tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post3808756131915764992..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Review of Karen Armstrong’s The Case For GodStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71705287762388527552012-06-13T17:33:03.206+00:002012-06-13T17:33:03.206+00:00“The truths and insights of religion thus lie beyo...“The truths and insights of religion thus lie beyond even the comprehension of its critics.” <br />It follows then, that either they are within Armstrong’s comprehension. Which contradicts a previous claim of incomprehensibility. Or else they are outside even Armstrong’s comprehension. In which case Armstrong knows not whereof Armstrong speaks.<br /> <br />“you are treating belief in God as if it were a hypothesis that might be rationally assessed!”<br /> When in fact it may be more like a self-induced hypnosis, and thus all things to all those who encounter it.<br /><br />“activities that can induce such altered states. Take meditation for example.”<br />Take medication, for another example.<br /><br /> (animals in zoos can also sometimes be seen responding to the stress of captivity by self-medicating in this way).<br />Talking of head banging. Allegedly, on record, there was a nun who stimulated a horn-like growth to extend from her forehead (unicorn style), after incessant butting of the wall as a penance. <br /><br />Coming together in a large group to sing can also be a very powerful intoxicating experience<br />As too can hyperventilating. Which is in essence, singing without the words.<br /><br />If you have ever entered a large cave by torchlight<br />Or walked though moonlit woods. Random shapes transform into dangerous creatures. As the mind seeks to protect its host from potential ambush.<br /><br />their lucky pants have been lost.<br />Though oddly, not subjected to disquiet when secretly substituted for an identical pair?<br /><br />The regime is certainly likely to produce a heady and intoxicating psychological brew.<br />Not unlike a child’s security blanket?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21554052999715904682010-03-22T12:51:49.788+00:002010-03-22T12:51:49.788+00:00Thank you for a thorough and critical review of Ar...Thank you for a thorough and critical review of Armstrong's new book, The Case For God. Armstrong is certainly brilliant and eloquent, and there are many valuable insights within its pages. Indeed, she moves from ancient religious practices to medieval thinkers to postmodern theologies.<br /><br />Yes, often in many various religions, ideologies, theologies, etc. there is a breakdown in logic and reason that leads us to silence, wonder, and awe, where we transcend our ego and reach an enlargement of persective and experience. And it is provacative that this is something that can be found in multiple world-religions. Does it say anything, though, different about the world out there, like something of an all-pervading consciousness? No, and I don't think Armstrong would say that. I think she concedes and tries to point out theologians who say it may be nothing more than our ability to make subjective or abstract thoughts and feelings objective. Thus, she explores in the book, music is a "natural theology" because our self-centered subjective emotions and thoughts are made tangible and concrete for others to experience and understand.<br /><br />In many ways, I think she has some things in common with the new atheists. Harris advocates for a "scientific spirituality" which he says can help us find fullness and be a profound means of experiencing the world. <br /><br />Postscript:<br />Ineffable transcendence and apophasis is something we can also experience in sleep. As one Berenstain Bears book I remember states, our brains put things in our experience together in new ways without our conscience effort while our eyes are closed. Thank goodness they're only dreams, though, and that I forget most of them.DMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5584759591564160972009-10-23T00:19:12.503+00:002009-10-23T00:19:12.503+00:00Hi, thanks for the post, only just seen it and hav...Hi, thanks for the post, only just seen it and have not studied the comments deeply, so apologies if this has already been said.<br /><br />OK, look, really we all know that religion isn't going to go away. No matter how many atheist buses and bestsellers there are. And unless it changes it will continue to infect our institutions with bogeys like 'creation science'.<br /><br />This book and all of Ms Armstrong's work is to try and mature these religious views. It counters crap like 'creation science'. If every pastor, priest and layperson thought like Ms Armstrong there would be no need for 'new atheists'. You should be buying her a drink for this book.<br /><br />And sorry, you seem to miss what Ms Armstrong says so clearly in the quotation you provide. There is no point discussing religion and pointing to psychological equivalents. It needs to be practiced. Ms Armstrong makes NO metaphysical claims that many of your commentators go on to attack. <br /><br />What she DOES say is that religion provides an extra element to the experiences you infer can be achieved by secular/psychological means, and that is compassion. The ritual group mind of a football game lacks compassion and is based on competition. This alone is why it is not religious.<br /><br />And please be clear - you are only inferring that the various examples you give produce the same results as traditional depth religion, as you have no life-long practice of the later. <br /><br />Thanks :)Peregrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508191641503321789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49031987571231439432009-10-14T01:01:14.950+00:002009-10-14T01:01:14.950+00:00I apologise if this was said, but I missed it in p...I apologise if this was said, but I missed it in perusing through all the comments.