Posts
There was a news article linked from the Drudge Report yesterday titled "Moses was High On Drugs: Israeli Researcher". I recommend you first read it here.
The theological implications of this are huge. If the divine origin of the cultic practice of the Jews is falsified, then the entirety of the Bible is established on false grounds and as Paul would say, we would be the most foolish of them all to believe in such things.
What is wrong with this conclusion?
Shanon notes that he already does not believe in the possibility for the super-natural, so automatically he is going to search for another way of explaining what happened in regards to such events as the burning bush and the giving of the Law. This is a sure-fire example of how presuppositions can govern interpretation.
Another problem is that of the question of what is reasonable. The drugs explanation may be credible for the burning bush account, but to use it to explain the giving of the Law at Sinai is pressing the bounds of what is reasonable. It would require that over a million men, women, and children were all taking this drug. It would also negate the possibility for a naturalistic explanation for the complexity found in the Law. Could someone who is high on these drugs really create such a Law system in its moral/judicial and cultic systems? This stretches the bounds of reason to beyond the breaking point.
Lastly is Shanon's credibility. He said himself that he has taken similar kinds of drugs. Experience in taking them does not make him an expert of what they can do, and makes one question his ability to use proper reason in performing these sorts of studies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Here's the problem, the Drudge Report is hardly a respected source of news. Whether or not Breitbart.com is, I have no way of knowing, as I am unfamiliar with the website. However, if they're linking the Drudge Report as a source, that doesn't say much about their credibility.
Additionally, it is clear that "Benny Shanon" is hardly a halfway decent researcher and he announced it on the radio...without any sources, proof or anything else that would make his story halfway believable... war of the worlds, anyone??
And while your theological implications are interesting, I would like to point out that it's not that Shanon doesn't believe in the possibility of the super-natural, that's just not what he thinks happened.
True that the Drudge report is not always accurate, but this particular article is. Breitbart.com is a typical online news site, referencing numerous network associations. There are other studies similar to the conclusions made by this guy. See Marsh Chapel Experiment.
His presuppositions do govern his motives and conclusions. The other study has a host of other issues as well, such as a fallacy in their use of the "double-blind". Their placebo simply does not fit what a true placebo should be, because the students had expectations going into the study. So much for objectivity.
Yes, you're correct. Shanon's presuppositions govern his motives and conclusions - just as your presuppositions dictate yours.
In addition, the results of the study are not inaccurate because of the participants' expectations. Had the control group and the test group been told two different things, that would affect the test. Since only one variable was tested, the effects of the drugs facilitating religious experiments, the experiment is accurate.
In fact, scientists occasionally tell participants something different than the anticipated response to determine how that affects the results.
As per the double-blind, what exactly is the fallacy? There is no proof that it wasn't a double-blind experiment. If neither the control group, the test group nor the people recording the data knew who had the drug and who did not until after the outcome, the test was double-blind.
Likewise, expectations do not negate a double-blind design.
Post a Comment