…and this is a 
Scientists and atheists do something that many believers find repellent: we shatter their perception of their relationship to the universe. And understandably, they don't like that.
Most religious people in the West have a very specific model of the way the world works that is based on our cultural history as the progeny of nomadic herdsman, and that still resonates strongly with all of us — the father-child relationship, the patriarchy. We have a wise leader who guides us all, punishes us when we stray, offers largesse to those in his favor, and unites the whole tribe in common cause. Those bronze age sheepherders lived this way, and it made sense. It was a strategy for survival that worked well, and that shaped the way we see the world even now. Ask any Christian on any Sunday morning about flocks and sheep and shepherds, and they will understand the metaphor even if it is highly unlikely that any of them have been in contact with any animal other than a household pet.
It's also a powerful idea because it posits a set of very personal relationships. The father is remote because of his great responsibilities, but at the same time, we all want that pat on the shoulder, the encouraging word, the opportunity to serve and win distinction in Father's eyes by virtue of our dutifulness. It's a familial relationship, tightly-knit and long-established, where we are respectful dependents and the leader of the tribe relies on our service.
Beyond just the family and tribe, though, this vision has been extended to the entire universe. There is a great Patriarch in the Sky, who is our leader and guide, responsible for making the grand strategic decisions about where our tribe will go, and is also watchfully making sure the unity of the tribe is not disrupted by wayward ideas from nonconformists. He has a central concern that we all share, that our people should thrive, and even if he is stern at times, it is because he cares so much that we succeed. And of course, he knows each one of us personally, just as the leader of tribe or clan in our pastoral days would have, and he can give us an approving stroke or a damning angry smiting, depending on whether we help or hinder the work of getting the flocks to the summer pasturage.
Read your bible. It's saturated with this primitive herdsman mentality: God the Father, sheep and goats, lost lambs and the Lamb of God, flocks and herds. It's anthropologically fascinating, and it's also not necessarily an evil metaphor (unless, of course, you're a woman — the patriarchy is also deeply misogynistic). One of it's most appealing aspects is that it makes the relationship with the universe a close and personal one, of a very simple kind of relatedness, that of father and child. It's one metaphorical generation, direct and immediate, and it colors everything about how we view our place in the world: dominant and submissive, leader and follower, wisdom and naiveté, master and servant, command and obedience. It also tangles up our relationship with the world in those paternal virtues of love and concern and discipline, and often with those less savory issues of the complicated relationships many people have with their fathers, because, face it, sometimes men are jerks. Which also fits with the portrait of the omnipotent god painted by the Bible.
I can sympathize. I loved and respected my father, and any attempt by an outsider to defame or complicate or diminish that relationship would trigger a resentful response from me. Christians and Muslims and Jews have been told from their earliest years that God is their father, with all the attendant associations of that argument, and what are we atheists doing? Telling them that no, he is not, and not only that, you don't even have a heavenly father at all, the imaginary guy you are worshipping is actually a hateful monster and an example of a bad and tyrannical father, and you aren't even a very special child — you're a mediocre product of a wasteful and entirely impersonal process.
It makes that whole business of breaking the news about Santa Claus look like small potatoes. Reality is harsh, man.
But it is reality. We've done the paternity tests, we've traced back the genealogy, we're doing all kinds of in-depth testing of the human species. We are apes and the descendants of apes, who were the descendants of rat-like primates, who were children of reptiles, who were the spawn of amphibians, who were the terrestrial progeny of fish, who came from worms, who were assembled from single-celled microorganisms, who were the products of chemistry. Your daddy was a film of chemical slime on a Hadean rock, and he didn't care about you — he was only obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
You aren't you because of some grand design, but because of chance, contingency, and selection. Your genome is a mess of detritus with a tiny fraction of well-honed functionality, and your body is cobbled together from the framework of a tetrapod — you bear the scars of chance throughout, and you are mostly unaware of them because selection, that is the death of millions, has patched them over…but they're there to the eye that will look. You aren't even the best at much of anything: you're weaker, slower, more fragile, clumsier than the other species we compete with, and although you've got a bigger brain, the majority of Americans, at least, consider it a virtue to keep it ignorant and unused — and universally, we have difficulty thinking in the long term while we are very good at exploiting our environment in the short term, which is leading to some interesting and possibly fatal consequences.
The legacy of good husbandry, we are not. Our cosmic father did not and does not exist, which is a good thing, because if he did, he's the kind of lazy, destructive deadbeat we'd be ashamed of.
This is our new heresy. We have killed our heavenly father, demolished that cozy personal (but imaginary!) relationship with a great and caring being. We are alone, orphans in an indifferent universe. We atheists must be a cold and broken people, without hope, without love.
But of course, we're not, and I think this change in our vision of our relationship to the universe is humankind's great good hope. Primitive monotheistic religions have shackled us to a limited metaphor and model, the father and child, and erected an entire invisible heavenly mouthpiece to help us maintain that comfortable delusion — but it's like relying on the Great and Powerful Oz to help us out of our problems, when Oz is only a sham and a show. We have to escape out of this narrow perspective.
Reality doesn't just destroy the patriarchal model, it gives us new and better ways to visualize our relationship with the universe. Father and child is inadequate; we have to think in terms of populations and species interacting (not dominating), of being part of an environment. There is more to life than the father and child bond. I am the outcome of a trillion coalescing possibilities, with a vast population of brothers and sisters acting out our brief lives on a background of gas and stone, water and light, grasses and fishes, and my responsibilities are far greater than obedience to a father figure. Breaking that illusion of a personal tie to one grand elder lord can briefly leave us feeling abandoned and alone and lost, and I can understand how some people find severing that imaginary relationship a horrible prospect.
But here's the wonderful revelation. If you're a well-adjusted person, once you've discarded the unhealthy fictitious relationship with a phantasm, you can look around and notice all those other people who are likewise alone, and you'll realize that we're all alone together. And that means you aren't alone at all — you're among friends. That's the next step in human progress, is getting away from the notion of minions living under a trail boss, and onwards to working as a cooperative community, with no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act.
Comments
Posted by: randydudek
|
June 27, 2010 11:58 AM
Coincidentally, right as I started reading this, the dulcet tones of Diamond David Lee Roth came out my MP3 player, belting out "Iiiiiiiiiii ain't got noboooooody!"
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 27, 2010 12:07 PM
The model obviously isn't necessarily the most attractive.
What it does is it claims that to everything there is a purpose, and everyone in the God tribe has a purpose. The non-religious say that you're on your own, and you can either forge a purpose or you'll either be without or serving someone else's.
And worse, the non-religious says or implies "You're a dupe." No one likes that, especially if he fears that it's the truth.
Indeed, that's why there's a place for accommodationism, because certainly many people will never listen to those saying "You're a dupe."
Understandably, many actually do like that. But those who have spent decades telling "the Truth" aren't in the least happy to be told that they were only serving a figment of their imagination.
Often the response depends upon what one considers one's prospects, and what one will think of his legacy. Those of us who gave up religion early thought the prospects of not serving a figment were rather better than doing so.
Those asked to give up religion late are asked to admit that they led silly lives, and most of them will never ever do that.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 27, 2010 12:08 PM
I am Jesus' little lamb,
Bet your fucking ass I am.
The other point is he's all-wise and all-powerful. He knows everything and he can fix anything. A small child has a spill on her tricycle and the handlebars are all twisted. All powerful daddy fixes the handlebars just like new.
The Gulf Oil Spill is like that: "Oh heavenly daddy, we don't know how to stop the oil, fix it pretty please, amen." That's given with the expectation that heavenly daddy will wave his beard and poof, everything will be all better.
Posted by: burnett210
|
June 27, 2010 12:14 PM
We need to make a few comments on the following blog entry:
Atheist Billboards Stir Debate in Florida
Posted by: bionode
|
June 27, 2010 12:18 PM
That's the next step in human progress, is getting away from the notion of minions living under a trail boss, and onwards to working as a cooperative community, with no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act.
Well put!
Posted by: Candy
|
June 27, 2010 12:19 PM
Well said, PZ. I think this may be the best Sunday Sacrilege so far.
Posted by: Pluto Animus
|
June 27, 2010 12:20 PM
Myers has pinpointed yet another way that belief in a deity appeals to people psychologically. He points to the one subtle, implicit, paradoxical aspect of the relationship between believer and God: normally, one's father's father is one's grandfather; but in the case of God, the deity is both one's father's father, and one's own father. God is your father, and he was your great-great-great grandfather's father, too.
Slick!
Posted by: grosbeak57
|
June 27, 2010 12:22 PM
And to make the point even more clear, Chris Mooney has an editorial in the WaPo this morning, telling us that scientists need to listen to the concerns of the folks who don't live in the reality-based world. We're not communicating with them, according to Mooney.
Actually, scientists are doing their job, which is to gain knowledge about the natural world. Journalists, including Mooney, are failing in their job, which is to communicate. Blaming the scientists in this situation is pathetic buck-passing.
Posted by: cheirios
|
June 27, 2010 12:25 PM
It's also a powerful idea because it posits a set of very personal relationships.
I've heard people explain that their belief rests on a personal relationship. Implying that without access to that personal relationship, I have no grounds for criticism. Well, my disbelief is also based on personal relationships, but with real people. So whose relationships are more important?
Posted by: feralboy12
|
June 27, 2010 12:27 PM
We're all alone together.
Nice. I liken it to some kind of science fiction plot. We all woke up on this rock with no idea how we got here or what we're supposed to do. We can't trust our senses, danger lurks all about, and we need to work together, step by step, to figure out what happened.
It's not comforting, but it's an adventure. Also, it's really cool.
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 27, 2010 12:31 PM
I don't think this is true. We are the best long distance runners in the entire world.Can you imagine lions playing soccer? They would all be taking naps by the 30 minute mark.
Posted by: Givesgoodemail
|
June 27, 2010 12:38 PM
To quote Bob Heinlein:
Posted by: Sir Craig
|
June 27, 2010 12:45 PM
When religion started out as an attempt to reconcile so many physical unknowns with supernatural explanations based on the nomads' own limited experience, it became comforting to them because, as PZ mentions, deep down we require comfort and comforting. What PZ has left out (but I am sure he is all too aware of) is how religion, like any other means of societal bonding and interacting, has grown and become corrupted by those that wield the power, because as Dawkins described in The God Delusion, mankind, through evolutionary processes, has gone from merely trying to survive to succeeding to the detriment and expense of others. The old metaphors remain, but now instead of explaining they have become excuses and "facts".
In a funny way, PZ's article reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago in Mad magazine. The first panel started off with a kindly grandmotherly-type who begins selling pies from her house, and attracts quite a few customers. The next panel shows a slightly larger home with a nice sign, but still with the kindly old woman selling pies to larger groups of people. With each new frame of the comic the business grows and becomes more professional until, in the last frame, it has become a giant corporation, mass producing pies in a great smoking factory. The kindly old woman, now running things from an office, is looking out her window at the quaint little house next door to the factory, where another kindly grandmotherly-type is selling pies to a growing crowd.
This is a perfect metaphor for what has happened to religion: It started out small and personal, meeting an imaginary need, but it began to grow huge and impersonal. The larger it became, the harder it was to keep the "quality control". It had to rely more on threats to keep business growing. Today it still meets that imaginary need for many, but now there is an upstart drawing away some of the business. That upstart is atheism, and this scares the religious factory, and for good reason. With luck it will force religion to come to grips with reality and perhaps cause the religion factory to become shuttered once and for all.
We can hope, anyway.
Posted by: nastasie
|
June 27, 2010 12:48 PM
You just reminded me why I like Civilization and its Discontents so much. There's a lot of crazy to wade through in there, not gonna lie, but yeah, his contempt for the daddy thing and how it's "blatantly infantile" was what struck me the most.
And maybe only tangentially on topic, but Totem and Taboo, while also full of crazy Freudianisms, had its moments of awesome, such as likening mysticism to one big case of collective OCD.
Freud was one of my favourite 'atheist self-help' authors when I was growing up. I probably wouldn't enjoy it as much now, but it was amazing for a teenager with no internet and no 'New Atheists' to help out. /nostalgia
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 27, 2010 12:49 PM
But yea I agree one of the better sacrilege's. I think it points to the need of having a Saganesque message of unity with the Universe. "We are star stuff" is an awesome idea and is a story worth telling. As a bonus, the story is even true.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
June 27, 2010 12:51 PM
To add to cheirios @ #9:
I've always assumed that one of the main reasons religion never took with me is because I grew up with abusive parents.
The family metaphor doesn't work so well if you don't have any real-life positive examples of parental care and support to give weight to the idea(l).
Posted by: Enkidu
|
June 27, 2010 12:52 PM
My favorite bumper sticker:
Only sheep need a shepherd.
I ain't no sheep!
Posted by: Galactus35
|
June 27, 2010 12:52 PM
You know I never really noticed that before, the Bible is pretty much an informercial for sheep herding.
Posted by: carlosgdelvalle
|
June 27, 2010 12:55 PM
Thanks for this PZ, I needed something like this. Saludos desde Ciudad de Mexico!
Posted by: Andrew T
|
June 27, 2010 12:58 PM
Thanks PZ, I think this is some of your best writing.
Let's not forget also that Carl Sagan's proverbial candle in the dark can also provide much warmth and light.
Posted by: uchiha.chelo
|
June 27, 2010 1:06 PM
Great post, PZ. I'll be expecting another inspiring post like this next time the Trophy Wife™ is away for the weekend :D
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
June 27, 2010 1:15 PM
Amazingly written PZ.
I'm going to go ahead and recommend this to people who are still undecided and unable to separate themselves from religious hand waving.
I think your posts, and the commenters opinions have completely driven me over to the dark side, and happily so.
Thanks!
Posted by: kenbob48
|
June 27, 2010 1:18 PM
I think the model isn't shepard/sheep or father/son, it's 10 year-old boy/ant farm.
Posted by: Craig
|
June 27, 2010 1:20 PM
Beautifully writte PZ.
I love my life so much more as an atheist than I ever did as a theist. I appreciate it more, and it brings more joy and satisfaction. I feel a deeper connection to the rest of humanity and understand my own place in the universe better. It's really an amazing thing.
Posted by: Bill Brock
|
June 27, 2010 1:25 PM
Wonderful post! Please fix typo for posterity:
"One of it's most appealing aspects is that it makes the relationship with the universe a close and personal one, of a very simple kind of relatedness, that of father and child."
Posted by: hirise_hugger
|
June 27, 2010 1:29 PM
jcfitzner #24: Coming from the same background, I complete agree with your sentiments, as well as PZ's last sentence. I'm so glad I started reading this blog.
"No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the world as this good news of Atheism."
--Annie Wood Besant
Posted by: Swarm God
|
June 27, 2010 1:30 PM
"This is our new heresy."
Starting with that paragraph and going until the end, it was actually a rather poetic post. Great composition PZ
Posted by: Icarus
|
June 27, 2010 1:33 PM
As an individual, and as a species, abandoning superstitious myths is part of growing up - it means you're accepting responsibility for your own actions and your own future. That's what grown-ups do. Imagining that 'someone up there' (a parental figure) will fix our problems and make everything OK is childish thinking. Religious people need to grow up and accept responsibility.
Posted by: Dae
|
June 27, 2010 1:33 PM
I'm bookmarking this to show to my friends and family who are bewildered at my "rebellion" against the teachings I grew up with, and who think that the universe must necessarily be a cold, depressing, horrible place without a god.
Absolutely wonderful exposition.
I've also found myself much happier and appreciative of the world around me since I shed the last mental cobwebs of Christianity. (I clung to the idea that "well, there's a lot of utter tripe there, but JC wasn't so bad and I believe in him" for a couple of years in my late teens.) And somewhat ironically, the crux of that positive change was getting rid of the "I'M SPECIAL" mindset - once I stopped beating my chest and yelling for the world to recognize my special-ness (which of course it did not!), I had a lot more time and energy to devote toward things that were productive and enjoyable. =P
Posted by: SpeedOfLight
|
June 27, 2010 1:39 PM
Great article, PZ. I am new on the post but have been enjoying the intelligent discussions on the posts. I also love the dungeon area. Too funny.
One of the unfortunate parts of this issue is the lack of understanding of science by the masses. There seems to be a lack of knowledge by the general population about the the thought processes scientists use in building a Scientific Theory - not to mention the extreme scrutiny any theory receives as the theory evolves.
My conscious decision not to believe in a god or creator stems from education in science. Not from any wrong-doing by the "church" or being disgruntled because life has been unfair(be it an untimely death of a loved one or that I have never been chosen to win the lottery - haha). Educating myself about the natural world has opened my eyes to the truth - according to science. And because of understanding the scientific method, I know that even the great minds of history accept the possibility of being proven wrong on some point or another. Scientists put forth the best answers given their place in time and the overall development of whichever theory they choose to study and hopefully evolve into a better theory.
In my eyes, educating as many people to the basics of science and scientific theory is our only hope to show people the light - - - or that there is no "light".
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6
|
June 27, 2010 1:46 PM
@feralboy12 #10
So, life is like an unending Lost (sans the final episode where everyone just ends up in fucking heaven or whatever)? Many questions are answered in the process, though most only beg the question, but answers to the most intriguing ones--perhaps intriguing is too strong a word--are never found? Seems like a good match to your description. (-:
Oh yeah, PZ, beautiful post. Love the Sunday Sacrilege(s).
Posted by: Snoof
|
June 27, 2010 1:51 PM
I think it was Sagan who pointed out that the "Father" and "Shepherd" metaphors for God are actually incompatible, too. Think about it.
A shepherd cares for their sheep, but fundamentally there's an asymmetry in the relationship. The sheep are taken care of, but they're also shorn and eaten, all for the benefit of the shepherd. A shepherd may sympathize with his sheep, but he never once forgets who's in charge, and he certainly never considers letting the sheep decide what they want.
A father, however, raises his children, knowing that they will some day _replace_ him - he'll die, and they'll go on to become fathers (and mothers) themselves. The relationship isn't exploitative in the same way that a shepherd-flock relationship is - yes, there's a degree of "if I take care of my children now, they'll look after me in my old age", but the dynamic is fundamentally different. The father recognises a degree of equality and equivalence between him and his children, but no such thing exists between a shepherd and his flock.
Posted by: Dae
|
June 27, 2010 1:52 PM
grosbeak57 #8 said
A thought on that - generally speaking, I agree with you. Scientists should not have to sacrifice the rigor of living in reality to communicate to those who either do not, or aren't trained scientists.
However - I've learned a lot about communication since I got out my college bubble a year ago. Namely, that scientists aren't communicating nearly as well as we think we are. I've made some excellent friends who are generally openminded, inquisitive, and non-religious people, but found some serious (and honestly fascinating, in retrospect) communication issues when talking to them about science and religion. Most of these were resolved simply by listening to their definitions of terms that I'd taken for granted after spending four years in a scientist-saturated environment.