<br /><br />Armstrong seems to define God as 'all that is (can't be?) unknown'.<br /><br />Most Christians/Muslims/Jews (at least) that I have met would define God as an omniscient being that can love, listen, talk and interact with human beings and can perform great acts. This was certainly the God of my upbringing.<br /><br />Here's the rub: If you accept Armstrong's definition, the we are all Theists, because we all accept that there are things that are unknown.<br /><br />If you accept the definition of God of my upbringing, then Armstrong is an atheist. She argues cogently that that God does not exist/is not real.<br /><br />Or have I missed something?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15394024402072845444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-57886592870515706122009-10-09T10:56:56.744+00:002009-10-09T10:56:56.744+00:00Karen Armstrong also makes a case for compassion a...Karen Armstrong also makes a case for compassion and The Golden Rule.<br />http://hassers.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Golden%20Rulecrabsalloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310281888611427075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44242019245086780662009-10-08T22:18:58.891+00:002009-10-08T22:18:58.891+00:00Paul,
it's a pretty popular quote - I think. I...Paul,<br />it's a pretty popular quote - I think. I got it from some book sitting around here somewhere, and posted it on my blog some months ago. <br /><br />I suppose you could ask the ever wise and great Google...Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80376912096784207552009-10-08T04:37:41.271+00:002009-10-08T04:37:41.271+00:00Just curious Andrew.
Do you have a source for tha...Just curious Andrew.<br /><br />Do you have a source for that quote?<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75480791177298402632009-10-08T02:55:53.423+00:002009-10-08T02:55:53.423+00:00Hi Andrew,
Thanks for that. I knew the Buddha had...Hi Andrew,<br /><br />Thanks for that. I knew the Buddha had said something like that, but I'd never seen it quoted before.<br /><br />Even better put than Cupitt, I would say.<br /><br />I wrote a review of Cupitt's book <a href="http://journeymanphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/09/existential-god.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, though it's lengthy and only slightly applicable to this topic.<br /><br />But I make the point that those words are the most salient point in the entire book for me.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3437681741874025612009-10-08T02:40:09.414+00:002009-10-08T02:40:09.414+00:00Paul,
sounds like Cupitt got his quote from the Bu...Paul,<br />sounds like Cupitt got his quote from the Buddha where he states:<br /><br />"Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto."Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17222196422655676352009-10-07T23:28:07.925+00:002009-10-07T23:28:07.925+00:00I agree with Andrew Louis and Anticant that: "...I agree with Andrew Louis and Anticant that: "Does it really matter whether or not God exists?" And "Obviously, God exists in the minds of those who believe he/she/it does."<br /><br />I've made both of these points myself in previous discussions even though I call myself a theist.<br /><br />Just over a month ago I read Don Cupitt's book, <i>Above Us Only Sky</i>, from which I take this quote:<br /><br /><i>"The only ideas, thoughts, convictions that stay with you and give you real support are ones you have formulated yourself and tested out in your own life… In effect, the only religion that can save you is one you have made up for yourself and tested out for yourself: in short, a heresy."</i><br /><br />Cupitt also discusses at length the 'dangers', as he sees them of institutionalised religion:<br /><br /><i>"Our moral posture and practice must never be associated with a claim to be… an adherent of some particular ethnic or religious group, because all those who retreat into ‘identity’ have given up universal morality and have embraced some form of partisan fundamentalism – which means paranoia and hatred of humanity."</i><br /><br />But I see a distinction between what Helen Philips calls 'Intrinsic' religion and 'Extrinsic' religion, where the former is tolerant of others' beliefs and the latter tends to be an ingroup/outgroup mentality. I guess this is where I disagree with Anticant, in making this distinction.<br /><br />In regard to Matt Valler's comment, I think Armstrong would agree that the resurrection of Jesus is mythology. Armstrong, from what I've read, has always appreciated the role of mythology in religion.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7507766610697095272009-10-07T21:22:55.088+00:002009-10-07T21:22:55.088+00:00I think the focus on religious experience is a red...I think the focus on religious experience is a red herring (though a valid question to pose to Karen Armstrong's thesis). The real argument that Armstrong advances, as I understand it, is the value of religion (and 'God') for <i>meaning</i>. For her, meaning is not ontological, nor epistemological. It is functional. <br /><br />It is precisely the unlikely nature of religious claims that makes their meaning so valuable. If I say that I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead I am making an obviously implausible statement. Yet the act of declaring it is subversive: it stands in opposition to the laws of the world in which I live. The meaning of the statement is not confined to the question of