[beonecenry]

I always said Jesus was a hippy who'd taken one too many magic mushrooms. Now someone outs Moses for the druggie he really was

[surefireinvest]

What would really be groundbreaking is if Muhammed did the same.

[Taunteefrurge]

pitiful. This isn't a "study;" it is a drug-induced self-indulgent spasm of speculation.

[soyclocky]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
pitiful. This isn't a "study;" it is a drug-induced self-indulgent spasm of speculation. As opposed to the theory that he wasn't on psychedelic drugs?

[GoodLover]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If I said you were a gay warlock, would that make it so? No that would mean you were a 12 year old MMORP player. This is a professor of cognitive psychology. Nice try.

[SHUSIATULSE]

You notice that he didn't beleive the other explanations, and so looked for another. Saying that Moses could have been high on drugs is OK science. Saying that Moses was high on drugs when you don't have any evidence of such is bad science.

JM

[QysnZWB4]

Believe what you want. What's it matter to my world? Zip.

[nannysuetle]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Depends on what branch you are a part of. Some would say it's all in the mind, others would say as you do that there must be some external agent.

Why would it be contrary to cognitive psychology that such a thing be true? A person with such training is interested in what makes a subject believe such a thing. If it were a simple matter of God actually talking to the subject through a bush that wouldn't be something that needs studying.

[flowersnewaho]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I agree with Zkrib. If he was a researcher then he'd at least study the effects of substances that were available to the Israelites at the time. Some Brazilian crap surely doesn't count. The psychoactive compounds in Ayahuasca is N,N-dimethyltryptamine, and the psychoactive compounds in Acacia are Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 5 MethoxyDimethyltryptamine (5 MeO-DMT) and N-methyltryptamine (NMT).

They are most probably similar in reactions.

[Jeaxatoem]

A person with such training is interested in what makes a subject believe such a thing. True, but again, you are working from a materialist perspective. There is no conflict between substance dualism and cognitive psychology, at not least on the theoretical level.

If it were a simple matter of God actually talking to the subject through a bush that wouldn't be something that needs studying. Which is why it needs to be debunked by materialists? The effects of faith and worship on cognition are documented and have been studied. Anything which has an impact on the mind is fair game, which includes things like this.

[oxixernibioge]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The psychoactive compounds in Ayahuasca is N,N-dimethyltryptamine, and the psychoactive compounds in Acacia are Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), 5 MethoxyDimethyltryptamine (5 MeO-DMT) and N-methyltryptamine (NMT).

They are most probably similar in reactions. What do you do for a living, Kid (and/or in what are you trained)? You claim to be able to make expert statements in Economics, Biology, and Chemistry... which of these are you trained in?

[hauptdaunnila]

Usually you check the craigslists and such of your local major university, or the postings there

[Investblogger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but again, you are working from a materialist perspective. There is no conflict between substance dualism and cognitive psychology, at not least on the theoretical level. I think you are wrong, especially on a theoretical level. Cognitive psychology uses the scientific method and rejects introspection.

Which is why it needs to be debunked by materialists? I don't think the purpose is to debunk it. It's to provide a more likely possibility.
The effects of faith and worship on cognition are documented and have been studied. Faith and worship makes you believe that a bush is talking to you?

[worldofwarcraft]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Usually you check the craigslists and such of your local major university, or the postings there I need better local universities.

[dremucha]

It is bad science because he was seeking to show the 'truth' about Moses. He then assumed that the possibilities that some favored were wrong, and which then made his possibility right.

It might very well be good science to say that 'there is a substances in this bush which can create a psychodelic experience'. But that has nothing to do with Moses or any events 3000+ years ago.

Jon Miller

[gdjfhdf]

I think you are wrong, especially on a theoretical level. Cognitive psychology uses the scientific method and rejects introspection. Rejects is too strong. Discourages would be better, but there are some things about the mind that we can only know through introspection.

I don't think the purpose is to debunk it. It's to provide a more likely possibility. Ok. That's a much more reasonable position. Yes, a burning bush would be quite exceptional, but the actual account in Exodus is very detailed. There are accounts of visions and a whole variety of spiritual phenomena that are not well understood.

Faith and worship makes you believe that a bush is talking to you One manifestation of both are dreams and visions. Moses on Mt. Sinai is just one of many, many examples of such. The question for Moses is that he we given certain things from God, such as his staff which doesn't fit the interpretation of this professor. So his case doesn't really fit dreams and visions, it seems to be much more special then that.

[Woziwfaq]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I don't particularly object to someone saying this is one possible explanation. I just don't like scientists who claim to know the truth about anything. Science is about facts, religion is about truth; if they want to discover truth, they need to join the seminary Dude, this is a social scientist. He's researching history. You seem to be confused about the nature of that pursuit.

[gerturiotf]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Rejects is too strong. Discourages would be better, but there are some things about the mind that we can only know through introspection. You said that there is no conflict, and I think there is a conflict. Although some cognitive psychologist may believe that introspection is a way to understand the mind they do not rely on that for their work. That's why they are cognitive psycologists.

Ok. That's a much more reasonable position. Yes, a burning bush would be quite exceptional, but the actual account in Exodus is very detailed. There are accounts of visions and a whole variety of spiritual phenomena that are not well understood. Like what?

One manifestation of both are dreams and visions. Really? I didn't know that. Have you had these visions and dreams?
Moses on Mt. Sinai is just one of many, many examples of such. The question for Moses is that he we given certain things from God, such as his staff which doesn't fit the interpretation of this professor. So his case doesn't really fit dreams and visions, it seems to be much more special then that. I can see how someone having halucinations might think that God just gave them a stick that happens to be in their hand at the time that they've come off the trip. Have you ever taken halucinagens? I have.

[Dwemadayday]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Oh? He is a social scientist?

Well that is OK then, they aren't real scientists anyways.

JM
(that fact that this is considered acceptable, when it wouldn't be in hard science fields, shows the difference between social 'science' and real science) They are the only kind of scientists that study social sciences, or at least the only scientists that are qualified to speak as experts on the subjects.

[CevepBiageCefm]

Originally posted by Kidicious


They are the only kind of scientists that study social sciences, or at least the only scientists that are qualified to speak as experts on the subjects. The statements and claims in the OP take away his right to claim to be a real scientist.

That other people listen to him shows the sad state of affairs in the social sciences.

JM