I realized that even though we were on the same side we started out speaking a different language.
I think we would do well to get down off the ivory tower to a certain degree and really listen to what people without a science education are saying. We can't communicate our ideas effectively if we don't fully understand their viewpoints, and their use of language. This by no means requires wrapping everything in an accomodationist package - that would be dishonest and counterproductive to our goals - but just remembering that not everyone who uses their brain on a daily basis has been formally trained to do so, and so language and expression can and will differ to an occasionally astonishing degree.
Posted by: donbutton
|
June 27, 2010 1:53 PM
I don't think this is just another post. PZ, this is a mini-masterpiece of brilliance; one of the best and most beautiful essays I've read on the subject, by anyone. It's wonderful that we have the chance to read something good on line, for free! If your upcoming book is this good, you'll have a huge success. Thanks!
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 27, 2010 1:59 PM
@Dae #33: I can't disagree with you, but I think the main point is that a journalist complaining that scientists aren't doing the job of a journalist very well.
The fact of the matter is that professional journalists aren't doing their job very well, so it is up to scientists. But it shouldn't have to be that way.
Posted by: Finch
|
June 27, 2010 1:59 PM
On a relatively related note, the other day I ended up staying up way too late discussing a similar topic with a friend of mine. Her argument as I saw it was that communities break down when people don't have strong religious leadership, and she provided anecdotal evidence for this. She also added a Christian corollary, which was basically that Christianity is better than the other religions.
My point was more of a question: why would religious faith in a group's leadership be necessary? It seems to me like it shouldn't be.
Does anyone know if there is any way to examine the differences between secular communities and religious communities based on their leadership? It seems like an interesting question, but it's way outside my area of expertise.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 2:01 PM
...about the Mooney piece mentioned earlier...
Chris' astounding conclusion?
Um, hate to break it to poor, deluded Mooneybaum, but as far as the divide between religion and science, that horse left the gate hundreds of years ago.
so, once again, Mooney's advice to patch the supposed religion/science divide is... worthless.
overall, his opinion completely ignores the role of the media in all the various examples of contentious debate mentioned, ESPECIALLY global warming.
so, once again missing the mark, Mooney does more actual harm than good in the area of improving communication.
All I can say, is it seems his heart is in the right place, even if he appears to have lost his friggin' mind.
Posted by: englishbobster
|
June 27, 2010 2:02 PM
Crivens! By chance (for reasons of England not doing very well in the World cup and kind of to enhance my melancholic funk) I was listening to Adagio for Strings when reading this piece...so well written PZ it was almost..dare I say it...a "religeous experience"...
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
June 27, 2010 2:05 PM
Dad? Is that you?!
Posted by: koyote_ken
|
June 27, 2010 2:07 PM
brilliant piece.
But witnessing the continual ignorance of our fellow "citizens", I find the long-term prospects for our species survival to be dim.
Posted by: fattirefinally
|
June 27, 2010 2:12 PM
"Alone Together"
Lyrics by Howard Dietz
Music by Arthur Schwartz
Alone together, beyond the crowd
Above the world
We're not too proud to cling together
We're strong as long as we're together
Alone together, the blinding rain
The starless nights were not in vain
For we're together
And what is there to fear together
Our love is as deep as the sea
Our love is as great as a love can be
And we can weather the great unknown
If we're alone together, together, together
Posted by: ereador
|
June 27, 2010 2:13 PM
Mr. PZ: Such a thought provoking post. Thank you.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
June 27, 2010 2:15 PM
Another aspect that makes this so intractable is that the worshipful do not really fear losing God, the sky daddy who will make them all better and take care of the bad stuff.
What they really fear is losing specialness. The idea that humans are somehow more special than everything else in the world, that somewhere out there someone has a plan for you personally that'll let you be the hero of the global story rather than just your own.
People hate losing this idea of specialness and it's why evolution is opposed with the most vehemency. Not because it threatens the importance of God, but because it threatens the importance of man. Suddenly man is just another animal, not specially designed to be better than everything.
Same with losing religion. Suddenly there isn't a sky daddy and you're not their little princess, you're just another human being and it's up to you to define your life and find your heroism and action.
And worse yet, one can no longer just be special. Just like a little kid can claim specialness entirely by defining themselves by their father ("I'm my daddy's little girl", "my father could beat up your father" for the boys), they have to earn specialness. Doing something, succeeding at a task, growing and evolving, standing up and making a target of yourself to fight a wrong. Actual, risky actions.
It's so much nicer to imagine a great big sky daddy that makes you extra special just by remaining close to him. One doesn't need to work against cultural norms or even think to hard and you can always know that you are special and important and thus that the world will work in your favor.
You can see this rather directly in how people treat their "God". Constantly demanding it to warp time and space in their favor, to make life in their tribal area easier or less fucked up. Inventing whole hierarchies of supernatural agents simply to protect "the chosen" or punish the less special (my guardian angel got my cat out of the tree, God sent that hurricane to kill people I hate). In the Rapture cult, you can see this extend to wanting God to kill everyone on Earth so that yours will be the last generation and thus be the one all of history was "building up to". And of course the "literalists" who show how all of these bad 1st century advice and rules totally apply only to this moment of time, this era of history and they are locked in a global struggle that's especially important.
The why of it is quite simple. We like being special. And more importantly, false "specialness" like this, helps conquer a bunch of human fears. The number one being the powerlessness of a chaotic universe. This is a random, uncaring universe, wholly amoral. But specialness says, no the randomness won't affect you. The bad stuff will stay away, because now you have power over something and thus you don't have to fear chance.
Embracing what is allows a healthy outlook, especially on the group level (prevents people from seizing this "comforting power" by dominating their fellow man) and allows one to see that it doesn't take much to become special if one is willing to work at it and prove yourself.
One can be a hero in the smallest of ways, positively connect with people through the tiniest of actions, and so forth.
Meaning of our own construction is far easier than we assume. We don't need the "daddy" figure to define ourselves.
Posted by: mxh
|
June 27, 2010 2:18 PM
Very nice. I am not very happy about the state of the world right now, but I am hopeful that with it being more and more difficult to be insulated in a world of make-believe, more people will see (and appreciate) the world for what it is.
Posted by: unreliablenarrator
|
June 27, 2010 2:21 PM
This post reminds me of one of those "inspirational" signs attached to a church that I drive past on the way home from work. Well, I guess it's supposed to be inspirational or comforting or something, but to me it just comes across as chiding/scolding and insufferably smug. 9 out of 10 of the things they put on it are appalling, even within the context of Christianity.
This week's message is "Without obedience, you can't have an intimate relationship with God". (Possibly it says "full obedience", or that could be an inference on my part. I think I may have mixed up the wording, because it's more clear on the sign that the obedience is to God - he's not supposed to be obedient to you.)
From what I know of the church's denomination, they probably would change "with God" to "with your spouse" (where the wife is to be obedient to the husband, naturally) and talk about how it's an analogous relationship during the preaching, and there's something fundamentally wrong with that message (the one that relationship intimacy only comes when one half is completely obedient to the other).
Anyway, PZ's post reminded me of that sign, and it's been making me grind my teeth with irritation all week.
Posted by: Sixohm
|
June 27, 2010 2:32 PM
To my (admittedly) oversimplified way of thinking, it's all a matter of a rational vs. an irrational mind (brain). The chances of a rational mind comprehending an irrational mind seems to me to be much greater than the converse. To the extent that is a fact, it's axiomatic that it's harder to think rationally than irrationally for the following reason. Increasingly since the enlightenment, rational thinking has required vertical education while irrational thinking has remained educationally horizontal. That is, you can't progress to organic chemistry until you've mastered Chem 101 whereas it doesn't matter in what order you learn the books or the Bible.
To whatever extent that is true, vertical education remains by-in-large a luxury that requires the resources in intellect and in time and money to acheive and with it a rational mind. For economic reasons alone, the number of people that have all three of these resources will always be more limited than the number of people that want to know where they fit into the universe. The challenge seems to me to be that the shear proportion of Americans that are being excluded from rationality is growing.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
June 27, 2010 2:36 PM
I am a slow reader and a slower writer sorry
PZ said in reference to Middle eastern religion, Abrahamic religion.
“One of it's most appealing aspects is that it makes the relationship with the universe a close and personal one, of a very simple kind of relatedness, that of father and child. It's one metaphorical generation, direct and immediate, and it colors everything about how we view our place in the world: dominant and submissive, leader and follower, wisdom and naivete, master and servant, command and obedience. “
and then “once you've discarded the unhealthy fictitious relationship with a phantasm, you can look around and notice all those other people who are likewise alone, and you'll realize that we're all alone together. And that means you aren't alone at all — you're among friends. That's the next step in human progress, is getting away from the notion of minions living under a trail boss, and onwards to working as a cooperative community, with no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act. “
I do not know what could be more could be more personal than being alive in such a Universe that the evidence suggests we find ourselves in? There is no evidence of immortality this is it!
I would be nice to live forever with god in heaven, I would not have to fear about living like a child does. I could take the focus off who I am, what do I want, who are the rest of these people, what should I do. I could just follow along with out having to reach out to others without revealing myself. I could answer Hamlet “No I think I will just wait until I die and not worry about this sea of troubles”
The West has fed on this fear for so long that it is no longer recognizes it as the fear of a child and resists facing it regardless of the consequences. One of the things that assist this resistance to “grow up“ and accept the only reality we have any real evidence of is the isolation of the individual. We are physically separated from each other by space. We are also separated emotionally and psychologically by culture, training and experience which is reinforced by our natural fear. (we are not bears we are small primates)
So here I am now, everyone and everything else the same, all an event in time,
The religionist will not give up the illusions so long cultivated with out something to replace it something that can be as comforting as religion can be, as belief can be. That something must be empowering it must foster identification with “Life the Universe And Everything” and overcome the isolation of the individual with community.
The reaction of the students illustrates very clearly what the problem is, without anything to fall back onto when faced with the ultimate annihilation of the myth with evidence they picked the myth. They knew what the expected answer was, at least generally. When they did not get the results they wanted they sought out someone who they thought could change the results. Which will have very little effect upon reality!
Everyone dies forever there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary!
If you want to understand what religion is I would start with the individual and his personal family experience.
Great Post!! I can see that you had a stimulating and inspiring time on your trip and would guess that the book is coming along well.
Uncle frogy
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 2:49 PM
This particular aspect of religion, the insistence on a personal relationship (in which the faithful is forever the child) has always reeked of desperation to me. This Sky Daddy Snake oil requires complete control, and if you try and shake it off, he'll get you after you're dead! It's devious, malevolent and unhealthy. Even so, people buy into it, because fear is always there.
Fear of staring into the universe and grasping the fact there is nothing between it and ourselves; fear of not just being alone, but having no buffer. Fear occupies the minds of too many people and the best way they have of dealing with it is to have a Father Figure who they must fear more than anything else. "If I don't focus on my Psychotic Sky Daddy, he'll be angry and punish me and the people at my church will know and oh, the shame and..."
Posted by: davecortesi
|
June 27, 2010 2:52 PM
Thank you, Snoof, for this:
I flashed on a memory of one of those saccharine pictures of Jesus with a baby lamb (like this but don't click if you're diabetic...) that they used in my Sunday School classes. Funnily enough, they never showed me one of Jesus eating rack of lamb with mint jelly, now did they?Posted by: emotionsickness
|
June 27, 2010 2:56 PM
Wonderful post.
The problem is that I'm not well-adjusted. Depression sucks and it makes me hate humanity. I find myself alone in this as an atheist--most atheists do not suffer depression.
I'm not depressed because I'm an atheist. I'm just a depressed atheist. Any other depressed atheists out there? It's hard for me to enjoy life.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 3:06 PM
emotionsickness:
Actually, that's not true. Atheists can and do suffer from clinical depression. This thread isn't the place to discuss it though. Come on over to the endless thread, where nothing is off topic.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 27, 2010 3:09 PM
Cerberus #43 wrote:
Which makes the common assertion that atheism is caused by human pride and arrogance particularly ironic. They can only support this from assuming that we are already inside their system: the universe has someone in control of it, someone at the center of it, and atheists want to dethrone God, and put themselves in charge. Atheists want to be at the top of the inbuilt moral hierarchy.
But of course we're not working on the assumption that the world is falling out according to a plan: there is no plan. There is no inbuilt moral hierarchy. We're not in charge of nature -- we're inside it, and with no more power to effect what happens, than it looks like we have. Reality is not a center stage for us to act out how humble we are, so that we may triumph in the end.
Theists go back and forth between contrary arguments, then. Atheism is arrogant and places Humanity at the center of everything: Atheism is depressing and makes us into nothing special.
I tell them to pick a horse and ride it. You can't have it both ways. We are not both inside your system, and outside it, depending on which version you think makes us look worse at the moment.
Posted by: tsig0
|
June 27, 2010 3:15 PM
"Posted by: Galactus35 Author Profile Page | June 27, 2010 12:52 PM
You know I never really noticed that before, the Bible is pretty much an informercial for sheep herding."
Bible college is where you learn to shear them.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
June 27, 2010 3:17 PM
If you want to mess with patriarchal religions, it would be fun to take DNA from the skeletons of the founders and clone them repeatedly, creating armies of cool, hedonistic versions of the old authorities.
The Mormon patriarchs would be a first step, but I want to be more ambitious.
We do not have the remains of Jesus or the (propbably mythical) Moses, but Muhammed is supposed to be buried in Mecca.
-After Hidjaz was annexed by Saudi Arabia in the 1920s, the Saudi religuous authorities removed Muhammed from his grave and put him in an anonymous one, because of the ban of idol worship. However, any 1400-year old skeleton should stand out among merely century-old skeletons without even using C14 dating (watch "Bones") so identifying the real Muhammed should in theory be doable.
Personally, I think a rock and roll-playing Muhammed clone on a Harley would be cool, but the fundamentalists would have a collective stroke!
Another version of the same idea is to sabotage the Hitler cult among neo-Nazis by cloning him from the few fragments that remain (the jaw preserved is probably not Hitler's, but his skeleton may remain buried in the yard of the former NKVD HQ in Berlin).
Nazis are freaked out by homosexuality as much as by Jews, so by altering the hormone mixture in the uterus you could get an army of flaming queen Hitlers and explode the nazis' brains!
Posted by: vinnie
|
June 27, 2010 3:19 PM
Oh, Sastra. You damned secularistic socialists. How do you dare relieve Christian goalpost-movers of their jobs! You kimyoonizts are truly the leading cause of unemployment in America.
Posted by: Danu
|
June 27, 2010 3:19 PM
@Chgo_Liz #16 -interesting point re abusive parents. Very thought-provoking. I was raised in a very religious family but it never 'took', and it was an abusive family too ... hmmmm...
@emotionsickness #50 - I struggle with depression too, a legacy of the above abusive upbringing I believe. Nothing to do with my beliefs or lack thereof.
@ PZ - that was the most amazing post. And your writing is so elegant and almost poetic. I love reading your posts twice: once for the content and once for the style. Style AND substance - could it be any better!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6
|
June 27, 2010 3:22 PM
@50
"I'm just a depressed atheist. Any other depressed atheists out there?"
Yes. I get more depressed when I read the techotopian fantasies of other non-believers. I don't think those are any better than the "God will take me to heaven" fantasies of the believers. It's been almost exactly five years since I first heard the term "peak oil" and started reading about the subject. What a shocker that was, and a wake up call. It's axiomatic in retrospect.
It's not fun when you learn in your mid-30's that the life you've known is predicated on the abundance of cheap energy, and that that energy is finite and the cheap stuff is almost gone. It's not about how much is in the ground ("proven reserves" and the "vast" swaths of oil yet to be discovered, as the cornucopians like to harp on), it's how fast we can get it out of the ground.
And even if the earth does have a creamy nougat center of vast oil reserves, what about the fucking climate change?
Depressed, indeed.
David Price wrote in his piece Energy and Human Evolution, "humans, having evolved long after the resource base on which they now rely, are effectively an introduced species on their own planet."
I'm just glad I don't have kids. There is some comfort in that.
Posted by: E.V.
|
June 27, 2010 3:24 PM
#50
Trust me - you're not alone and yes I too suffered from severe depression before I ever rejected xianity and all other forms of religion as credible views of reality. The fact that so many intelligent people still believe in what is obviously a human construct does exacerbate my periodic dysphoria.
Since I'm med resistant and have gone through most types of therapies, I resigned myself to make do medless as best I can knowing it's not a question of if but, eventually,when.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkAT3c8UypvgheCXz_5xymFavCRjJGUxps
|
June 27, 2010 3:40 PM
Well I went and left a comment at the blog entry you linked to burnett210 (#4) - Anon 6:54 AM.
I also suffer from severe depression emotionsickness, partial due to being in chronic pain - it is hard to deal with. However, my partner is very supportive of me (and also an atheist)and keeps me going.
My bright spots of the day are reading Pharyngula and other skeptical fora. Hope you feel better soon emotion, but you aren't alone out there *zen hugs*
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 27, 2010 3:41 PM
chgo_liz #16 wrote:
I think it can also work the other way, however: people who never had the wonderful family life they always wanted are drawn to supernatural views (and churches) which finally provide them with the ideal they seek.
There's an apologetic floating around claiming that atheism is caused by having a bad or absent relationship with one's father. You reject the Father God, because you reject your own. A particularly ghastly book titled Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism by a Paul Vitz was making the rounds a few years ago, cherry-picking and subjective-confirming its way through history to show that alienation from God is the result of absent or defective fathers. The atheists ripped it apart on its methods and data: the faithful lapped it up.
PZ, with his obvious love for, and admiration of, his father, would doubtless be used for some contorted rationalization of how "the exception just goes to prove the rule." Or, maybe, they'd trot out some minor complaint he makes about his dad, and call it indicative of what's really going on. People who believe in God, however, get handled differently. If you hated your father, it will turn out there was some sort of "father figure" in your life, whom you did admire -- so that doesn't count.
Posted by: KG
|
June 27, 2010 3:48 PM
Excellent post, PZ, particularly:
Thanks - that's one to keep.
One quibble: I agree with eeanm that:
is just wrong. Human beings can train themselves to do a vast range of things with their bodies that no other species can do - as well as having extremely fine motor control, being able to throw accurately, and being (if fit and in practise) very good long-distance runners. Our cognitive activities are not located wholly in our brains - the properties of the rest of the human body were and are also important in making us the creative niche-constructors we are.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
June 27, 2010 3:56 PM
This reminded me of a comeback I heard once to the "atheism is a religion!!1!" canard. The guy replied "It's not a religion, it's a personal relationship with reality".Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 27, 2010 3:57 PM
::makes note::Posted by: KingUber
|
June 27, 2010 3:58 PM
That sounds like Communism to me, you dirty Commie!