historicity (i.e. did Jesus <i>really</i> rise from the dead? as if that were an ontological question anyway and not an ideological one). It is located in the experience of the person who declares it; emboldened by its stance against the inevitability of death I believe - just for a moment - that my circumstances may change; instead of falling to fatalism I am empowered by hope. That doesn't mean I think that somehow I am not going to die. It's that the meaning of the theological statement opened in my world a crack through which I could glimpse a different possibility. <br /><br />I don't think that Karen Armstrong is making the case for God because she wants to win the ontological or epistemological arguments. I think she has identified a failure of imagination within Western society and credited the loss of 'God' as a root cause. If you can demonstrate your ability to imagine a different (better) world without the need for religion and religious language <i>then</i> you'd really prove her wrong. And I honestly think she'd be happy about it.Matt Vallerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11168150324320410584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55552082219978086142009-10-07T13:18:49.363+00:002009-10-07T13:18:49.363+00:00Andrew,
Obviously, God exists in the minds of tho...Andrew,<br /><br />Obviously, God exists in the minds of those who believe he/she/it does.<br /><br />That is an entirely separate issue from the question of whether God exists as an objective independent entity outside the minds of believers.<br /><br />The "lifelong impregnation of institutional thinking" which you refer to is what Lee Harris, in the book I mentioned earlier, calls the "visceral code" of a culture. He contrasts the Western Enlightenment tradition of individuals each acting on their supposedly rational assessment of what is in their own best interest with the tribal mindset which subordinates the individual's interest to that of the group - the mindset which prevailed in all pre-Enlightenment cultures and still does in contemporary non-Western societies - Islam, China and others. <br /><br />His key thesis is that, while an open individualist society may be morally superior and more comfortable to live in, it isn't necessarily going to prevail in evolutionary terms against collectivist ideologies.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13784394930933306632009-10-07T12:42:13.974+00:002009-10-07T12:42:13.974+00:00Anticant,
You said:
” Does it really matter wheth...Anticant,<br /><br />You said:<br />” Does it really matter whether or not God exists?”<br /><br />Probably the most meaningful question in the thread….<br /><br />-----<br /><br />For what it’s worth:<br />Personally, I tend to see part of the problem is that religion essentially institutionalizes/dogmatizes the mystical (if you will), in much the same way Marriage institutionalizes love. One has to detach what the institution is and does from the path it’s trying to draw on. <br /><br />Imagine if you will, raising a child from the time he is 6 with the sort of rhetoric which says, “you will love and marry this girl, and be with her for the rest of your life. You will not love another, any feelings you have for another woman is sinful and wrong…” etc. etc. etc. <br /><br />Of course, at 6 years old (Sunday school age), this kid has no idea what you’re talking about. However, once he “comes of age” he’s going to naturally start having feelings and emotions for other girls/woman, even though, he’s slated, or already has, been wedded to his partner set by his parents. <br /><br />So the question is, due to the life long impregnation of institutional thinking, will he be able to think about, distinguish and/or interpret what he’s feeling outside of his dogmatic language? There’s a strong chance that he’ll interpret “normal” feelings for other woman, and/or a strong feeling for one other woman as being bad, wrong, evil and sinful, even though these feelings are quite natural. Not only that, but there’s a strong chance that he’s missing out on the love of the woman of his dreams.<br /><br />I suppose my point is simply that, if we can step outside what the institution is and does, we can see it not as some absolute (which I don’t think was ever the intention), but a path and/or a language to talk about and express the mystical. In this way you can see any religious practice, whether Christian, Buddhist, or Islam, as being a medium of cultivation. Its truth lies in it’s ability to do that, not in the so called questionable nature of the supposed objective truths regarding it – it’s a mythology if you will (not in the bad sense) a metaphorical language. Further, we’re so used to the majority of the faith interpreting religion, the religious experience, and God with respect to the institution and what it says.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22269779882331040722009-10-07T12:07:59.651+00:002009-10-07T12:07:59.651+00:00“God”, says Armstrong, is “a symbol of indescribab...<b>“God”, says Armstrong, is “a symbol of indescribable transcendence”, </b><br /><br />So, even if it did exist, how can she say what it's characteristics are/are not?Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16602020760483338822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91245217933658216452009-10-07T11:42:48.236+00:002009-10-07T11:42:48.236+00:00Mind you, I don't agree with everything the gu...Mind you, I don't agree with everything the guy says - does one ever? But at least he brings a thoughtful historical perspective to bear.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-27115234945532411892009-10-07T11:15:22.225+00:002009-10-07T11:15:22.225+00:00Thanks Anticant,
I'll take it on board.
