man learned to talk through evolution, because conversation was needed. The bible was written by men who wanted to regulate society. If God answers your prayers, you must be his favorite, because there are millions of Christians in Africa who die daily because they don't have food, water or health care. Ironically, I could use all your arguments to verify the existence of my own character, because everything you say is based on WANTING to believe.

[@xjaskix]

these people dont even have the simplest grasp of basic brain science :/ just because you hear voices in your head, it doesnt mean it's god. it's just you. you have an expansive subconsciousness that you are not aware of, that controls you and from where your beliefs, memories and "feelings" bubble up from. also the voices.

[@Bubby91]

Speaking of proof, even you cannot prove man learned to talk by evolution, unless youve traveled back in time. God gave us speech when he created us. God answers everyones prayers, but there are always those in need such as people in other countries that we try to help, and if they truly do believe in God, and die because of cruelty/war or lack of necessities, at least they will have a place in Gods kingdom of heaven, which is the ultimate goal and may they suffer no longer on our earth.

[@Yakushii]

Proven or not, science is based on observation of facts. Your ideas is based on a single book that was written by men, then re-written to suit their needs many times. And as for your comment on people in need... Genesis 11, 7-9 states that "God sows discord" while Proverbs 6: 16-19 states that "God hates anyone who sows discord". There are mile-long lists on how poorly written the bible is. Surely an omniscient god could not have written it? Or even exist, given what we observe...

[@PalThing]

Aside from the fact that christians are deluded, the problem with the video are these two sentences from the professor: 1) "Over 25% have received a direct revelation from God" at 00:37 2) "People have to learn to enable themselves to have such [...] experiences of God." at 01:38 My guess is she's caught up in this crap and doesn't mind bending science a little to promote her book.

[@Danimal6251]

So will everyone but we have to use our faculties to determine to the best of our abilities to interpret the results the agnostic will say it is still inconclusive, the atheist will say it is pointing to there is no God and the theist will say that the results are showing that there is a God. Atheism cannot say that there are objective morals nor can it show how there can be conciseness with out some transcendence.

[@Morkindie]

"Also, the name calling and profanity do little to strengthen an argument, in fact those things damage the validity of the argument being made, in my opinion." No. name calling and profanity neither add to or detract from the validity of an argument, so long as they are not the main thrust of the argument. example: If it rains, the party will be cancelled. It is raining. There will be no party, you arrogant knob-gobbler.

[@Danimal6251]

Concerning morality if there is no objective morals then morality ceases to be right&wrong but reduced to preference of taste in which case criminals are just different from the majority&did nothing wrong. It is the difference of an objective test&a subjective one, objective no matter how you feel about it if its not the right answer it is wrong but in the subjective there really is no right or wrong answer.In the end without some objective morality,it ceases to exist in the sense of right&wrong

[@Danimal6251]

It was brought up when you said our #1 argument is your inability to disprove God I was saying there is much more than you cannot tell there is no celestial teapot on the other side of the moon or flying spaghetti monster. Sorry about the multiple posts.

[@EclecticSceptic]

You do know that anthropology is one of the humanities, and physics and neuroscience are physical sciences, don't you? Because it sounds like you are castigating everything that isn't a laboratory science. That would be extreme philistinism. This is coming from an engineer by the way. Oh and out of interest, what does Stanford stand for according to you?

[@MumblingMickey]

But the subject mater can be anything...we already not only know that this is an experience people have but how, why and under what circumstances it does. We can even replicate it. Theres no need to repeat the study badly! It'll work on any idea the subject accepts and sometimes on things they don't accept. Even Richard Dawkins tried a machine that replicates the experience and says he felt someone standing beside him. Of course Dawkins knows it was an induced state...these subjects don't.

[@Yakushii]

Sure, a God COULD live out there, and no one denies it. The fact of the matter is, it cannot be proven to exist. Your argument consists only of my ability to disprove it, which is not really a solid argument. For that matter, I could state that outside the universe exists two thousand pieces of broken banjos. Your ability to disprove it would only serve to strengthen my faith in the broken banjos. You see that this would be illogical, yes?

[@gusphraba]

So looking forward to a time when it’s OK to treat this behavior like witches, fortune telling and haunted houses.

[@daiitokumyouou899]

Probably better to refer to the older comments. I am never the first one to lay out insults, but I make an effort to be the last. I follow the "tit for tat" philosophy almost to the letter. That is really irrelevant though, the only time one should ever acknowledge an insult is if it formed part of an argument. If you had of ignored the insults and addressed purely the argument I would have dropped that a long time ago.

[@dubldeka]

Perhaps i should rephrase it. . There is no Santa Clause, so who is giving them the presents. . These people seek for a voice and it seems to come to them. Wish as i might, i have never produced a personal genie. If the mechanism is in all of us then why is it that only the Christians can do it in such great numbers.

[@Aletheia216]

Also AgApE010, I would recommend looking into the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky which are the leading figures in cognitve psychology. Unfortunately for you, I happen to know quite a bit about modern cognitive psychology. Psychoanalysis is not considered credible in modern academia on account of its post-hoc explanations and unfalsifiablility. And much work has been done in cog.psy. which confirms the invalidity of introspection in the scientific proccess. Wiki cognitive bias.

[@Yakushii]

We experience gravity and light every hour of every day. Which is more than can be said for the concept of a God. And of course we cannot put God into an equation when your concept of a God lies outside the ever-expanding borders of the universe. All you're doing is creating an imaginary character that lies so far away that it would be impossible to disprove. And our inability to disprove it is your #1 argument for his existence. That's a weak argument at best.

[@SprachschuleAugsburg]

Could you please prove that God is just imaginary.

[@GSpotter63]

The reason that you can't use math to describe God or the realm of God is because God made math to define the universe.

[@whadawethink]

why ? Because it's absolute nonsense and the fact that a professor from Stanford believes in these zealots is utterly unbelievable. There's definitely something not right - taken out of context. Please fix this and show the whole lecture..

[@daiitokumyouou899]

Appeal to authority? I think you are confused as to what that is, I never used a name drop of any authority... I conduct myself the same way in formal debates. There is no logic that says I can't insult, it is only an ad-hominem fallacy if you use the insult as an argument, I didn't. I instead use insults as directories and titles as opposed to straw mans. I am sorry little boy can't handle being called names :( She never used the word "thought" goof-ponce, sad sad little boy found wanting :(

[@shadywalker2159]

If placebos work better than pharmaceutical antidepressants.. Then I don't have much 'faith' in what people believe.. Its like those people that believe dogs somehow can understand human language.. They just believe what they want, and don't care about basing beliefs on fact.