(Or at least, that's what a Republican would say if he read this)
Posted by: KG
|
June 27, 2010 4:09 PM
- Birger JohanssonA large portion of the embalmed body of St. Mark is alleged to be preserved in Venice. It was stolen from Alexandria in 828, minus the head, which was moved around frequently and has been AWOL for 250 years (and a small bit of bone has been returned to Alexandria). However, Andrew Chugg has suggested that it is not the body of "St Mark" at all (assuming for a moment there was such a person), but that of Alexander "the Great". The latter was entombed in Alexandria by his general, friend, and probable half-brother Ptolemy, and his body is known to have remained in good condition for centuries - so it could be the identity was switched to preserve the tourist trade when it became unwise to exhibit the body as Alexander's. I haven't read the book, and I do know the idea is widely rejected, but it would be most amusing if true: generations of pious Christians, worshipping the relics of a man who proclaimed himself a god long before that Nazarene upstart!
Posted by: KG
|
June 27, 2010 4:16 PM
- Forbidden Snowflake:D :D :D
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 27, 2010 4:28 PM
Aside from being misogynistic and patriarchal, the Judeo-Christian deity is also a bloodthirsty monster.
Posted by: maarten.jan
|
June 27, 2010 4:37 PM
Another part of the metafor is always conveniently left out by believers; usually the goal is to overthrow the patriach in order to become the father yourself. And that is exactly what atheists did. We came to the realisation that "the father" must be terribly incompetent, or simply not there. We broke free. We grew up.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
June 27, 2010 5:01 PM
This is what I read Pharyngula for. Amazing post, PZ.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys
|
June 27, 2010 5:07 PM
Great post PZ.
At the risk of invoking scorn for evolutionary psychology used without evidence, I'd hypothesise that the god/minion relationship goes back further still into our evolutionary past.
Not just 'god the father', or the (relatively recent) nomadic 'god the shepherd', but the even earlier 'god the troop leader'.
For a heavily socialised species like ours, organised into troops/clans/tribes for a big slice of our evolutionary history, the 'troop leader' would have been the focus of strong emotional relationships.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 5:11 PM
Forbidden Snowflake:
Win. +10
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
June 27, 2010 5:14 PM
"Aside from being misogynistic and patriarchal, the Judeo-Christian deity is also a bloodthirsty monster."
That's right, jcmartz. In light of which I recommend for the forty-leventh time God: A Biography by Jack Miles.
A look at the personality of the deity in question as it is described from Genesis through Job. The first thing one notices is the astounding changes said deity goes through. Much fodder for late night cud-chewing.
@PZ: Every now and then I read something that goes beyond merely confirming or challenging my ideas and assumptions. Every now and then some series of words becomes alive and recognizable, familiar . . . similar. At such moments it seems I've met myself returning even as I am in the act of just now leaving. Like hearing an echo before I've called out. An unexpected and memorable treasure. Thank you.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 27, 2010 5:24 PM
Don't forget the concept of God, the Mother.
I don't mean Goddess worship. I'm referring to the fact that every human and proto-human had a brain which developed while under the constant scrutiny and care of an all-knowing, constantly watching Mother who manipulated the environment in order to fulfill needs, make things safe, punish, scold, reward, teach, and so on. Self, and Other, began as one big undifferentiated mush. Mommy knows all your thoughts.
Just when kids begin to figure out that no, Mommy does not really know all their thoughts, they are presented with an invisible God who DOES know all their thoughts, just the way they always thought Mommy did. I suspect it's such a familiar belief, it's accepted without critical scrutiny, and then turns into something that feels like you always knew it was true.
I can't otherwise account for their apparent confusion when meeting up with someone who doesn't think there's some big disembodied invisible Mind reading all their thoughts. They think it must feel really weird, to not have this sense that Someone Else can get directly into your head, and knows everything you feel and think. I vaguely remember assuming Mommy did this, though. Back when I was about 3 or so.
Posted by: gearloose
|
June 27, 2010 5:35 PM
Re 17
Only sheep need a shepherd (or a dog).
Posted by: Aegis Linnear
|
June 27, 2010 5:47 PM
I always figured the weirdest thing about the parable of sheep and goats was that it wasn't the other way around. Sheep were portrayed as the virtuous animal who would ascend to heaven, figuratively speaking, while goats were the poor doomed foolish creatures who had no use to God.
But sheep are stupid animals, and have to be driven. And goats are intelligent, and need to be led.
Posted by: theshortearedowl
|
June 27, 2010 5:47 PM
Why is misogyny only evil if you're a woman?
Posted by: theshortearedowl
|
June 27, 2010 5:50 PM
Terry Pratchett FTWPosted by: george.wiman
|
June 27, 2010 6:24 PM
I hope you will include this piece in your upcoming book.
Posted by: CW
|
June 27, 2010 6:26 PM
For the same reason that slavery was only evil if you were African.Posted by: SpriteSuzi
|
June 27, 2010 6:44 PM
PZ: Great post. Thank you!
Cerberus #43 & Sastra #52: OM-class writing there. Thank you both.
Forbidden Snowflake: I think you've just created a new meme for the new atheists. Thank you, too!
Posted by: Dae
|
June 27, 2010 7:03 PM
Sastra #73,
Your post made me think about why I ever bought into the god idea. (Raised Methodist, decided that the bigotry was misguided BS by the time I was old enough to ask if my Indian friend was going to Heaven, called myself a Christian up until about halfway through my freshman year of college.)
In my teens, I used to pray (at night) because it helped me set aside things I was worrying about enough to sleep. It was like the "all-knowing Mommy" effect you described; I saw myself as handing them off for someone else to carry for a few hours.
It seemed like it worked most of the time - because the problems I could let go of were ones I'd already mulled over and gotten to a point I could deal with. The ones that I hadn't resolved on my own stuck with me until I decided on a course of action to resolve them. Realizing this, I started to feel sillier and sillier going through the extra step of asking someone who had never done anything at all for me to help me deal with them.
That wasn't the final nail the coffin of the mindset, but damn, it helped. And it was exceptionally empowering to realize that the successful resolutions to the kind of situations I prayed about were my own doing, my own accomplishment, and not the fickle blessing of some dubiously benevolent celestial autocrat.
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
June 27, 2010 7:11 PM
We shouldn't forget the rather important difference between a father and a shepherd. A father (at least any decent one) wants the child to grow up to be their own person, to move out into the world and make their own way and go on to great things. A shepherd wants the sheep to grow fat and ready to be lead to the abattoir, to be eaten for his profit. The latter is a very good metaphor for both actual organised religions and for the god they purport is worthy of worship; apparently he wants to fatten up your soul in order to profit from it in some future settling of scores with this other god.
Posted by: silaren
|
June 27, 2010 7:18 PM
The bible ... it's a cookbook!(insert Twilight Zone closing theme here)
Posted by: atheistclimber
|
June 27, 2010 7:35 PM
Well said sir, and bravo. I like it when your blog pieces are longer and more substantial!
PS Coincidentally lamb is one of my favourite foods
Posted by: Cepmk
|
June 27, 2010 7:37 PM
Thanks for the sermon Vicar! Peace be with you,
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
June 27, 2010 7:49 PM
Very, very well said PZ.
Posted by: Urmensch
|
June 27, 2010 8:07 PM
A very enjoyable Sunday sacrilege. Especially nice for me as I came to my atheism through the study of mythology.
On that point of the pastoral imagery, one way I've tried to give a jolt of reality to people enamoured by the Christian church is to point out that while superficially the shepherd seems to care for the sheep, his ultimate raison d'etre is to manage a resource. He only keeps other predators at bay and protects the flock in order to exploit the sheep himself.
Posted by: dj357
|
June 27, 2010 8:16 PM
This is why we love you PZ. This is the kind of stuff that people were wowed by from Sagan. It's so fantastically wonderful to be together in our loneliness!
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
June 27, 2010 8:49 PM
@ 57,
@50
There's a bunch of us over at www.theoildrum.com
There's even a few atheistic biologist over there and xians too... A lot of us are in our mid fifties and we even have kids!
We have are good days and our bad days...
Posted by: Nick
|
June 27, 2010 8:55 PM
One of the things that is often touted as being a benefit to religous believers is the comfort they get from their beliefs.
This might be the case for some, but I have recently witnessed at close hand an example that contradicts this. A friend of mine, following several traumas in his life, decided that adopting a religous belief would fill a hole he had felt for some time. For various reasons he decided to become Jewish. At the time I was astounded, as he is an intelligent man with a background in science.
Two years on from his conversion, he is back in the same place emotionally that he was before his conversion. Possibly a worse place, as his 'faith' has not helped him, and now he doesn't know where to look for help.
His case is unique, clearly, and it applies to his experience alone. But I wonder how many people ascribe a feeling of comfort bought on by belief that they would have even without belief, but that they would simply ascribe to other factors. Maybe our ability to deal with, or not, the tribulations of life, is based on something other than simply 'belief', and people just tag that 'belief' as the coping mechanism.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 27, 2010 9:22 PM
Nick #90 wrote:
Quite a few, I suspect. It's very common, for instance, for people to insist that they would never, ever have been able to get through a tragedy without their faith. And yet, you hear similar claims involving all sorts of support. "I would never have been able to cope with this if it wasn't for my sisters" or "no way I could have handled the stress if I hadn't been able to throw myself into my work." Would people then say that those without sisters, or who aren't in a position to throw themselves into their work, must perforce fall apart, and crumble into pieces as they're led away to the asylum in little paper bags?
We often assess what we needed, after the fact.
I had a friend who had been deeply religious, and came from a fundamentalist born-again background. When her grandmother was brutally tortured and murdered by some teenagers who broke into her house looking for money, she was the only one in her family who was able to make the arrangements for the funeral, deal with the reporters, handle the issues with the police and trial, etc. The others, she said, were too shocked, and could not get over the fact that God had let this happen to a woman who was such a devout Christian. This was the hardest part for them -- that God had withdrawn His protection. What did it mean? What was He trying to say? What could they do, to get right with God again, and understand how much He loved them? How was this fitting into His plan for them? It was important that they work this out.
As an atheist, my friend felt this was a non-issue. She said she -- and her agnostic brother -- were less broken, and better able to handle the tasks that needed to be done, than the family who had kept warning them about their eventually need for God's "support" in their times of trouble.
Posted by: lpetrich
|
June 27, 2010 9:22 PM
PZ Myers's analysis doesn't take into account pagan polytheist religions very well. Such religions are much older than the Abrahamic religions, so we should look at them to get an idea of what humanity's earliest religions are like. They feature several deities that come in both sexes, unlike the Abrahamic single male god, which is a biological absurdity.
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 27, 2010 9:26 PM
Alrighty, then! If it's easily dispensed & readily digested that "atheism is a personal relationship with reality," let the Atheiest Agenda(TM) be for all of us to become better understanding of and to have a deeper, more meaningful relationship with reality. And by extension with each other.
Posted by: Urmensch
|
June 27, 2010 9:45 PM
@#92
A study of the pagan religions of the region shines a light on some of the obsessions of Judaism that later became part of Christianity and Islam.
As how the acts described as abominations by the Jews were sacred to the gods of the neighbouring tribes. That and also the various animals that came to be seen as unclean.
Part of the evolution of Judaism was its separation and contrasting of itself with its neighbours and their rituals.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 27, 2010 9:53 PM
lpetrich Author Profile Page #92
Perhaps you missed PZ's opening sentence in his second paragraph.
PZ was not making a general, sweeping statement about religious people throughout the world, he was talking about religious people in the West. The majority of these people are Christians of various flavors. The next largest group are Jews. Polytheistic influences on Christians and Jews is slight compared to the Abrahamistic influence.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6
|
June 27, 2010 9:53 PM
@89: "There's a bunch of us over at www.theoildrum.com"
Yep, I'm there too.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 27, 2010 9:58 PM
Not only that, who does he propose those experts to be? Him?
I still think this fucker wants to be *the* spokesman for science and atheism. He wants to be the media's go-to dude when they need a science proponent/atheist for TV spots and magazine interviews and national speaking tours.
But right in the middle of Looney getting hopped up on the framing religion while running a blog that relied on riling atheists for hit counts, here comes Dawkins to steal his thunder with TGD, everyone's interviewing him, asking him to speak instead of Looney. But that wasn't all. No, Dawkins hangs out with PZ Myers, the most prominent science & atheism blogger rather than MEEEEEEEE! Wah! He got PZ mentioned in The New York Tomes! OMG! NO! Meeeeeee! It's supposed to be meeeee! Well, I'll show you! Mommeeeeeeeee!
This is what Looney has been about for years now. When he was being feted for writing Republican War on Science (and rightfully), he wasn't such a pain in the ass. I don't know what happened to the shit stain, but he's been unbearable for years now.
Your daddy was a film of chemical slime on a Hadean rock, and he didn't care about you — he was only obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
Why would you dig up the douchebag to determine that?
Oh.
You meant rhetorically, not my particular sperm donor. Carry on.
Posted by: florakinz
|
June 27, 2010 10:10 PM
Hey, Sir Craig, in #13,
In The God Delusion, Dawkins also goes into extensive detail about how the use of language like 'mankind' insultingly leaves out half the human race. As a linguist, I an assure you that there is significant research showing that sexist language affects people's views, starting in childhood. :) Also, I have found small-scale home-grown religion to be just as damaging as corporate religion.
Posted by: florakinz
|
June 27, 2010 10:13 PM
chgo_liz @ #16 -- I think you're definitely onto something there. My partner's mother was a sociopath who was abusive beyond what most people would believe possible, and he was an atheist by age 10, when his Dad died.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 27, 2010 10:16 PM
lpetrich:
If you know anything about the Abrahamic single male god, you'd know that he didn't start out as a single god, he was one of many, and he was "married" as well. As the patriarchy began to take over, these details were quickly dropped.
Posted by: florakinz
|
June 27, 2010 10:31 PM
emotionsickness -- you're not alone. I've been dealing with clinical depression all my adult life, and have been an atheist since about age 15. Becoming an atheist really helped with my anxiety, though, since it eliminated the mental torture of religiously inflicted cognitive dissonance.
One of the things that bothers me the most is that when I was in a severely abusive relationship and a long period of untreated depression caused me to have periods of more severe mental illness, my desperation and reduction in cognitive function/rational thinking led me to be much more susceptible to supernatural claims.
While I recognize that many people are proponents of woo because they are desperate and delusional, I still really resent those who prey on the desperate/weakened minds. I came to understand how those mechanisms worked when I was trapped for a period in a desperate living situation. (I was in physical danger, had to spend months squirreling away resources to make a clean getaway, etc, all the while being weakened by daily mental battery.)
I have to say, it was Sagan's Candle in the Dark that I credit as a major turning point and aid in clawing my way back to sanity. Access to rational argument really is an excellent treatment, and if you find yourself unable to think rationally, medication may help. It does for me.
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 27, 2010 10:55 PM
The book's full title is The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark (ISBN 0-394-53512-X). Although its dedication says, "I wish you a world free of demons and full of light," the very demons Sagan warned us of are very much with us still. Verifiable knowledge and rational inquiry are the only lances with which we might slay those dragons.
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
June 27, 2010 11:07 PM
I find being an Atheist completely freeing. I am so content in my knowledge that there is no weird supernatural crap out in the universe. There is enough real stuff to worry about. And I was adopted at age 4 and was "fatherless" for my formative years and did not have a great relationship with my adoptive father. As an adult, I do not miss having a "father." What I have to say to those religious people who need the imaginary brute father is GROW UP!
Posted by: raven
|
June 27, 2010 11:24 PM
True. God used to be married. His wife's name was Asherah. There used to be lots of other gods and goddesses. In one psalm Yahweh tried to fire them. There is no record that he actally succeeded.
Traces of the old polytheism can still be found in the bible. Even the commandment about not worshipping other gods implies that there are other gods.
Anyone actually reading the bible without preconceptions soon comes to see it as an ongoing continually edited and rewritten work of fiction.
Posted by: Icaria
|
June 27, 2010 11:41 PM
Only thing missing was an elaboration upon the relationship between religion and cults of personality, although that's perhaps outside the scope of this SS entry. Still, it would have been awesome if you could've explained away the attraction to religion and Chopra, in the same post.
Posted by: dezcrawford
|
June 27, 2010 11:50 PM
Best sermon I've ever heard.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
June 28, 2010 12:02 AM
Whenever I hear about someone talking about the virtues of faith, I remember the good old days [late 60s] and the Great Cultural Revolution in China. They had so much faith in a certain little red book, Quotations from Chairman Mao, way back then.
And count me among those with depression. For a long time I had a weak version of Christian belief. Sang in the choir: I liked the challenge of the music more than anything; was interested in adult sunday school and even taught a few classes. Yes, really digging into the historical context is a faith killer. Often wished that I had a stronger faith, but failed when I thought about the subject - it seemed so irrational and I refused to go that way. I can see why reason and faith are enemies. And was depressed. In the years since I've lost any faith, I'm still depressed. Get therapy, get exercise and get on meds [SNRIs work better than SSRIs, IMHO].
Posted by: Justin Rosario
|
June 28, 2010 12:18 AM
I usually don't have to deal with this kind of nonsense. Those acquaintances and relatives of mine that are religious have been made very aware of my utter non-belief. At the same time they've also become very VERY aware of my aggressive liberalism and, after witnessing several savage verbal beatings of right wingers at my hands, have opted for the better part of valor.
No one tries to tell me or my kids about God anymore. And that's just the way I like it. We'll make our own path, thank you very much.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/wmdkitty#83021
|
June 28, 2010 12:26 AM
PZ, this is quite possibly the most beautiful bit of sacrilege I've ever had the pleasure to read.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
June 28, 2010 12:36 AM
Sastra @ #60:
Sounds a lot like the psychics who do cold readings. "There's someone important in your life with a name that starts with an 'M'...no, not an 'M,' a 'J,' no, wait, an 'A,' yes, I see it now..."
Everyone has a "father figure" somewhere in their childhood to make the
scamexplanation you describe seem believable.KWIM?
Posted by: melior
|
June 28, 2010 1:45 AM
A real live father can untwist your tricycle handlebars, but even more importantly he can guard and protect you from all of the scary threats out in the world and comfort your fears through the scary noises in the dark of night. Until you come to the scariest fear of all: Death. Real Dad can't help you with that one.
In exactly the same way that lonely kids often play "let's pretend" to create an imaginary friend, the lonely and fearful play "let's pretend" to create an imaginary paternal deity to project over their fear of mortality and inevitability.
Posted by: Dave Fischer
|
June 28, 2010 1:53 AM
I have now used the phrase "Atheism is not a religion, its a personal relationship with reality" in an email to good friend, who wrote back, "I cannot argue with that".