Rega...Thanks Anticant,<br /><br />I'll take it on board.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31315281084501551232009-10-07T09:48:01.025+00:002009-10-07T09:48:01.025+00:00Paul,
There is no need to be “sorry” over disagre...Paul,<br /><br />There is no need to be “sorry” over disagreements. It would be a very dull – and unproductive – world if everyone thought alike.<br /><br />Nor is it a question of who is “right” and who is “wrong”. What really matters is: what are the most likely facts on the balance of the evidence, and what does this presage for the future?<br /><br />I have known, and been influenced by, many fine people of various religious faiths - not least the saintly Michael Ramsey, 100th Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Orthodox Archbishop Anthony Bloom. I have also encountered some horribly destructive hate-filled religious believers driven by malicious self-righteousness. <br /><br />If you don’t think that all religious interventions in society are political in effect and often in intention, what do you think they are? <br /><br />I don’t hate anybody because of their religion, but I do find some religious beliefs abhorrent. In the case of Islam, the more one studies it the more it becomes apparent that its doctrines are diametrically opposed to our Western notions of democracy and open civil society. I am not saying that our ways and beliefs are indisputably superior; I am saying there is no room for compromise between them and a fanatical sect which preaches totalitarian theocracy. <br /><br />This is not “demonisation” – just recognition of the unpalatable truth that you can’t square circles or blend oil and water. There is no pie in the sky, whatever you may prefer to think<br /><br />I am currently reading an extremely interesting and thoughtful book on this subject which I commend to you – “The Suicide of Reason” by Lee Harris.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5695128890962706032009-10-07T09:45:10.548+00:002009-10-07T09:45:10.548+00:00Paul -
"The response was that mainstream the...Paul -<br /><br />"The response was that mainstream theologians were the biggest critics."<br /><br />Good for them. No chance of them sending some missionaries to the North is there?<br /><br />Sadly outside the civilized South there would appear to be a vast majority of realist religious believers, far too many fundamentalists and few mainstream clergy who will speak out.wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86823684834331440132009-10-07T09:24:17.557+00:002009-10-07T09:24:17.557+00:00CC -
"They are definately claiming that this...CC -<br /><br />"They are definately claiming that this is an objective truth, not a subjective experience."<br /><br />I am not so sure that this is the case with KA. My objection to her stance is that she too often carefully uses ambiguous language to avoid saying this clearly. <br /><br />Take "a symbol of indescribable transcendence...pointing beyond itself to an ineffable reality”<br /><br />(I admit to being on shaky ground here since I do not yet have a copy of the book, but it seems i keeping with some of the other stuff I have read of hers so I will chance it despite the lack of context.) <br /><br />Most of us assume that this implies that the thing or property pointed to exists, but is this really the case? Surely it is possible to have pointers which point to nothing. Just because I have a box labeled "Beetle" doesn't mean it ever contained one. <br /><br />I don't think KA is overtly making the claim about the nature of the universe but she is deliberately encouraging such claims to be made and the allowing them to go unchallenged. Yes there are the obligatory warnings about idolatry, a bit of apophatic language but the effect of this distracts rather than informs. <br /><br />Misdirection to cover the sleight of hand.wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83925612392515648202009-10-07T09:21:12.365+00:002009-10-07T09:21:12.365+00:00I'm sorry Anticant, that you and I disagree ov...I'm sorry Anticant, that you and I disagree over this.<br /><br />Religion's 'actual effects' go both ways. If your total experience of religion is only one way, then that is a sad indictment, but it's not mine.<br /><br />Branding all Muslims as fundamentalist is deeply troubling to me. Calling them 'passive supporters' is saying the same thing. I disagree so strongly with that opinion.<br /><br />I know you've said before that all religion is politics but I don't agree with that either. As I've said before, we obviously live in different social environments.<br /><br />If we demonise Islam then we are as bad as they who demonise us.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20999198414637060562009-10-07T08:15:02.508+00:002009-10-07T08:15:02.508+00:00theObserver,
What religion do you follow?