So I have added it to my signature for the Meetup group of the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix.
Posted by: singemonkey
|
June 28, 2010 3:12 AM
Thanks PZ. Definitely among the most eloquent appeals for atheism written in the last few years.
Posted by: Redhill
|
June 28, 2010 3:45 AM
Great sermon PZ.
Interesting to read you tending to the poetic - the traditional territory of the prophet, the mystic, and the fabricator of legends and religions.
With all due respect to your day job, I think the atheist cause has enough biologists but far too few poets.
Atheists too often are trapped by monotheism's limited metaphorical range and define themselves by what they oppose rather than by what they propose.
Some interesting resonances in your sermon though with aspects of Buddhist thought on "the better way of living alone" and on seeing ourselves as "nothing special".
Cerberus @ 43 above has a great post on how we humans trap ourselves in delusion through our longing to be special.
Posted by: Redhill
|
June 28, 2010 4:10 AM
On depression and atheism:
I like to recall that one of the early adopters of what we might call atheism and skepticism saw his views as a consolation.
Some words from Epicurus (341-270 BCE):
Nothing to fear in God.
Nothing to feel in death.
Good can be attained.
Evil can be endured.
or
God is not worth fearing.
Death is not worth a worry.
But good can be attained,
And evil endured.
Posted by: DLC
|
June 28, 2010 7:12 AM
Verily I say unto thee there is no god and Mohamed was not a prophet. Yeshua ben Joseph was nothing more than one of many Hebrew messiah figures, and none of his so-called miracles cannot be duplicated by any competent illusionist. I'm sorry, but there it is. There is no Yahweh, Satan, Zeus, Thor, Zoroaster or Flying Spaghetti Monster. There was not one last week and will not be one next week. Sometimes I wish there was. But there just isn't, my desire for wish-fulfillment not withstanding.
Unfortunately, when we die we do not respawn. If we did, I'd hope that my player would roll Tauren next time around instead of human. But remember! this is no cause for despair! exult in the knowledge that alone and without-deity we may be, but the universe is ours to explore and discover! Seek knowledge, knowing that you won't find it all out, but the journey itself is worth it.
Best Wishes.
Posted by: The Great And Powerful Oz
|
June 28, 2010 8:20 AM
Oi! I am not a sham :-(
That dude behind the curtain, however...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 28, 2010 8:25 AM
so good
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 9:53 AM
Hmm.
A problem I tend to see is that atheists sure do have some strange ideas about theism. I mean, for the most part, it's like they assume that everyone believes in the Christian God and Jesus. Rarely, an atheist on the attack will extend the scope of the discussion to Judaism and Islam. Rarely beyond that.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fundamentalist, seeking to infiltrate the government with a Dominionist agenda, seeking to push my faith into the public schools, etc. I stand against all forms of abridging the wall of separation.
But it would be wise to remember the words of a teacher I one had. "Nobody joins a false religion to worship a false god."
Who would? Would you? I'll bet not. What a waste of time that would be.
You have to remember that theists, like me for example, are believers. And people do not control what they believe. They cannot simply STOP believing in something (or START believing in something, for that matter). You have to convince them. They have to see enough evidence to cause their beliefs to change.
Of course, you don't convince very many people through personal attacks. And, as the author notes, when your arguments consist of what you call "harsh reality" (a term I find ironic), you're already up against a cold welcome.
So you should work tirelessly to make your own beliefs more accessible. Oh, wait a minute, did I refer to your position as "beliefs"? Yes, I did. As subjective beings, objective knowledge - true "knowledge" - may be beyond us entirely. Think of it as... mmm... the Matrix Dilemma. It is entirely possible that NONE of what you think is real is real. We rely on senses that interpret a universe that we can only perceive as being separate from us. It limits us, and if we want to be honest, we need to remember this. What you think is "harsh reality" may not be the reality of the situation at all.
And that takes me to the last stop on this route. Experiential evidence. Many believers, like myself, have experiences that simply cannot be explained by science. Not at present, and maybe, not ever. These experiences can include a component that connects us intimately and completely with what we experience - as close as one is ever likely to get from being free of the Matrix Dilemma.
It seems foolish, to those of us who understand this, that those who have not had such an experience think that it can be easily dismissed and must be irrelevant.
I'm not saying that one can prove that god(s) exist. Not at all. But this silly antagonism has to stop - from both sides of the divide. It speaks to arrogance and a failure to realize just how far from even being capable of understanding the answer we are.
Drophammer
p.s. For those who fail to understand the thrust of my response, please consider that...
...I do not dispute evolution
...I do not dispute the age of the universe at 13 billion years or so
...I do not believe the earth was created 6000 years ago
...I do not want to come to your house and regale you with why you need to submit to [insert god here]
If you must attack me, then at least don't attack me on those lines.
Posted by: steve
|
June 28, 2010 9:58 AM
With a magnifying glass.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 28, 2010 10:35 AM
@ Drophammer...
1. The reason the Abrahamaic religions get the most space here is that they continue to be the dominant religions on the planet, comprising about 2/3rds of all "believers".
2. However, if you would bother to read some of the archives, you'll see that those here (in concert with many others) do not believe in Zeus, Ea, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, Brahma, or any other god you care to mention.
3. Atheist = NO god. Even yours.
4. Argument from personal experience is a logical fallacy and proof of nothing other than your credulity.
The PROBLEM with your experience is that, though it might seem "real" to you, it is nothing more than a quirk of your imagination.
If there were "one true" religion (like all religions claim), then why would believers of all stripes claim similar personal experiences? Why do Hare Krishnas offer the same argument as Catholics as Mormons as 7th Day Adventists as Scientologists as the Heaven's Gateists? The EXPERIENCE may be "real" as far as that goes (a psychological projection), but your attribution of some supernatural source to it is most definitely not.
Yes, we get a lot of that logical fallacy around here. It's the stick that William Lame Craig and other Christian apologists beat us with constantly. They would rather believe in their fairy stories than understand and accept the truth precisely BECAUSE they claim a "personal experience". And will reject all reasoned arguments and 100% of the evidence against their position on that account.
In short, your post offers a fairly conventional theistic viewpoint, despite your apparent belief in a non-Abrahamaic god. And it's demonstrably wrong.
Posted by: gr8hands
|
June 28, 2010 10:38 AM
Drophammer, I believe that the "personal attack" of having someone you respect laugh at your theistic beliefs will be the 'straw that broke the camel's back' of your theism. But only after some unknown time having had all kinds of explanations, evidence, etc. to wear down the walls of your theism.
This is observed in nature all the time -- think sperm and egg.
So, no, you do not have any experiences that cannot be explained by science. Science understands delusions rather well. Science understands hallucinations, dreams/nightmares, and all manner of personal experiences that seem real and unexplainable -- but only to you.
In fact, with just a little honest searching, you'd be able to discover that LOTS of people have probably experienced the same thing as you, and that science researchers have a category and name for it. That's because for all our differences, we're pretty similar from a biology standpoint. We only like to believe we're incredibly unique and special.
Even people who "feel" colors, or "see" numbers, turn out to have an explanable physical condition. Extremely rare, but non-mystical.
I'm certain that your "experiences" will also be of that variety. Completely explained by non-mystical, non-religious science.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
June 28, 2010 10:40 AM
This post is beautiful, and it reminds me of one of my favorite songs, The Atheist Christmas Carol, by Vienna Teng. Technically a winter song, and you can tell, but it's been a comfort to me lately. Sample lyrics:
It's the season of scars and of wounds in the heart
Of feeling the full weight of our burdens
It's the season of bowing our heads in the wind
And knowing we are not alone in fear
Not alone in the dark
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
June 28, 2010 10:44 AM
Oh, and the video is just a picture slideshow, by the way. No reason to actually watch it :)
Posted by: gr8hands
|
June 28, 2010 10:54 AM
Drophammer, for instance, I find lots of 4-leaf clovers. I mean lots of them. All the time. Almost every time I go outside. (I even gave the interviewer at my current job a 5-leaf clover as a demonstration of my ability to research and work with data.)
No, I'm not walking staring down the whole time. I just look down, see one (or more) and pick them up. Frequently while commenting to someone I'm walking with about how I'm the luckiest person alive, and 'proving' it by reaching down to pluck up a 4-leaf clover to hand them (I usually give them away, but have a collection of pressed books with dozens of them).
Am I psychic? Nope. Many people have claimed it had to be psychic powers, that I'm 'drawn' to the 4-leaf clovers, or 'sensivite' to them. Wrong.
It's just that there is a quirk in my visual processing system that allows me to see the tiny variation in the normal triangular shapes of 3-leaf clovers with the rectangular shape of 4-leaf clovers. Also, my subconscious recalls where I've ever seen them in the past, and notes the pattern of what areas are more likely to have 4-leaf clovers. It isn't foolproof, but over time it has been refined. I've also tended to alter my daily walks to those routes which will bring me in contact with areas more likely to have 4-leaf clovers.
This particular attention to detail is much like a copy-editor being able to see incorrect spelling, or Hanes Inspector 12 can see defects in sewing, or bank tellers can detect counterfeits, or a mechanic can single out the sound of a broken part from all the other sounds an older car is making. Focus, observation and practice.
But nothing mystical. Nothing psychic. Nothing religious. And it turns out that lots of people can do this.
So, I'll repeat that whatever personal experience you believe you've had, it's probably something common enough to have a name familiar with scientists.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 28, 2010 11:02 AM
Ask any Christian on any Sunday morning about flocks and sheep and shepherds, and they will understand the metaphor even if it is highly unlikely that any of them have been in contact with any animal other than a household pet.
As a farm boy, I gotta say: sheep are stewepud! Anybody who offers you sheep as a role model does not have your best interests at heart.
... that cozy personal (but imaginary!) relationship with a great and caring being.
A core question is how the monotheistic traditions get by so well without a mother figure. Yes, the Xians have BV Mary - who hit her peak when the cult moved beyond Mediterranean cities and needed a fertility goddess to relate to peasants' concerns - but -
a) a figure of "constant sorrow" doesn't seem very comforting, and
b) the Jewish & Muslim branches of the Abrahamic tradition trundle along with any cosmic mamas at all. (Maybe Fatima represents a slight cheat here on the Islamic side.)
Is it that very lack, the psychological vacuum which keeps the seekers ever stumbling along in quest of an emotional need they can't even define, that allows these sects to continue drawing energy from their adherents?
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 11:08 AM
@#121
Perhaps I should have been more clear that it is interesting to me that atheists seem to treat all believers like fundamentalist Christians. Of course, atheists equally disbelieve in all gods.
The PROBLEM with your experience is that, though it might seem "real" to you, it is nothing more than a quirk of your imagination.
Oh, and you know this? No. You don't. I'm not saying that it isn't possible that it was just a quirk of my imagination. Of course, that is possible. But I certainly understand that you have no idea what it was, and that your assumption that my experience was not real seems pretty faith based.
If there were "one true" religion (like all religions claim), then why would believers of all stripes claim similar personal experiences? Why do Hare Krishnas offer the same argument as Catholics as Mormons as 7th Day Adventists as Scientologists as the Heaven's Gateists? The EXPERIENCE may be "real" as far as that goes (a psychological projection), but your attribution of some supernatural source to it is most definitely not.
Did I claim that there is one true religion? Religion is merely an expression of the relationship between god(s) and humans. There are billions of religions, because each relationship is different. All of them are "true", I suppose. I mean, are relationships "true" or "false"? Do those terms even apply?
Yes, we get a lot of that logical fallacy around here. It's the stick that William Lame Craig and other Christian apologists beat us with constantly. They would rather believe in their fairy stories than understand and accept the truth precisely BECAUSE they claim a "personal experience". And will reject all reasoned arguments and 100% of the evidence against their position on that account.
And there you go again, assuming that your position is the TRUTH and that theirs simply cannot be. Also, if you see me rejecting reasoned arguments or evidence, let me know. I don't do either, and it tends to make some of my fellow theists rather angry with me.
In short, your post offers a fairly conventional theistic viewpoint, despite your apparent belief in a non-Abrahamaic god. And it's demonstrably wrong.
Well then, feel free to step right up and demonstrate how it is wrong.
I am open minded, and would love to see you do that.
Until then,
Drophammer
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 11:20 AM
Hmmm... can science explain everything?
No. Science can not. Science is always looking for answers - but science can not always explain everything.
Again, science is an expression of humanity, or of our sentience, and as such, it has its limits.
I have no problem with atheism. I just think that it is useful for people in general to apply the tools and techniques normally used in defense of their positions ON their positions. A sort of self-examination.
Not just a cursory, oh-I'm-an-atheist-and-so-of-course-I'm-right kind of exercise. Attack your atheism, find the weaknesses. I encourage theists to do likewise, to attack their own theism. Not to rest on their own assumptions of being right. Find the weaknesses.
And to answer a poster above, I do not fear finding out when I am wrong about something. It presents an opportunity to learn and grow. My beliefs have certainly changed over time, and unlike many theists, I do not fear discovering that I am wrong.
So I do not fear that. And derisive laughter? It only shows the character flaws in those who join in.
I am off to lunch and exercise... thanks for the stimulating discussion.
Drophammer
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 28, 2010 11:24 AM
@ drophammer,
Quite simple: there as yet has not been any claim of any god's existence which has stood up to critical scrutiny.
Posted by: gr8hands
|
June 28, 2010 11:30 AM
Drophammer, if you experienced it, whatever the phenomenon was, it had to have made some kind of impact on the physical world. Hence it has to obey physical laws of science. Hence it is not supernatural, only natural.
If you 'heard' something, it had to have stimulated either your auditory system, or the part of your brain that interprets auditory system data.
If you 'felt' something physical, it had to have stimulated either your nerves or the part of your brain that interprets nervous system data.
If you 'felt' something emotional, it had to either stimulate those parts of your emotional system (including the various hormonal aspects) or the part of your brain that interprets emotinoal system data.
Notice how none of this requires anything mystical or spiritual. Why would you conclude that it did? What evidence do you supply that your experience had no natural non-theistic source?
Sorry, fail.
Posted by: gr8hands
|
June 28, 2010 11:35 AM
Drophammer, please provide evidence of one thing that actually exists which has not been explained by Science, but has been explained by any religion.
Just one example will suffice.
Again, fail.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 28, 2010 11:45 AM
@ Drophammer...
The all-bold seems a bit aggressive, no? Almost like you're shouting instead of listening.
So. Without shouting:
1. No. We don't. Atheists of whom I'm acquainted tend to treat believers based on the way they're treated. Fundamentalists are, frankly, the easiest to dismiss because they're so devoid of evidence, logic, and reason. The most-direct argument is STFU. I did not tell you to STFU, did I? In fact, I took some time to address your main points and to provide you with the reasons why your main points are incorrect.
2. Yes. We know your personal experiences are a quirk of your imagination and evidence of your credulity because each and every time a so-called supernatural experience has been thoroughly investigated by a disinterested third party, the experience is found to be completely devoid of any supernatural component. The literature is rife with this research. Everything from seeing ghosts to ESP to out-of-body experiences (including the completely misnamed "near death experiences"), to the efficacy of prayer, to any other experience you care to mention. All have been studied. All have been proven false.
In addition, through our more-recent advances in technology, we can identify the neurological basis of said experiences. We can point to where they occur in the brain; demonstrate and recreate them, and measure them via functional MRI, SPECT, and PET scans under experimental conditions. In short, no matter what your particular experience might be, it's most assuredly not supernatural. (FWIW, those claims are at-present completely nonspecific, so you should probably step up to the plate with exactly what they were in order so they can be more-thoroughly debunked).
3. As has been pointed out here, atheism is a personal relationship with reality.
We know from the scientific research (yes, this has been studied scientifically) that people ascribe to their deity whatever belief they themselves hold. For example, if they're anti-abortion, so is their god. Pro-choicers also believe fervently that their god agrees with them. And most of the time, it's the same god (Yahweh/Allah being the dominant god).
There is no 'relationship' other than you with your own mind. I think the relevant quote comes from a recent movie - Kung Fu Panda -- "There is no secret ingredient in Secret Ingredient Soup." It's all in your head.
Based on that knowledge, we then arrive at the conclusion that all religions are equally false. None of them are "real". None of their fundamental truth claims stand up to scrutiny.
Now, there might be some nuggets of behavioral prescriptions that one might find appealing (do unto others); but one hardly needs a god to find those life-lessons. And the rest of the baggage that comes with those little moralisms more than counter-balances whatever cherry-picking through the holy books you care to do.
4. Of COURSE my position is the truth. What would you have me provide you with? Some simple-minded pat on the back telling you that it's OK for you to persist in false beliefs? Why in the world would you come here for that kind of pablum? That you do not appear in the right mind-set to accept the truth is the issue; not whether what I write is the truth.
5. I have just done so. You will now claim the opposite...
6. You appear to be quite the opposite of open-minded.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
June 28, 2010 11:47 AM
If you really want an actual discussion, Drophammer, why don't you tell us exactly what your personal experience has been that science can't explain?
Several posters have already given examples of seemingly miraculous experiences that do, in fact, have scientific explanations. The fact that no one has happened upon your SPECIFIC experience isn't something to gloat about.
Show us yours if you want us to show you ours.
Posted by: joan.jaeckel
|
June 28, 2010 11:57 AM
Corporate money is the new religion in our education system. Today, collusion between political power and financial power is as corrosive to cultivating a cognitive culture of critical thinkers as collusion of political power and church power was in the past.
Posted by: SpeedOfLight
|
June 28, 2010 1:08 PM
@ #132 - I love the Kung-Fu Panda reference. Very appropriate.
To all - (to set the stage - I grew up in the Methodist church. Parents, grandparents, siblings and many friends are devoutly religious).
Religion has many merits. It gives the masses explanations the human race has not quite figured out. People of Jesus's day believed the Earth was flat as well as the center of all things. Enter Columbus and Copernicus - obviously not at the same time. Electricity to the people of the dark ages would have been deemed magic, and Edison would have burned at the stake. To the Greeks (and mythology - which was their religion), Apollo drove his chariot to explain the Sun crossing the sky. Also, religion gives a sense of hope to whatever afterlife you want to believe...be it 72 virgins or angels playing harps or re-incarnation to a "higher" life-form. Obviously these explanations and "beliefs" break down under scientific scrutiny. But it still seems to me that the ones under the belief system are not the ones to scrutinize anything of their own beliefs. Maybe they will denigrate other religions and will definitely go after the "godless people", but to look into the fallacies and contradictions of their own religion just will not happen.
But religion has also been subverted to be a control of the masses while those in power tend to be abusive of said powers. Some people may need to believe there are consequences for their actions and therefore MUST behave well in this life. To me..that is silly. I do not have to answer to any spirit if I do wrong, but that fact does not mean I have no ethics or morals. I choose to try to be a good person for me...for my kids...for my community. Hopefully my actions may rub off on others and they will choose to be better people. Though for now, if religion keeps Joe-Bob BillyBob from having sex with underage boys or from going on a killing spree, then I am for religion.
Ultimately, until all in this world look beyond the stories and myths and legends, and embrace the scientific method, we the people who do not believe need to communicate: to the friends of the non-believers, to the religious right, left and center, to the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, to the new age spiritual healers. We have to continue to educate - not preach - about science and the natural world. Tell stories in the scientific method. Maybe we just need a better marketing. Who do we need to get on board?
Posted by: florakinz
|
June 28, 2010 2:35 PM
Drophammer:
I have just as much of a problem with Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age Woo as I do with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I have a problem with any person/group/ideology that makes claims to knowledge that they cannot back up with evidence.
I would also point out that although you seem to try to prove your reasonableness by your belief in evolution, disbelief in young-Earth claims, etc, you still seem to be arguing from the point of view of absolute relativism. You seem to be making the solipsistic argument that we can't 'truly' know anything. So how do you know evolution is true? Faith? Or rational evidence? If the answer is rational evidence, why do you believe that parts of the atheist position are 'faith-based' as opposed to the possibility that you simply don't yet understand the evidence?
Absolute relativism is a classic sophomoric position. I do not use that term pejoratively. It refers to the time period in a student's education (usually around the second year) when they have had their 'minds blown' by the reasoning away or disproving of so many of their previous assumptions and irrational beliefs, but have not yet gotten a grasp on the tools that can be used for rational inquiry in a reality-based worldview. Unfortunately it seems many people are open to the evidence that their views are irrational, but not willing to put effort into the necessary follow-up: the rigorous practice of attaining evidence-based knowledge. They end up stuck in the seemingly virtuous, but actually quite dangerous territory of absolute relativism: "I'm ok, you're ok, all viewpoints are equally valid and we can't really KNOW anything anyway..." I love the way Sagan advised to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out!
Cheers.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 2:51 PM
Back from lunch and basketball. Time for another post.
Sorry to offend with the bold. I was just setting my responses off from the original text I was responding to. When I want to shout, I go ALL CAPS.
As for the personal experiences which inform my faith, you can all relax. I have readily admitted that my experiences may have indeed been quirks of my imagination. While I would be happy to work with serious investigators who wanted to see if they could find a scientific explanation for my experiences, I do not want this particular discussion to move to being centered on my experiences. At that point, it becomes (as another poster noted) too simple for atheists to say, "Since we know that there can't possibly be anything supernatural, that means that whatever you experienced could not possibly be supernatural. And since what you experienced could not possibly be supernatural, it therefore had to be something natural, whether we can figure out what it was or not."
I am fascinated by research into trying to recreate the sense of the spiritual in the lab - often through magnetism applied to areas of the brain. But just because you can create an experience like the experiences of some people, that does not mean that you have explained where those experiences come from. That would be like a scientists taking descriptions from lots of drivers, eventually creating a computer simulation of driving a car, and then claiming that since the experience of driving the car can be recreated in the lab, obviously there is no such thing as cars. Hmmm, not the best analogy, but funny. The point remains, yes, some kinds of experiences have been recreated in a lab setting, and that is fascinating, but that does not speak to the reality of the experiences of theists that they might classify as supernatural.
I really don't want this to be so antagonistic. I am used to being attacked by fundamentalist theists all the time, and I seriously expected more open-mindedness from the atheist side of things.
Now, as to the strange and paranormal, some incidents have been debunked, but other incidents remain unexplained. Does that mean that there is no natural explanation? Of course not. But one has to be honest about it, rather than claiming that they all have been "proven false".
Being able to see brain activity does not necessarily show the origin of an experience, but could be showing a reaction to an experience.
Perhaps people do often ascribe their positions to the deity they recognize. Aaaaaaaaand? Most people think they hold correct positions, and that obviously, any deity would also hold those positions. So? Does that prove that the deity, or any deity, or some... thing... does not exist? No. It just demonstrates a human reaction.
Heck, atheists have the same reaction, just not with a deity. A poster above emphatically claims that, of course his position is the TRUTH. Even though that poster has no possible way to verify that his position is correct. Seems like a very similar phenomena to me.
Again, I have not seen anyone able to demonstrate that my beliefs concerning the Divine are incorrect. I have seen a TON of assertions. I have seen some assorted research thrown in, with claims as to what the research proves - of course, those claims are not really accurate (as I demonstrated). No... nobody has demonstrated that my beliefs are incorrect.
And I do remain open to such.
If someone could convince me that the Divine does not exist, I would not be able to continue to believe in it. My beliefs would immediately change, and I would welcome it.
But that was not the point.
My point was, and has been, that taking an absolute stance is usually counterproductive. I would have hoped that the atheist community would have learned from the misbehavior of folks who are abusive towards them, and would have learned how to shame them.
Lastly, I would reiterate that I absolutely do not seek to convert anyone. I don't have the one true religion. I'm not able to offer you TRUTH or even knowledge. I am a subjective being, and the best I can offer you is my understanding of reality. And that is the best you have to offer me.
Thanks,
Drophammer
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 3:09 PM
florakinz, thanks for your response. Forgive my use of bold to set off my responses here, but I want to be sure to address your post in detail, and to communicate what parts of your post I am responding to.
I have just as much of a problem with Buddhism, Hinduism, and New Age Woo as I do with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I have a problem with any person/group/ideology that makes claims to knowledge that they cannot back up with evidence.
Agreed. Claims to knowledge are always tricky. For the most part, we operate in the realm of stuff that we have strong confidence in. We say that these are things we "know". And, there is something to be said for simply ignoring the difference, because if we cannot truly know anything, then, as you say, we could just throw our hands up and give up, claiming that there is no point to reasoning. So most folks discussing stuff in this arena, give the nod to the understanding that our experience is subjective, and then proceed to ignore that and frame their arguments in a world where we can have knowledge.
Evidence, to me, is always key. It cannot be overestimated in terms of importance.
I would also point out that although you seem to try to prove your reasonableness by your belief in evolution, disbelief in young-Earth claims, etc, you still seem to be arguing from the point of view of absolute relativism.
Actually, I was not trying to prove my reasonableness. I was just trying to head off accusations and arguments that I did not want to have. Sometimes, people make assumptions that because I am not an atheist, I must believe X, Y, and Z.
You seem to be making the solipsistic argument that we can't 'truly' know anything. So how do you know evolution is true? Faith? Or rational evidence?
I don't truly know anything, as we have gone over. I assume that they are true because of the supporting evidence. Evidence that I am also assuming is real - that our perceptions of the evidence reflect the reality of the evidence.
If the answer is rational evidence, why do you believe that parts of the atheist position are 'faith-based' as opposed to the possibility that you simply don't yet understand the evidence?
When someone makes a claim that they cannot possibly prove one way or another, and they do so because of their presuppositions and world view, they are stepping out on those beliefs. 'Faith-based' is not a pejorative. Merely a descriptive.
Absolute relativism is a classic sophomoric position. I do not use that term pejoratively. It refers to the time period in a student's education (usually around the second year) when they have had their 'minds blown' by the reasoning away or disproving of so many of their previous assumptions and irrational beliefs, but have not yet gotten a grasp on the tools that can be used for rational inquiry in a reality-based worldview.
I understand the experience of which you speak. I can relate. But do not think that I somehow got stuck there. LOL. No, I quickly moved on from there. However, over time, I have come to a great appreciation for our subjective nature. Whereas in many arenas, we can ignore it, when one considers atheism vs. theism, it really cannot be ignored. It becomes relevant to the discussion at hand.
Unfortunately it seems many people are open to the evidence that their views are irrational, but not willing to put effort into the necessary follow-up: the rigorous practice of attaining evidence-based knowledge. They end up stuck in the seemingly virtuous, but actually quite dangerous territory of absolute relativism: "I'm ok, you're ok, all viewpoints are equally valid and we can't really KNOW anything anyway..." I love the way Sagan advised to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out!
Cheers.
We cannot live with subjectivism as an excuse not to seek understanding. I certainly do NOT encourage that. I do appreciate evidence, and good, solid, logical reasoning. I do not think that all viewpoints are equally valid. Especially in terms of presuppositions that are often universally accepted. But a consideration of atheism vs. theism isn't a place where all the presuppositions are universally accepted.
Thanks for your response. I enjoyed reading and responding to it.
Drophammer
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
June 28, 2010 3:14 PM
Drophammer @ 137 offers commentary on exactly what I want to blather on about: PZ says:
That's the next step in human progress, is getting away from the notion of minions living under a trail boss, and onwards to working as a cooperative community, with no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act.
So true, but also not. What PZ is presuming here is that 'autonomous agents' are really autonomous. While I appreciate Kauffman's coining of the phrase - especially as descriptive of members of a communicative network (hopefully not harmful). But herein lies the rub, the liberal view that homo sapiens really are sapient is a the most beautiful things in the universe; but it remains an absurd myth in a world wherein I am only me in conjunction with a vast situation and an even vaster heritage.
It isn't just about cutting out the myths that bind reason into ancient chains. We are bound together and do not - we cannot exist as thinking beings without that binding, which is accomplished mythically whether we will or no. The very notion of pure freedom is one such unattainable desire that can resonate with some 'individuals', but (empirically speaking) will not with most. And s narky references to the great FSM doesn't do it.
This argument in no way depends on or demands any form of allegiance to one of the many, many stone age whatsits that populate our collective nightmare. Only a respectful statement that PZ displays an error in judgement when he argues that the stories that people tell themselves to explain their experiences to themselves - collectively for maximum benefit, are dispensable, rather than reformable.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
June 28, 2010 3:28 PM
Oh, and just to be clear: my posting above is not an appeal to 'make nice' with morons who scream online in allcaps, nor is it a plea for 'civilized' discourse with, or respect for, delusional nonsense.
It is rather an attempt to recognize the power of woo as woo, and thereby more effectively corral it. And look, we don't need to be making up shit to do it. The story of life is fascinating as fascinating can be: we need that. And here's the core of the thing: no one has less 'religio' - less of the necessary binding of their being with others within this great ocean of biology, than the pitiful wrecks who claim to have 'religion' - that stale relic of bygone ways and shadows of men long dead.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 28, 2010 3:48 PM
re 137
That is what blockquote is for.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 3:49 PM
Perhaps the ignorant, but not the educated.
Actually, Aristotle (who was quite probably not the first to point out the evidence for a round Earth), and Eratosthenes, and Aristarchus, lived some centuries before Jesus.
This is useful both for an understanding of the history of science, and the method of doing science.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Greeks were not monolithic in their beliefs. Many scoffed at such literal interpretations.
Posted by: gr8hands
|
June 28, 2010 3:55 PM
Sorry, Drophammer, but you fail.
If any other previous claim of mystical personal experience had ever lead to a non-natural explanation after disinterested third-party analysis, you might have a point.
But the sheer volume of failures on the part of all claimants does not lead us to have any confidence in your "experience" being any different. Of course, in theory it could possibly be different, but it isn't likely.
The point about a person's deities having their same beliefs, is that it doesn't stand to reason if the deity actually existed it would always and without fail have the same beliefs of the people who believe in it. You don't see anyone claiming that they personally believe in murder, rape, torture but that their personal deity doesn't -- or vice versa. You don't see anyone being a devout Jew who claims that their personal deity is a devout Muslim.
Now do you get it?
Depending on what your "experience" is (and it does matter what it is, because people used to believe epilepsy was demonic possession), brain scans could easily tell you not just what was happening, but what was causing it, and how to stop it (if it were a problem, like seizures). You are confused that merely seeing what is happening is the end of the story.
Besides, if you have an experience that you claim is caused by something divine, and I can recreate that exact same experience in you at the push of a button, doesn't that tend to make you believe that it wasn't caused by something divine in the first place?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 4:08 PM
And, I should have added, the arguments against Columbus were not flat vs round Earth, but its size. Eratosthenes' calculated size of the Earth was pretty damn big, and without knowing that two more continents existed between Europe and the Far East, sailing to India would have been an arguably almost certainly fatal proposition, especially given Columbus' southwesterly route.
Columbus was a moron who was sure that he had sailed to India even after accumulated evidence that the land they had reached showed no sign of actually being India.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 4:13 PM
Sometimes. Such is the way of all humans. :)
That's just it, though. Science doesn't deal with non-natural explanations. That would be oxymoronic. Even oxyironic. LOL. Science will never arrive at a "non-natural" explanation. It will simply say, "Unknown", or "Need more data".
Hey, now you've got the spirit! I wouldn't expect you to consider it likely. Your admission that it is possible makes my day. Thanks! You'll find me much more open to what you have to say. You MAY even get me to discuss my experiences with you - and if you are careful about managing our interaction, I may be interested in possible explanations for my experiences. As long we treat each other with respect, we all win. AND, you're a lot more likely to be persuasive.
Hmmm. I don't think you see what I was getting at. For the most part, I think the god(s) are not any more knowable than anything else. Now, of course, I cannot speak to anyone else's personal experience. I am just speaking from my own. The point is, people make assumptions about the god(s), filling in the blanks. And lots of times, people will assume that their god is the best, having all the best attributes which are... of course... just like their own attributes. But this does not prove anything in terms of whether or not god(s) exist.
I got it the first time. Do you understand my response?
I am not sure you are right. Being in the moment of any particular/specific experience is not something that can be recreated. We can describe it, but the description cannot ever be the experience. Sure, sometimes there are natural explanations for something that seems supernatural at the time. I have no problem admitting that.
The answer to that would depend on a lot of things. For example, if you have to detonate a nuclear warhead on me to recreate the experience, and I am relatively sure that no nuclear warhead was detonated on me during the actual experience, I might have to say that while you can duplicate some of the sensations, you cannot explain the original. Of course, my example is silly, but it makes the point. There are other reasons why I might not simply jump to the conclusion that you discovered the real cause of the initial experience. However, the reverse is also true. Compelling recreation of the original experience could convince me that you did figure it out.
Interesting stuff.
Oh, and thanks to SteveM on the blockquote stuff. See? I can indeed change. ;)
Drophammer
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 28, 2010 4:19 PM
re 143:
Excuse me for butting in here, but I think there is a flaw in this logic:
Even though you can reproduce the experience by putting his head in a machine and "pushing a button" does not mean the original experience was not caused by "divine intervention". You know one way of creating that experience, but presumably he had that experience without being in a machine and you pushing that button. In fact, might that not actually argue that the original experience really was "divine", because there was no machinery to produce it?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 4:21 PM
Which, I note, can be usefully nested.
Others include cited text in italic, eg:
You wrote:
Something or other is the case.
My argument again what you wrote is this, that, and the other.
But included cited text normally, and one's own text entirely in bold.... is rather unusual.
And seems somewhat narcissistic, ahem.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 4:25 PM
What does "non-natural" even mean?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 4:33 PM
If they are less knowable than anything else (not sure if that's what you meant, here), how can you, or anyone, know anything about them at all?
And if the gods are imaginary, then they're just filling in the blanks around their own imagination, yes?
What do you consider would, or might be, a valid proof or disproof of such existence?
Then why would you think that something that seemed supernatural was ever real?
(Is "supernatural" the same as "non-natural"? If not, what does supernatural mean?)
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 28, 2010 4:40 PM
"Supernatural" is a null term.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 4:45 PM
Owlmirror, great questions.
I wrestle with the subjective nature of the universe in terms of the existence of god(s) all the time.
For example, let's assume for the sake of argument that an extremely powerful being named Phbtb exists. He's a right bastard. He likes making people believe in all kinds of things that don't exist using his abilities (which may include high technology - anything sufficiently advanced to look like magic to us).
How can I know that even my personal experience was truly with the Divine as opposed to being with Phbtb pretending to BE the Divine just to have a laugh?
In reality, I cannot know, because my experience of the universe is subjective.
AND, if my experience was just a quirk of my own mind, and I build around that with various assumptions, then it's all just a bunch of hooey. No doubt.
Unfortunately, I am not sure we can really come to anything that would be definitive proof of the existence of any supernatural entity. It always comes back to our subjectiveness.
The most important question is "why would I ever think that something that seemed supernatural was real".
I don't have a choice in this. It is a belief, and people do not choose what to believe. Belief is an involuntary reaction to the evidence presented. Since I experienced the various experiences myself, and have nothing beyond my subjective senses to make the determination... my mind has selected belief as the appropriate response.
I think that non-natural is supernatural, for the purposes of our discussion.
Drophammer
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
June 28, 2010 4:51 PM
sorry, but to get rude:
drophammer, you are a moron. in so may ways i am at a loss to begin counting them. but just one - belief is not an involuntary reaction, nor is it entirely intentional, of course.
it is a propensity to action. if you say you believe something, what you are indicating is (whether true or false) that you act as if that thing is actual.
that is all, good night
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 28, 2010 4:54 PM
@ Drophammer...
So, you appear to be deliberately avoiding detailing what your personal experience is.
The point, however, is that it hardly matters.
The experience itself is "real" -- to you and you alone. What is wrong of you -- and why argument from personal experience is a logical fallacy -- is claiming the experience has a supernatural source. As I've explained before, there is not one scintilla of evidence in any credible discipline that supernatural objects or experiences are real.
So, you had a "real" experience (whatever it was)...however, you confuse yourself (and lie to yourself) by insisting that its source is unknown and unknowable.
I'll tell you a true anecdote and then leave you to your persistent delusions.
When I was in college, I worked summers at a factory. It was HARD work - sweaty, dirty, dangerous at times. But it really paid well, so I did it. Between my junior and senior years, I was completely surprised to find myself assigned to working the loading dock with a full-timer. To me, it was the cushiest of all possible jobs (who wouldn't want to hang out all day driving a fork-lift?)
Then I found out why. All of the guys in the shop were slightly afraid of my partner. Because a few months before, he had rushed into the boss' office declaring vociferously that he had seen Jesus in the elevator. And begged the boss to pray with him.
Now, I think you'll agree that the experience my co-worker had was real -- to him. Fortunately, the boss did not ascribe a supernatural source to this experience. He called an ambulance. Turns out, my co-worker had suffered a small stroke. He had an hallucination as part of that stroke.
Now, what would have happened if the boss had instead believed BOTH the experience of my co-worker AND the supernatural attribution? Would he have gotten down on his knees with him? Would the co-worker have become a new prophet? Would he be preaching today? Would the elevator be a place of pilgrimage? All because he had a small blood clot in the relevant portion of his brain?
Things like this happen all the time.
Now, I'm not saying that your experience is a stroke, or even temporal lobe epilepsy (which is what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus). People see things all the time. I've seen my share of "ghosts"...they're optical illusions. I've had my share of deja vu experiences -- except they're not really evidence of prescience on my part. The experiences themselves are real; but it would be wrong of me to insist that you take my interpretation of them at face value.