See my...theObserver,<br /><br /><i>What religion do you follow?</i><br /><br />See my (now dormant) blog. It is better read from the earlier entries to the later.<br /><br /><i>Ahh yes. I forgot about the "first class mystics" whose experiences are beyond description. Please.</i><br /><br />It is the case that one cannot describe mystical states in the way one can describe, say, one's travel experience, but one can attempt to relate what one learns from being in those states. This too is limited, and all too often the mystic does a poor job of it. Wolff does the best job of it that I know of. You're welcome.scott robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349533381354610156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37098803072306444482009-10-07T07:15:26.327+00:002009-10-07T07:15:26.327+00:00Does it really matter whether or not God exists? W...Does it really matter whether or not God exists? What matters, in the real world, is what "believers" and "faith people" do and support in God's name. <br /><br />Even Scott agrees that religion is dangerous. I would go further than that and say it is socially toxic.<br /><br />While Paul may think it is 'demonising' Islam to regard all Muslims as potential terrorists, the striking absence of vocal 'moderate' Muslims raising their voices in protest against terrorism indicates to me, on the analogy of the dog that didn't bark in the night, that they are at least passive supporters of violence committed in the name of Allah.<br /><br />Surely these issues of religion's actual effects are far more important than abstract speculation about whether or not God exists.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65009047624631414532009-10-07T05:15:11.394+00:002009-10-07T05:15:11.394+00:00Hi Wombat,
In response to your first point: I agr...Hi Wombat,<br /><br />In response to your first point: I agree that Stephen’s scepticism of someone else’s interpretation of their experience is justified – e.g. most people are sceptical of ghost stories and UFO sightings. Having said that, someone’s experience can have meaning for them in a way that it wouldn’t have meaning for someone else, and neither would you expect it to. That’s how I would classify a religious experience, whether it includes a concept of God or not.<br /><br />I expect that the differences in our perspective on religion, as a cultural influence, is, at least partly, due to our living in different parts of the world. I assume you live in the northern hemisphere, despite your antipodean moniker.<br /><br />To give an example: In 2005, Australia had a federal election, and an independent politician, who had links with The Assembly of God church tried to do a deal with the major parties to get ID (Intelligent Design) on the school curriculum. In Australian politics, the minor parties (including independents) do deals with the major parties – it’s an important part of our democratic process, but I’m sidetracking.<br /><br />The response was that mainstream theologians were the biggest critics. An example can be found <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/15/bad-faith" rel="nofollow">here</a>, in a science magazine. But also mainstream media included vociferous criticism from theologians. The issue had a quick death and hasn’t been resurrected since. So I believe that answers your second point.<br /><br />I believe the vast majority of ‘believers’ are not fundamentalists but the fundamentalists are the ones who get the headlines. I think it’s a huge mistake, and even dangerous, to paint all religions and all religious followers with the same fundamentalist brush. It's like assuming that all Muslims are terrorists, or potential terrorists. When we start demonising religion we become as bad as the fundamentalists themselves.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53973196668249549392009-10-07T02:38:38.948+00:002009-10-07T02:38:38.948+00:00Maybe I should go into the woo-woo business. It se...<i>Maybe I should go into the woo-woo business. It seems I only need fantastical claims to distinguish myself. A fool and his money are soon parted. </i><br /><br />If the US political climate isn't a shining example of this, nothing is.<br /><br />Do it - early retirement is calling...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37644222249578658582009-10-07T01:58:26.159+00:002009-10-07T01:58:26.159+00:00@Scott
"I've given my specific objectio...@Scott <br /><i><br />"I've given my specific objections (see my previous comments in re Merrell-Wolff). If Stephen wishes to rewrite his argument that takes this objection into account, I'm all eyes."<br /></i><br />Ahh yes. I forgot about the "first class mystics" whose experiences are beyond description. Please.<br /><br />Maybe I should go into the woo-woo business. It seems I only need fantastical claims to distinguish myself. A fool and his money are soon parted.theObservernoreply@blogger.com