And the fact that you won't describe those experiences leads me to believe that you've now realized how silly you've been, and are slightly embarrassed to insist that those experiences are anything other than evidences of the quirks of our eyesight, our hearing, our other sensory perceptions, and most importantly our brain chemistry and anatomy.
There are no ghosts - not even yours. ESP doesn't exist. Near-death experiences are nothing of the sort (Terry Schiavo had a near-death experience; point is, if you can TALK coherently about it afterward, you were nowhere close to being dead). And no matter what your experience is (and really, forcing us to guess is arrogance and lack of respect on your part), there will be a similar explanation. No miracles happened. No prayers were answered. No visitations occurred. No medium gave you the winning lottery numbers.
And for you to cling to that as a "reason to believe" in the supernatural truly does mark you as being remarkably close-minded.
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 28, 2010 4:57 PM
@ drophammer,
"...Since I experienced the various experiences myself, and have nothing beyond my subjective senses to make the determination..."
That being the case, bringing such a matter into this discussion is pointless; there is by your admission no way to connect that experience to anyone else or anyone else's understanding. The cry in this thread is for people not to be subjected to subjective claims. Yours is subjective, personal, quite apparently valid for yourself. Since it is your subjectivity, it's not valid of anyone else.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
June 28, 2010 4:58 PM
Drophammer--
Suppose there is an experience that can be created in at least three ways. Two are material and semi-predictable. The third is, basically, "other/unknown": it sometimes occurs for no apparent reason.
Lacking very strong evidence otherwise, I would assume that there were material causes for category 3 as well.
That describes the mystical experience. It can be semi-predictably be produced by fasting, chanting, or some other ways of changing what the brain is doing.
It can also be created chemically: one of the terms used for LSD and related chemicals is "entheogen." That doesn't mean the experience isn't real, any more than other experiences are real. It means that it is natural/material.
If an experience can be produced by under a milligram of an organic chemical, on what basis do you conclude that in your case, the causes are non-material? I will assume that you have not been using such drugs: nonetheless, "other chemicals can have this effect" seems much more plausible than "the chemicals are irrelevant, mine came from outside the material universe."
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 5:09 PM
I am leaving for home after this post, so do not take my silence as anything more than being off grid.
First of all, phlgradstudent, either belief is something we can choose, or it is not. My experience has been that it is nonvolitional. It is a reaction. Either I am convinced, or I am not. Now, I may choose to act against my belief - but that does not change my belief. We can discuss this more if you like, but calling me a moron simply displays your own weaknesses. So, if you want to discuss with me, you'll have to act like an adult.
Now onto #153 - who I wish had a real name, lol.
I have explained that I don't want the discussion to become fixated on my own personal experiences. I want to discuss these ideas in general. It has nothing to do with me feeling silly. LOL. You might want to adjust your radar on that.
I found your anecdote very interesting, and I am intrigued by a boss that would be able to get the worker to submit in such an instance to medical treatment if the worker truly did not think the event was caused by a medical problem.
I don't discount that this kind of stuff happens all the time. Not at all.
I am also intrigued by your diagnosis of Paul and the way you positively state what Paul really experienced, even though you can not prove that Paul experienced temporal lobe epilepsy. You assume that it has to be that because, well, it has to be. After all, it has some similar symptoms!
Again, I do not cling to anything as a "reason" to believe... as if I am choosing to believe. The evidence I have experienced leads to my beliefs. Further evidence could, on the other hand, lead to changes in my beliefs.
Again, I don't see how my position is close-minded. I am open to seeing the evidence. I don't think that everyone who thinks they've seen Jesus, or Mary, or Phbtb is correct. Sometimes these things DO have other explanations.
Thanks all for a great discussion!
I am off for home. I may visit again tomorrow.
Drophammer
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 5:12 PM
Hm.
Is it involuntary? It might be, at some specific time, but does it remain the case over time, given further thought and additional reasoning and evidence?
I once saw a magic show by Penn and Teller, where Teller climbed into a large closed glass/perspex box of water in a wetsuit, and appeared to drown. I was skeptical of what I saw at the time, for various reasons, but suppose I had believed it on the evidence.
Would it make sense to retain that belief after seeing Teller on stage again later?
If you read up on different conditions that the brain can get into, including things like temporal lobe epilepsy, would you agree that something weird having had occurred in your brain was more probable than something real -- regardless of how you felt at that time?
Or in other words, if an argument was advanced that demonstrated that some belief was delusional, or was most likely delusional, would you be able to accept the argument that you were under a delusion?
OK, but can you define what you mean by the term(s)?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2010 5:21 PM
Drophammer is showing why scientists trust physical evidence compare to personal revelation. The personal revelation is difficult to describe, means different things to different people, and cannot be conclusively shown to not be a delusion on the part of the reportee. Makes for very, very, weak and unreliable evidence.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 5:31 PM
It's not just the symptoms, though. It's what would follow if the experience was real.
Paul claimed to have had a vision from the Judeo-Christian God.
And a God that could give one person one vision could give all people the same vision, and give them visions that could be verified externally.
This doesn't happen.
We know that people have brain malfunctions where they become temporarily delusional (if you think that all insanity is contact with God, I don't think we can have any sort of meaningful communication).
We know of no case where a putative God provided a vision to a large group that could be verified externally.
Given the preponderance of the evidence, some sort of brain malfunction being the source of all alleged communications from God is the most reasonable and parsimonious argument from that evidence.
Posted by: KG
|
June 28, 2010 5:38 PM
Drophammer,
No, it doesn't. There are plenty of ways a supernatural being could give evidence of its existence accessible to everyone. Making limbs regrow in answer to a prayer to it - and no other sort of prayer. Causing human "junk" DNA to spell out the Psalms in some simple code (or the start of the Bhagavad Gita or whatever); telling the natives about Jesus before the missionaries arrived; ensuring that its followers are markedly nicer and more honest than other people. There are just two coherent alternatives: a) There are no supernatural entities; b) They do not positively want us to know anything about them - including that they exist (i.e. they are deliberately hiding, or don't care whether we know about them or not).
A gross oversimplification, although to be fair, one I've seen plenty of atheists make. As phlgradstudent says, a belief is a behavioural disposition or tendency; and it is in some cases possibly to change your beliefs deliberately by starting to act as if you had already changed them (this is the rationale for cognitive behavioural therapy). Even more common is a resistance to changing belief despite the weight of evidence, as we see particularly (but not exclusively) in denialists of all stripes, and in the religious. I strongly suspect that is your case.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
June 28, 2010 5:46 PM
right, i forget, you're a moron: the statement "either belief is something you have or you don't" is not ideationally equal to the statement: either you have a car or you don't. it is closer to the statement: either intelligence is something we have or we don't.
a low belief indicates a low potential to act as if a thing is actual. it changes with situations. the world is not neatly divided like an aristotelian syllogism, nor does it serve your delusions.
the problem i often have with some folks on this site is the ease with which they presume simple objective truths - 'it's not my best understanding of the situation, it is the situation" kind of thing. The funny thing is, this is a fallacy most often committed by the most overtly 'religious' in whatever form this is given.
and to shore up a point: subjectivity does not exist without synechism. you ain't so bloody special that your experiences get to define what actually is. you just think they do, not 'cause you're 'subjective', but because you're sociopathic - a condition otherwise known as 'religious'.
and now i really am going to sleep: it's later here, i think, wow, such a mystery, my subjective experience telling me that it is past midnight, while the recent postings all say 5.40 pm (give or take) ... hmm, religion might invent a really interesting story to explain that experience to me, that would be fun. but then again, science could tell me that i am on the other freaking side of the planet from most of you ... that's pretty keen too ...
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 28, 2010 5:49 PM
@ drophammer...
You'll just have to deal with the googlemess name...sorry.
1. What would YOU do if someone rushed into YOUR office claiming a vision of Jesus? Get down on your knees? Or call 911 to get the poor fellow help. Please choose 911. Pretty please. Consent has nothing to do with it. This isn't an issue of free will. It's an issue of someone being seriously ill. Get help.
BTW: that's quite a red herring argument you threw in there; but I'm becoming accustomed to your illogic.
2. The reason I state with reasonable certainty that Paul had temporal lobe epilepsy is because it's been studied scientifically. All of the symptoms are there, the diagnosis is self-evident. All you offer in its stead is an argument from incredulity that we might be able to reach a differential diagnosis based on clear symptoms. I suppose I could have stated Paul was having a mescaline trip; but I'm sure peyote is not endemic to that particular area (although John of Patmos who wrote Revelation was definitely tripping on the local fungi -- again, we've actually done the RESEARCH on this).
3. The point is that you appear to have fixed beliefs based on what at this point is ANNOYINGLY nonspecific "evidence". Your claims to open-mindedness are belied by your persistence in attributing supernatural causes to experiences YOU REFUSE TO DESCRIBE. We can now only trust our own eyes and call you a liar to your face.
Posted by: KG
|
June 28, 2010 5:56 PM
Posted by: CJO
|
June 28, 2010 6:11 PM
The reason I state with reasonable certainty that Paul had temporal lobe epilepsy is because it's been studied scientifically. All of the symptoms are there, the diagnosis is self-evident.
Please. What "symptoms"? Paul himself wrote nothing (extant) about the exact moment of his conversion; the Road to Damascus stuff is all legendary development from the Acts of the Apostles, likely from the 90s CE or later (40 years after Paul's ministry), and contradictory in other instances with the Pauline literature.
Paul does describe, in another context, some affliction, a "thorn in the flesh," but the matter is nowhere near as settled as you're claiming, nor are the known symptoms as unambiguous as all that. Malaria is as good a contender as epilepsy.
John of Patmos who wrote Revelation was definitely tripping on the local fungi -- again, we've actually done the RESEARCH on this.
Who is this we? How would you differentiate between, say, schizophrenia and psychedelic intoxication, based solely on a literary text penned two thousand years ago, even if you were absolutely convinced that some organic cognitive or perceptual disturbance were the only explanation for the weirdness, which I certainly am not in the first place? Some people are just weird, like, naturally.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 28, 2010 6:28 PM
complete and utter strawman, and one that shows up every time an "exotic" believer shows up. boring. Newsflash: there's no evidence whatsoever for any gods at all. therefore, all theists are the same in the essential aspect of irrational, unevidenced belief in something because of their own highly flawed and subjective experiences. Some of them are just more ridiculous and dangerous than others. are you familiar with parsimony? Not only is it very likely that your "unique" experience isn't, but falls into an already well-explained mental phenomenon; but even if you're lucky and have experienced something not yet sufficiently untangled by science, the trend is clearly towards natural explanations, simply because every single "magical" and "mystic" phenomenon so far thoroughly studied turned out to be perfectly natural.IOW, you're not that fucking special.
a stalker's relationship with the object of his delusion is "false" and nonexistent. and so are any and all relationships with figments of human imagination. bullshit; atheism is the conclusion based on available evidence. it's a provisional conclusion, in the way all scientific conclusions are provisional, but it's more parsimonious and doesn't contradict any scientific evidence, unlike the vast majority of magical beliefs (which are either specific, at which point evidence contradicts them; or fuzzy and vague, at which point they're unparsimonious mental masturbation). atheism is a conclusion, not an assumption or presupposition. That's the theists' territory. there's no flaw, unless, like other woomeisters, you consider conditional conclusions and minuscule amounts of uncertainty a flaw. I don't, since unlike theists I'm not dogmatic. ""Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."-- Jefferson wow, that was total fail. so does that mean the voices schizophrenics hear are real, too? no. the main flaw of your idiotic comparison is that there's physical evidence for cars, and that there's no evolutionary and neurological explanation for a bunch of people imagining cars out of the blue, while the reason why people imagine gods etc. is fairly well understood by now. parsimony. learn it. it's fucking dumb to include entirely unneeded hypotheses when science can explain the phenomena on a natural basis just fine. recreating things doesn't seem "natural" only because the conditions have to be artificially induced to get them at the right time in the right place, but most of them can randomly occur outside of the lab. call us when you find one that can't. you don't know how science works, do you. science disproves positive claims. it does not prove negative claims. you're merely using a "god of the gaps" variant to hide your lack of evidence for a positive claim. geez you're an idiot. read the studies in question before you make such idiotic claims. the experiments showed that when people thought about their gods' opinions, they were using the part of their brain used to determine their own opinions, not the part of their brain used to figure out other people's opinions. even the human brain "knows" god is just oneself aggrandized. and another strawman. try harder. and so, like all other theists, you prefer to entertain substanceless and unsubstantiated flights of fancy instead of having a solidly grounded, evidence-based, skeptical world-view. that's what it comes down to: believing in fairytales is for children, adults really should be more skeptical than believe something without evidence. (brainfarts are not evidence; never were) being openminded doesn't mean accepting every and all bullshit someone can possibly come up with that can't currently be disproven. it means going where the evidence leads, and the evidence does not lead towards magic. bah, solipsists are a waste of time. what good is contemplating the potential, unevidenced "falseness" of a so far pretty consistent and coherent universe? indeed, it's relevant. after all, science was designed precisely to minimize the problems of subjectivity. Religion and theism OTOH embrace it to an absurd degree. for that reason alone, a science-based view is always the more rational one, and the one more likely to be corresponding to reality closer than a theist/wooist/religious view. liberal? i'm going to guess you meant libertarian, because no liberal i know believes in Absolute Free Will and magical independence from culture and our biology. what? no it isn't. it's accomplished by out biology as social animals and by social contact and rituals. magic and mysticism have fuck all to do with that. that's a bullshit cop-out. of course it could, if any such were ever found. it couldn't use them very well, since "non-natural" would imply breaking the laws of nature and therefore completely destroy the usefulness of science as a predictive tool, but it could uncover them nonetheless. sudden breaks with the known ways in which the universe works would be rather obvious. and if the "non-natural" is undetectable and indistinguishable from the natural, it's not necessary to consider it, since the natural explanations are sufficient to explain the world. maybe this would even mean that the non-natural is a figment of people's imaginations. curb your condescension and excitement. your assumptions of what atheists are like are blinding you to the fact that this was no "breakthrough" or "concession" or whatever you imagine it to be. it's the standard position of all skeptic atheists. so you're still cluelessly and randomly taking about a scientific study without having read it? is that how you come to your conclusions? wtf? that's crap. out-of-body experiences have been fully recreated. so have the experiences of "being one with the universe"; in both cases, the "fake" wasn't in any way different from the magical "real" one do you understand that in order to induce a specific effect, at a specific time, in a specific place (you know, to be actually able to observe it thoroughly) requires external effort that isn't required for the same conditions to occur by freak-chance naturally, if no pre-determined parameters for when, where, how, and to whom it happens? that's like claiming just because it required genetic manipulation to create Roundup Ready Corn, there can't be naturally occurring Roundup Ready plants. that's only half true. and only insofar as Absolute Free Will doesn't exist, and neither does Absolute Determinism. it's just as unlikely that i'll ever have sex with a woman as it is that i'll start believing in gods, after all. people have gone from one belief to another, and from belief to disbelief, and from disbelief to belief; which means a change of mind is possible under some circumstances. it's just all sorts of convenient for you that you've (consciously or subconsciously) trained yourself to demand the impossible for a change of mind. oh yeah; explaining one fuzzy, undefined word with another is all sorts of helpful [/sarcasm] false dichotomy, and how. it's actually neither of the two options you've presented. the human mind is far more complex than that, as i've already mentioned.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 6:30 PM
A quick Google scholar brings this up...
St Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy.
http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/50/6/659.abstract
FWIW.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 6:52 PM
Full PDF of the paper at #166 is
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/pdf/jnnpsyc00553-0001.pdf
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkOSpXN5ghfla6g4l1lkD3yyEuJuZQzt5k
|
June 28, 2010 6:56 PM
The Lord is my Shepherd, for he wants me to blindly follow him, shear me for his monetary benefit, then kill me and roast me and eat me. With mint jelly.
.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 28, 2010 7:02 PM
Thanks Owlmirror. Say the authors of that paper:
I certainly don't dispute the possibility, but googlemess was making it out to be a certainty, a scientific certainty, no less, when it is nothing more than an interesting but ultimately unknowable historical conjecture.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 7:59 PM
If there's any research that draws any kind of link whatsoever between John of Patmos and hallucinogenic fungi, I have not been able to find it in Google scholar...
*shrug*
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 8:12 PM
The reason that TLE is hypothesized is because patients who have it also report sensations associated with religion -- oneness with the universe; the sense of presence of some entity; and like that. Sometimes, these sensations can be simulated using transcranial magnetic induction to stimulate the temporal lobe in non-epileptic individuals.
Is there anything similar for malarial fevers?
No argument.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 28, 2010 8:24 PM
You didn't learn that until your 30s? WTF? I learned it as a kid in school and by reading the occasional newspaper.
I mean it just seems obvious that any given resource is finite. That was part of the appeal of nuclear power, and why countries have been investing in wind and solar power since the 1970s.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 28, 2010 8:27 PM
I consider those detriments, not merits.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 28, 2010 10:09 PM
Well! I was so interested in this afternoon's discussion that I decided to check in from home.
Whew!
If anyone wonders why I don't want this discussion to revolve around my personal experiences, just see the various abusive posts above.
Several posters seem to want to fixate on my beliefs and the experiences that support them, presumably to disabuse me of them. And, given their respectful and sensitive approach, surely I'll get right on that.
LOL
I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but I fully understand that the Divine may not exist at all. And I would be fine with that.
A few responses to some ideas from above posts.
Atheism as a conclusion has no need for the all the drama, the name calling, and the ridicule. Atheism as an assumption/presupposition on the other hand... well, it isn't nearly as secure. I have been unfailingly polite and pleasant. I have been respectful. I certainly don't deserve the crap being tossed at me by some posters.
To answer a question from googlemess, if someone came into my office and told me they had just had a vision of Jesus, say, in a conference room, I would ask them some questions about it. If they seemed otherwise healthy, I have to admit that I would not have jumped to the conclusion of calling an ambulance. However, I would have encouraged them to seek to constrain the possibilities by talking to their doctor and arranging a CAT scan or somesuch to make sure that there was no medical problem.
Contrary to the apparent perception of me, I don't simply believe any claim anyone makes. However, my first response to them is not to say, "Hmph. Impossible. That would be supernatural!"
I also don't think it is appropriate to attempt to be definitive about an experience when you cannot really BE definitive. For example, if someone tells me that they saw a ghost, and relates the story to me, I do not think I can say, "Well, you obviously didn't see a ghost, it was just a trick of the light." I have no idea what they actually saw. I can say, "Nobody has ever been able to prove that ghosts exist, so I think it is unlikely that it was a ghost. Do you think that there are other explanations that might make sense?" And, of course, investigation can provide insights. But without it, attempting to make a definitive claim just sounds as silly as someone claiming that they just talked to Jesus in the conference room.
And KG - you raised a good point about a deity that makes demands of people. If a deity wanted people to know that it existed, or even to believe in it, it certainly COULD do a much better job of it. I often make such an argument against evangelical Christianity and biblical literalism and such.
Lastly, we can indirectly affect our beliefs by exposing ourselves to further evidence, it is direct action on our beliefs that is denied to us. As for behavioral therapy causing changes to belief - I would be interested in seeing what the experts say about how that happens. My first guess is that it provides a lot of exposure to new evidence.
New evidence certainly can alter beliefs, but we don't choose what to believe.
As for phlgradstudent, I'd respond to your points, but you're acting like a jerk. *shrug* I can discuss these topics on the boards where I normally post, and where, if someone wants to show me where I am wrong, they don't have to resort to abuse to do it.
Thanks to all for the discussion.
Have a great day!
Drophammer
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
June 28, 2010 10:39 PM
For Drophammer, should he return:
Buddy, I had a conversion experience when I said the sinner's prayer. I was among five who did so. Three of the five were my girlfriend (later, wife; later, ex-), her brother who was also my best friend and his girlfriend (later, his wife; later, his ex-)
To the best of my knowledge from long ago conversations, the other four had rather normal experiences. Lifted up, filled with love, feeling a larger presence. The usual. Unremarkable. Perhaps your experience(s) fall in their category.
Or perhaps your recollection is more like mine. At the time of my (silly and poorly informed) admission of miserableness, my experience chiefly featured crawl spaces and curiously well mannered rats and cockroaches. We, tarried for a time there, below the floor, exchanging such glances as we could. We eventually went along our various ways . . .
It was all quite real to me and, upon reflection, more accurately related than the generalisms of my fellow pilgrims.
So, Given that my subjective experience varied from the local norm yet was as real to me as this next breath, and given that
how then to apply any rule of judgment, especially when you have no benchmark from which I can measure? Which is the more accurate image of supernatural intervention, a confab with the creatures under the floor or a warm and comfy feeling from an indeterminate source? You provide no way of knowing by simply stating that you don't understand some of the things that happen to you.I don't ask as an attack or to heap ridicule. I ask to know how you would regard my subjective experience by the measure of your own. Authentic? Instructive? Useful? Off putting? Ridiculous? Heavenly?
And what metric measures all these qualities? Can they be compared? If so, how does one know?
As soon as you invoke some inscrutable magic, young man, you must soon invoke cover stories. Worse, you must remember all the cover stories lest your narrative come to an untimely (for you, timely for others) end.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
June 28, 2010 11:00 PM
I should have put the little smiley at the end of my #175, Drophammer.
I find you a very interesting study and I think that you and I might just have some common benchmarks. Your story is intriguing and amusing. Intriguing due to familiarity and amusing because of familiarity. And because I am like Earth, mostly harmless. ;^>
Posted by: Urmensch
|
June 28, 2010 11:08 PM
@#170
I often heard this claim from fans of entheogens. As far as I've ever been able to find, the claim seems to have originated with R. Gordon Wasson who speculated this after having done mushroom trips with Indians in Mexico. He thought the descriptions in the Book of Revelations were remarkably like those experienced on mushrooms.
I have never been able to substantiate the claim that there are abundant hallucinogenic mushrooms on Patmos as is often said.
It seems that after the hippy flirtation with psychedelics and the interest in cultures who used them, many people speculated that the soma of the Vedas and the potions used by the Greeks in the mystery religions contained magic mushrooms.
In the 1970's a guy named John Allegro wrote a book 'The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross' where he developed an idea that Judaism and Christianity evolved out of fertility cults that used mushrooms. As he based this on possible Sumerian words that didn't appear in texts it was never given any real credence.
Then this guy Wasson reckoned the story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Genesis was a hidden reference to magic mushrooms.
The John of Patmos on psychedelics gets passed on by people but I don't think there has ever been any real evidence for it. Just stoners seeing what they want to see.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2010 11:09 PM
You keep saying this lie. Since you lie to yourself, you lie to us. Beliefs are chosen. They come no source other than the person. Why you think that without evidence is all I need to know about your lack of truthfulness.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 28, 2010 11:47 PM
It seems odd to me that people who have such experiences are so coy about sharing them, wanting only a supportive and friendly environment.
But I can forego reading about the "experiences that support [your beliefs]". I'm interested in analyzing the reasoning about the experiences that (presumably) led to your beliefs.
Numinous experiences don't occur in a vacuum; they occur as part of a life of constant more mundane experiences. Even if your experiences cannot be repeated at will, they can be analyzed for consistency with everything else you've experienced.
I don't think you do either, and that accusation of sociopathy was ludicrously out of left field.
But I would appreciate it if you addressed (reasonable) arguments rather than focusing on the insulting behavior.
I'm still waiting to see what your definition of "supernatural" is.
I'm also wondering what your definition of "believe" is. Does it mean "think is true" or "assent to truth" or "think might be true" or "pretend is true" or "insist must be true" or "insist, in the absence of evidence, must be true"? Or something else?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 12:01 AM
I did find a piece on ergotism that speculates that John of Patmos might have eaten some hallucinogenic bread...
Ergotism and Its Effects on Society and Religion
http://www.informaworld.com/index/904472670.pdf
FWIW
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
June 29, 2010 12:43 AM
Isn't it always that some one just believes? Or suspects they somehow ought to? Without regard to informed decision, they just, believe. Owlmirror is correct in demanding working definitions of terms. Our new friend, Drophammer, is a case in point. All the feelings for and leanings toward something but without substance, explanation or an enjoyable narrative. We are left to decide for ourselves, sans evidence out of square with (non-revealed) knowledge.
That we can entertain something like the idea of the relative value of evidence really makes pointless recitation of personal recall rather . . . pointless. (Though I shamelessly indulge in story-telling; it has its place.) While I still fondly recall the way some previous misapprehensions led me to feel at the time, I do not fondly recall the misapprehensions themselves. As with any important episode in life, my gradual apostasy occurred over a protracted period of my life. Perforce, many of life's challenges and demands overlap, each influencing the other and in turn being influenced by the whole.
And so life is not predictable, only livable, despite one's druthers, unless one has delicate control of all the inherent variables. One normally does not.
Not being able to make a clearly recognizable separation between disparate subjective experiences even while claiming or implying privileged information is a tacit admission of failing to understand a reported experience as well as the differences between known and unknown experiences.
One is not being asked, every moment, "what do you believe today?' One is being asked, "What will you do now?"
[/Robin Williams as Asimov's Andrew]
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
June 29, 2010 3:03 AM
Well it's morning now on my side of the world, I wake up all bright and shiny and find that DH decided not to respond to my points because I'm being a jerk: them's the breaks - many others on this thread have engaged with him on the same point I had tried to make in my own crude way. Kudos to Owlmirror and Crudely Wrott.
It was Thomas Reid, a contemporary of Hume, who first proposed the simple conjunction: there is nothing whatsoever transcendental about belief, it is a propensity to action, nothing more, nothing less. The argument is simple: when you say you believe something, what you are actually doing is running numbers, placing bets as it were, on your own action. will you do this, or will you do that? It's an expression of probability. Stated beliefs are practically never honest, of course, seen in how very often we claim to believe something and act the opposite. Still, the depiction holds.
No, we do not 'decide' what we believe (logically or not) - this is something that happens intertwined within an environment and an exact situation ... but yes, we 'choose' what we believe (logically or not) within whatever momentary situation we find ourselves. These statements are not inconsistent, they actually build on each other rather than cancel each other out as our little friend DH seems to think. The so-called metaphysics of DH's little experience (whateveritis) are just part of an ecosystem filled with intertwined 'autonomous' agents, whose autonomy is actual only to the extent with which it is interwoven within its actual experience. DH is displaying the opposite: the ego that claims to stand apart from the eco-system on which its being depends. belief isn't something apart from nature, it's part of it.
And DH, why should I be nice to you when you are a condescending smug ignorant little shit who claims some kind of transcendental warrant for your subjective sense - and more, you claim that you get to define the universe based on your own little subjective experience. Study? phaw, That's for little people, right? You got better things to do ... obviously
Posted by: Randy
|
June 29, 2010 4:54 AM
I am a relative newcomer to your blog PZ. I have heard some describe some of your blogs as strident, harsh, rude, in-your-face, and the like. Haven’t read enough yet to make my own judgement. However, this blog fills me with a sense of inspiration and harmony, the kind that don’t need a father figure in the sky. You have captured here an inspiring sentiment and painted an uplifting portrait of the truth, especially your final two paragraphs. I have long been convinced that there are deep bonds between myself and the material cosmos; between life and the physical and chemical processes and history all life shares with the larger cosmos. It is best illustrated by the feeling I think a person experiences when viewing and taking to heart Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series. So thank you for a post that elicits similar emotions and thoughts.
grosbeak57 #8
True, scientists are doing their job of revealing to us a picture of the material cosmos in ever increasing degrees of clarity. But your argument that scientists have no obligation in communicating their findings to the general public is simply not true. Scientists have some ethical obligation to participate in informing and making the public understand not only the science but the importance of their enterprise. And this is becoming increasingly more urgent given a fact that appears to be unfamiliar to you. Science journalists are doing their job, and doing it well. But they are part of a shrinking community. Don’t know if you have noticed but in the past two decades the number of science journalists in this country has decreased as newspapers have retrenched. They have been a casualty of the economics of newspaper publishing, changing demographics of newspaper readership, and the rise of the internet and its network of social media. Fewer and fewer science journalists are available to do a job that has become increasingly more demanding and more urgently needed. So Mooney is not passing the buck. He is making an argument based on the changing character of journalism. We simply need more Carl Sagans. At the very minimum we need a scientific community that permits Sagan types to flourish without being shunned and dismissed in the way which occurred to Sagan. He was denied admission to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, despite his stellar record of scientific achievement and contribution, because he was a popularizer of science. If the scientific community does not step up to meet the need, given the beating that science journalism has taken and continues to take, then who should it be? Will Grosbeak57 step up to the plate?
SpeedOfLight #30
You are correct in your conclusion that there is a “lack of understanding of science by the masses” and a “lack of knowledge by the general population about the processes scientists use in building a Scientific Theory...” As a science educator, I see this problem in my classroom and outside it in the general adult population. We are all familiar with the survey quizzes which show the generally unacceptable level of scientific literacy in this country. But you assume that scientific education will lead people away from the light of religious belief. Don’t be seduced by this piece of wishful thinking. Education can as easily be used by an intelligent mind to sink deeper into mystical belief and bolster it by a larger familiarity with knowledge. Look no further than Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute, trained as a biologist, or Michael Behe, another molecular biologist, as evidence of this. Perhaps you are familiar with Michael Shermer’s excellent and insightful tomes How People Believe Weird Things and Why People Believe Weird Things. He points out that very intelligent, well-educated people are very adept at using both their intelligence and knowledge to rationally argue their way to an irrational conclusion and then strongly defend this irrationality with great intellectual skill. How is this possible if simply educating a person is the key that will unlock the shackles of superstitious and mystical thinking? Evolutionary Psychology in conjunction with the neurosciences is amassing an impressive body of evidence that our species is hardwired as a result of our evolutionary history to be predisposed toward belief. If true, I seriously doubt that mere education alone is up to the challenge of leading most people out of the false light of belief. But I don’t pretend to know what the solution is. I’m just not convinced that education alone can turn this around on a large scale. Additionally, what worked for you is not necessarily going to work for others. To assume so is to employ the logical fallacy of argument from personal experience.
Aquaria #97
I am curious to know what leads you to think that Chris Mooney seeks to be the spokesman for science and atheism. I am also curious to know what it is about Mooney that angers you to the point of vulgarity. I am perplexed with the need by so many atheists, freethinkers and skeptics to resort to arguments and rebuttals laced with ridicule, mockery, and villification, as if such obnoxious methods lend any force, merit or credibilty to one’s arguments or criticism. They do not.
Implying that Mooney has some designs on being the spokesperson for atheism and science is nothing more than setting Mooney up as a strawman and then punching, kicking and spitting on the writers invention as if it is real. Mooney has never written or said anything to give the pretense of setting himself up as this person you portray. You are free to disagree with Mooney, even dislike what you call his accommodationist tone. Your belittling of him and dismissive tone seems to signal an arrogance. To speak of him in the way you do is to imply that he has less right to engage in the conversation than do you. In what way are his thoughts and commentary of less value than yours or mine or those of any other person? Are you so rigid and dogmatic in your views that you cannot tolerate a voice that does not echo your own? Have you ever met and spoken with Mooney? What do you know of his character that gives you license to be verbally abusive? You don’t like his message. Fine, then critique and criticize it. But you win no arguments by criticizing the messenger. And if you think you do then you travel a path of self delusion. Furthermore, Mooney, for whatever you think of his views, is a person, deserving of as much ethical treatment and consideration as are you. To demean another person says little of the target of this abuse. But it may say much about the one who employs the tactics of verbal abuse. I like to think that in addition to being an atheist (I am assuming this is a representative label), you also consider yourself an ethical person with moral regard for other humans. Or I hope this is so. If so I urge you to consider more carefully your ethical responsibility toward another person when engaging in conversation with or about them.
Drophammer #119
"Nobody joins a false religion to worship a false god." Of course not. But this is not a valid argument that any god exists. You seem to be implying that if a person joins a religion then the religion cannot be false; if a person worships the god of that religion, then that god must exist. This strikes me as some form of circular reasoning. I believe in God, therefore he/she/it must exist. In this way of thinking your beliefs are the only evidence one needs for the conclusion drawn. Science sets a much higher standard than this, as do reason and logic as tools of thought.
I agree that you should be provided evidence for any conclusions that are counter to your own. And this evidence should be compellingly convincing. Science has given plenty to doubt the God Hypothesis, yet you are either unaware of this evidence or choose to ignore it.
You call the conclusions of nonbelievers beliefs. I take this to mean that you think the conclusion that God does not exist to be a belief. If so you display a seriously flawed understanding of the underpinnings of atheism. For atheism is not a belief, but rather the rejection of a belief. Atheists do not as a rule hold that God does not exist on the basis of a faith-based or revelation-based pronouncements. Atheists, at least all those whom I know, reject the God belief because there is insufficient, inadequate evidence that God exists. The empirically derived and verifiable evidence for God’s existence is appalling lacking in its ability to making a compellingly convincing argument. The evidence is embarrassingly weak and of shamefully poor quality, and therefore deserving of rejection.
“As subjective beings, objective knowledge - true "knowledge" - may be beyond us entirely.” There is no logical or rational basis for assuming that the subjective portion of human nature automatically rules out the possibility of objective thought and examination. It is quite clear from the history of science that the human animal, employing the methods of critical analysis and scientific methodology, has made enormous progress in uncovering the objective truth about the cosmos. Even you state that you accept the scientific model of the universe, the “truth” of evolution. Well this would be a dishonest claim if you accept the notion that the universe as we perceive it may well be an illusion. There is a cognitive dissonance in this position. Unless you can produce evidence that the universe is anything other than what we perceive it to be, it certainly is a tortured logic to assume that it is other than we can perceive and have perceived up to the present time.
“It is entirely possible that NONE of what you think is real is real. We rely on senses that interpret a universe that we can only perceive as being separate from us.”
I know not what brand of logic or rational thought leads you to such an unfounded irrational assumption. While our senses can and do sometimes mislead us, science and reason have been enormously successful at blocking most of the human biases that lead us astray in the quest for understanding. Furthermore, the filtering mechanisms of science have been astoundingly successful in eventually catching and correcting those occasions when human biases and our tendency toward self-deception do manage to slip past the sensors designed to detect them.
“And that takes me to the last stop on this route. Experiential evidence. Many believers, like myself, have experiences that simply cannot be explained by science. Not at present, and maybe, not ever.”
Here you make one of the most common mistakes made by believers. You employ the logical fallacy of argument from personal experience. You represent a data set of one. This is never a sufficient level of data out of which to construct a convincing argument or draw a credible conclusion. You conclude, without providing a compelling argument, that because you are unable to explain the experience and that no one else has provided you a convincing one, the experience is therefore unexplainable. From this you take an enormous leap to the conclusion that it must therefore have a supernatural explanation.
“It seems foolish, to those of us who understand this, that those who have not had such an experience think that it can be easily dismissed and must be irrelevant.” You characterize our position incorrectly. We nonbelievers do not dismiss you because we have never had the same experience nor because we think your experience irrelevant. We simply reject it as insufficient evidence or reason to posit the existence of some supernatural entity as the agent of the experience.
“I'm not saying that one can prove that god(s) exist. Not at all. But this silly antagonism has to stop - from both sides of the divide.” We do indeed need to desist in antagonizing one another. But it is the believer who makes the extraordinary claim and thus it is the believer who is obligated to provide extraordinary evidence. Nonbelievers reject the God Hypothesis because (1) God’s existence is an extraordinary claim that at present has a paltry, at best ordinary, body of supporting evidence; (2) because the God Hypothesis states a claim that is untestable by scientific means; and/or (3) the God claim posits a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena. The requirements of science dictate that natural events are the result of natural processes.
In post #137 you (Drophammer) write: “But just because you can create an experience like the experiences of some people, that does not mean that you have explained where those experiences come from.” This is a dogmatic rejection of evidence. In science we go where the evidence leads. If an experiment reproduces the God experience in the mind through manipulation or stimulation with a physical apparatus through a purely physical mechanism, then the logical inference is that the mind is the source of the phenomenon. There is no logic to drawing a supernatural inference from such results. If we accept your assumption then your God is a malicious prankster. What, does he sit around and implant false data into the brain of the person being tested during the experiment. What kind of a God is this? Why is your God so determined to play tricks on the scientist?
“Again, I have not seen anyone able to demonstrate that my beliefs concerning the Divine are incorrect.” And you won’t. You wrongly assume that it is the obligation of the nonbeliever to disprove your belief claim. You are in fact demanding that the nonbeliever prove a negative. Negative’s cannot be proven. For example, I can’t prove to you that pink elephants don’t exist. But the person who makes the claim that they do exist has the burden to provide the evidence of this claim. If the evidence is not provided then there is no logical reason for me to accept the claim. Your God claim is the same. You posit the existence of God and then require the believer to refute the claim. But it is you who made the claim. The burden of evidence is yours, not mine. You have failed to provide positive evidence that God exists. Once again, your singular claim to an unexplained experience is woefully insufficient evidence that God exists. And even if you string together a whole chain of similar personal experiences claimed by others, this is still the logical fallacy of argument from personal experience. It’s just a bunch of them strung together.
Given your seeming unwilingness to Let Go of God, despite what have been a plethora of what should have been seen as persuasive arguments, I would like to suggest that you read Victor Stenger’s The God Hypothesis, and Michael Shermer’s two books Why People Believe Weird Things and How People Believe Weird Things. I don’t suggest these titles as a means to dissuade you of your belief, but rather in the hopes that you will at least recognize that your belief is not and cannot be justified by reason or rationalism.
In post number 151 you wrote: “I don't have a choice in this. It is a belief, and people do not choose what to believe. Belief is an involuntary reaction to the evidence presented.”
What! Wrong. You do have a choice in what to believe. If what you say is true then how do you explain apostasy? How can even a single person ever change their posture from that of belief to nonbelief, or the reverse? How can anyone ever replace one belief with another? Or do you deny that people change their beliefs? Ask any atheist who was once a believer (they number in the hundreds of thousands I submit) if his or her conversion was an “involuntary reaction.” Don’t be surprised by the bemused reaction you will likely get. Furthermore, if belief is an involuntary reaction to the evidence presented then why have you not had the involuntary reaction of abandoning your belief, since the evidence that has been presented by the various posters in this thread has been so overwhelming? Why don’t all believers abandon their belief when confronted with the meager body of poor quality evidence for God’s existence? And you are incapable of exercising any dominion over your brain? Your mind has chosen the belief path? Fine, but please come to terms with the fact that you did not do this employing any recognizable form of reason or rational inquiry. I know you want to cling to the belief that you arrived at your belief by the route of reason, but this is a self-deception. Again, I direct you to the writings of Victor Stenger.
In post number 174 you wrote: I can say, "Nobody has ever been able to prove that ghosts exist, so I think it is unlikely that it was a ghost. Do you think that there are other explanations that might make sense?"
First, the methods of science are not designed to prove a proposition, but rather to test it and if it is false then to uncover this fact. But failure to disprove a proposition does not inherently prove the claim. All conclusions in science are accepted on a provisional basis. The status of their acceptance depends on the level of confidence held about that inference. And the level of confidence is based in large measure on how often the hypothesis has been tested and survived (was not rejected). The level of confidence is also influenced by how well the hypothesis integrates with already well established scientific principles, laws and theories. So please stop posting responses in which you assume that the existence of ghosts, fairies or Gods has to be proven. The burden is NOT on the person who rejects your God hypothesis, but rather the burden is yours to provide a sufficiently convincing body of evidence on behalf of the claim. If you cannot do this then the claim has no legitimacy, no credibility, and is rejected. The fact that you have repeatedly ignored this lesson seems to imply that you are not listening. Furthermore, why do you apply this standard to the ghost belief example discussed but refuse to apply the same standard to your own belief? Why do you not ask yourself the same questions? Why do you not say to yourself: “Given the sparse body of evidence for God’s existence, outside my own personal experience, it is unlikely God exists. Why not ask yourself, “Since God’s existence cannot be proven it is unlikely God exists? Why do not ask yourself, “Are there other explanations that make more sense?” Given your refusal to accept any of the many logical and reasonable explanations and arguments proffered in this blog thread, one is forced to conclude that your claim to being open-minded is empty; that your hold to this claim is a self-induced delusion. I know that you will likely think that I am being insulting and antagonistic, as you have indicated about others who have posted similar comments. But this is not the intent nor is it what is actually happening. You have dug yourself into a deep mental trench and seem incapable of climbing out of it to see what is so obvious to those not in the trench with you.
To all those who have used insulting language, like calling Drophammer a moron, shame on you. It is frustrating to continue to argue with a person who has convinced themselves of something as thoroughly as Drophammer has done. But I remind each of you that Drophammer remains a person deserving and worthy of respect and treatment that acknowledges his dignity and does not aim to denigrate the person. Take issue with the message, with the argument. This is fair game. But we all have an ethical obligation to display moral regard for the person(s) with whom we engage in discourse, whether it be face-to-face or by remote means.
SteveM # 146 wrote: “Even though you can reproduce the experience by putting his head in a machine and "pushing a button" does not mean the original experience was not caused by "divine intervention". You know one way of creating that experience, but presumably he had that experience without being in a machine and you pushing that button. In fact, might that not actually argue that the original experience really was "divine", because there was no machinery to produce it?”
The answer is no. What the machine does is stimulate the same part of the brain inducing the same experience as the non-machine induced event. The inference is that a natural agent stimulated the brain in an identical or similar manner and induced the original experience. There is no logical reason to postulate a divine agent until all conceivable natural explanations are exhausted. And the history of science teaches us that sooner or later science uncovers the natural explanation and has never had to resort to the supernatural. Given this track record, the more compelling assumption is that God does not exist. Or at a minimum there is no compelling reason to resort to the God Hypothesis for an explanation. At best, making the very dubious assumption of God’s existence, he/she/it would seem to have left a message on the office door: “Retired. Gone golfing. Won’t be returning. You’re on your own!” But then it is foolish to believe this. It’s more likely that god is just an invention of the human imagination and/or the product of our yearning for certainty in a world laced with uncertainty.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 5:20 AM
[meta]
Randy, that's one hell of a slab of text.
tl;dr material.
I suggest you'll do better by breaking up each response to a commenter — one comment per response.
[/meta]
PS re your response to Aquaria #97: try doing a search on Mooney using the search box at the upper left of the page. There's a lot of discussion.
Posted by: phlgradstudent
|
June 29, 2010 5:42 AM
here here!
That was a hell of slab of text - and it contains quite a lot with which I cannot disagree. However, I was one of those calling DH a moron, and I feel no shame. He claims to be singularly able to speak to the universe of experience, and backs his claims with nothing more than his own subjectivity. He outright brags that his experience determines what can be construed as existent. More, he claims that those who refuses this 'warrant' of veracity are deluded. This is evidence enough for me to make the (admittedly speculative) statement that DH is a moron.
Of course, this is not an ideological claim, it is subject to both refutation and adaptation. I will change my opinion if and when given reason to do so. More, it is not a universal claim. It could very well be that DH is highly knowledgeable in some sphere of his life. Give me evidence of this and I will happily recognize that his moronity is thereby limited.
Finally, he does not come across as an actual sophomore, but a perpetual one. Ergo, drophammer is a moron. I don't mean to offend, only recognize that it happens sometimes.
Posted by: Janey Mack
|
June 29, 2010 5:43 AM
I came for the tentacles, but I hang around for pieces like this! Great post, PZ. And some great comments, too. I'll be mulling over Sastra's #73 for a while, especially.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 29, 2010 6:12 AM
oh what complete and utter bullshit. your tonetrolling has certainly been noted, but it's not a valid argument for your position being more defensible. what part of "ridiculous ideas can only be dealt with with ridicule" did you not understand? Besides, by the standards that apply here, you've been neither respectful nor pleasant, since you're just publicly masturbating; it's extremely impolite around here to use logical fallacies, empty buzzwords and the annoying "i'm not here to convert you, I'm just here to assert that you're unreflexive, closminded fundamentalists" to "defend" one's position, instead of evidence. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; ever heard that? the supernatural is an extraordinary claim with no evidence. therefore, the rational thing is to stick with an explanation for which there is evidence, or the null hypothesis. you have no flaming clue how rational, skeptical thinking works; either that, or you're not actually interested in making sure that what you believe is as close to accurate as possible. Either way, those are not admirable qualities, as you seem to believe. not only has no one ever shown the slightest sliver of evidence that ghosts exist, there's no mechanism by which they could exist. again, extraordinary evidence required before it's rational to even entertain the notion that it really could have been a ghost. they exist only in folklore, and have been disproven on many occasions. why do you think it would be rational to still consider them a valid answer, despite lack of any positive evidence for them? you're pathetic; tone is not a valid excuse for your cowardice in responding (which is very disrespectful and annoying, btw), but it's been duly noted.Equally noted is the fact that you focus on tone more than on the substance of the posts. This is a sign of someone who can't actually defend his position, and moreover of someone who has still remainders of an authoritative world-view, in which the nicer authority is believed to be the more accurate one. You're not having this conversation honestly. Very disappointing, but not surprising. Theists always tonetroll instead of making a proper argument.
Posted by: KG
|
June 29, 2010 6:41 AM
Jadehawk, OM@165,
Great stuff! Drophammer completely pwnd!
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
June 29, 2010 7:07 AM
Not believing in a gawd does not take anything special. While there might be bravery in facing the scorn of friends and family, declaring oneself as a non believer, as an atheist, only requires a willingness to grow up. It may be comforting to be a child and have your hours, your day, you life planned for you, but that is no way to live. Atheism, democracy, free speech, all of these can be uncomfortable to deal with. No simple answers to fall back upon. No one else to blame, i.e., gawd's will.
When you leave childhood you have to make choices. Many people otherwise function as adults, but still allow belief in a deity to shackle them. Often the shackles stop them from doing the things they think, or know, are right: support for social justice; tolerance of the different; actually trying to understand things like global warming or poverty or war or terrorism. Despite its claims, so much of western religion seems to be based on hate vice love. The shackles of hate are strong, but they are comforting. They are also childish.
It is hard to take control your own life. No one else to blame when you screw up. I still think it is best to stand and not to kneel. No gawd, no politician, no actor or celebrity, no guru, no one person should tell you how to live, how to belive, how to think.
Rambling off
Posted by: SpeedOfLight
|
June 29, 2010 9:38 AM
To Drophammer @ comments #128 - the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation.
Posted by: SpeedOfLight
|
June 29, 2010 9:51 AM
To Owlmirror @ comments #142 -
Thank you for the corrections. I was going for the general figures in history. I am well aware of the knowledge of a round Earth by the Greeks as well as he notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun being first proposed in the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos. I will be more accurate in the future. My apologies.
As to the point that the intelligent people of ancient Greece scoffed at the notions of Apollo driving his chariot across the sky and other simple legends...now we scoff at the gods of Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc. But the uneducated masses believed the stories.
Posted by: SpeedOfLight
|
June 29, 2010 10:06 AM
To truthspeaker @ comment #173 -
I only meant religion has merits by keeping the ignorant masses at bay. I am not remotely religious or spiritual, but I understand the saying "ignorance is bliss". Until each individual finds their way to the truth - according to science - I would rather have a large group of the population believing that they must behave according to their religion to have "everlasting life". And when I say behave, I mean be a good person, have good ethics and morals (this is more in the Christian sense. I know some in the Islamic faith believe killing the infidels is good behavior).
But that is only my opinion.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 10:10 AM
Several people took the time to respond to me in a constructive fashion, including Vicki, Crudely Wrott, Owlmirror, and Randy. Thanks for the posts. I appreciate the time you put into them.
I'll try to carry on a discussion here around those who have demonstrated that they're not up for a more adult conversation.
A few things before I forget. I am not making the argument that my experiences trump science. Nor am I reluctant to share them because they require "cover stories" to keep them consistent. I have already explained that I don't want the discussion to move from the general to the specific, and then get lost in the minutiae of my personal experiences.
But, let me further explain. The main experience that I would classify as divine occurred some 20 years ago. The only thing that we would have to work with in evaluating it scientifically would be my testimony of it. Since nobody here was there to experience it with me, and there were no instruments there taking measurements and data that we can review, there's just not much that we can do that would be useful.
I have discussed the main experience with some friends who are atheists, one who is a double PHD, another who works in the physical sciences, and some average joes. I decided to discuss this with them because we had discussed similar topics before, and I was confident that I, as a person, would be treated with respect. Of course, they were certain that my experience had a natural explanation, and they offered several suggestions.
Crudely Wrott - I think I understand the point you are making, and I think there is a lot of merit there. Setting aside the cause of the "divine" experience, all the subject really has IS the experience. Everything else that is built up around it for context is speculation, assumption, or outright conscious mythmaking. I agree entirely. In my discussion on these topics with believers, I am constantly coming at that idea from the other side, and it is a point that I use to attack organized religion, church hierarchies, and canonized scriptures. They are usually amazed that I could accept their experience for what it was, whatever it was, and yet not take that as confirmation for the structures that have been built up around them as a context.
Owlmirror, you indicated an interest in understanding the context of my beliefs. The reasoning about my experience that led to my beliefs. Long story short: I was raised in a Christian denomination. I was fashioned into something of a warrior for faith. I discovered on my own a logical contradiction in the bible (amazing, huh?, lol, more followed once I admitted to myself that it was possible). As I studied this personally, it led to more focused study in college on the topic - I took several classes in the arena of Christian origins and comparative religion. I had decided that what I needed to do was deconstruct my beliefs, disassemble them all, and then examine them as I rebuilt them, reviewing the evidence. This would lead to discarding those that did not make sense to me and those that were not aligned with more foundational beliefs that had already been reevaluated. At that same time, I had my experience. The biggest takeaway (aside from personal considerations) that I had from it was an appreciation for the personal, mystical experience. I had been wondering how to deal with the idea of personal revelation - or to put it colloquially, are all prophets liars? Now, I found myself in similar shoes (not that I was in a hurry to share my experience). I realized that it was unlikely that others would believe me or be as personally affected as I was. And the understanding of that helped to create the shape of the beliefs that reformed in the long process since that time of personal reevaluation.
Randy - "Nobody joins a false religion to worship a false god." That isn't intended as proof that any god(s) exist. It is a reminder that when we are dealing with folks that are not like us, that we remember that their motivations are very much like our own. They aren't trying to hoodwink us (for the most part). These are sincere believers with sincere beliefs. Also, you illuminated what I think is a misunderstanding about me here. I am not saying that personal experience proves anything. I am arguing that in discussion within this arena, people should remember that it is seriously (and unnecessarily) insulting to dismiss the experiences of others or to pretend to know the cause of the experience. Science is never afraid to say, "I don't know." The great thing about science is that it usually follows that up with, "But I would love to find out." I've seen people dismiss the experiences of others with comments like, "You are obviously doing drugs," or, "Clearly, you had some kind of medical issue, some physical problem with your brain." I understand that this is entirely possible. But it is inappropriate, IMHO, to offer such a diagnosis when you do not know the actual cause. It only serves to widen the divide and dampen communication and understanding. I have a great deal of respect for folks who take the position of, "Well, I am not sure what caused your experience, but I am sure that there was a natural cause for it." Even offering possibilities is useful, but as in most issues of communication, it matters how we treat each other. You had a much larger message, but my response here is already so large that I am going to leave the rest of that for now.
Vicki, I missed a post by you, to me, and it was really a good post. I appreciate your point about allowing possible explanations to inform an unexplained event. Your logic is persuasive. Might I ask, do you dismiss the possibility of the supernatural out of hand, or only after consideration?
Also, I forget who asked for it, but I am using what I consider a common definition for supernatural - things that have no definitive explanation. By definition, science has no comment on the supernatural. Science considers the natural world. If you can measure it, it is natural. If you can record it, it is natural. If you cannot measure it or record it, I don't know that science can do much with it.
Thanks to all... now back to work for me.
:-)
Drophammer
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 29, 2010 12:47 PM
I don't see what ignorance or science has to do with it. You don't need scientific knowledge to realize that easy, simple answers are usually wrong. You don't need to understand science to face the fact that life is finite and existence has no intrinsic meaning. I'm talking about emotional maturity, not scientific knowledge.
I don't want to keep the ignorant masses "at bay", nor do I want them to be fed condescending mythology by the intelligentsia.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 29, 2010 12:54 PM
But if you can't measure it or record it, how do you know it even exists?
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 2:00 PM
If you experience it, then you can know that it exists. Whatever it is.
That isn't very convincing in terms of persuading someone else that it exists, to be sure. But for oneself, I think that such would be sufficient.
Drophammer
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 29, 2010 2:00 PM
what kind of adult is afraid of harsh language? you're merely a coward, with a crappy, pearl-clutching excuse. wtf? there is no general without the specific. this is the tactic of those without evidence, since evidence is always on the very specific level. only once the specific evidence has been gathered, can we even begin to talk about whether it also applies to a more general level.theists never want to do that, since such close looks at their belief always either result in showing flaws and contrary evicence, or them evaporating as the meaningless fluff they are.
and again this assumption that your experience is so unique that not only has no one else experienced it in controlled conditions, but that a detailed report of it wouldn't lead a neuroscientist on the path of the physiological phenomenon that caused it (which is how this usually works). cute, but utterly irrelevant. and interesting anyway, that you assume atheists have never experienced such a thing. I have, and IIRC our very own Patricia has even seen the devil himself, attacking her during a prayer; and yet, she had the intellectual honesty to eventually admit that it was nothing but a self-induced brainfart. indeed. and the person experiencing it can't tell the difference between a brainfart and a potentially real experience (even worse with recollections and memories thereof, all of which are wrong to some degree or another, even about utterly mundane things). The human brain is notoriously unreliable in accurately perceiving and interpreting the world; I'd never trust it on such essential issues. the unreliability of the human brain needs to be brought to the awareness of far more people, far more acutely. sincere belief is meaningless; witness accounts (aka testimony) are the lowest form of evidence; the degree of conviction (esp in the case of martyrdom) is not evidence for the truth/reality of a belief. the respect our culture gives the personal experience, based in the religious mindset, needs to be rooted out. It is dangerous, and not just when applied to dangerous religions, but also in such areas as alt-med and anti-vaxxer movements, which worship the personal experience. It's really virtually worthless and potentially dangerous, why should we pretend otherwise? such comments are just as appropriate as the speculation of divinity by the unreliable brain that experienced the event itself. and amazingly enough, they're far more likely to be accurate, even if they're wild guesses. god of the gaps indeed. what a weasely definition. not only does nothing have a definitive answer, but things that don't have an answer likely will in the future. Looks like by that definition (ignoring the gratuitous "definitive"), the world is becoming less and less supernatural since the invention of science. Guess the fundies were right, and science really is trying to kill god ;-) if it cannot be measured or recorded, it's indistinguishable from nonexistent. I can agree with a definition for the supernatural that defines it basically as nonexistentPosted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 2:18 PM
This isn't a very good definition, though. Lots of things have no definitive explanation yet -- does that mean that they are all supernatural?
Richard Carrier has a more rigorous definition ("at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental thing"), and backs up why he uses that definition in that way. He also includes a definition of "paranormal", distinct from "supernatural", as something that "exists outside the domain of currently plausible science. As such, it could just be a natural phenomenon we don't yet understand or haven't yet seen. But it could also be something supernatural. Or an entirely bogus claim. We won't know until we have enough evidence to make a determination."
It looks a little like you might mean by "supernatural" what Carrier calls "paranormal". Do you agree?
However, I would argue, absent more detail, that your experience isn't paranormal by the above definition. Currently plausible science does indeed currently include an understanding of neurological events that could very well be interpreted as divine experiences.
Do you want to try expressing your definition of "believe", as asked @#179?
Science is not just about measuring or recording single instances of things, but reasoning about that which has been measured.
We cannot measure or record the moment of conception of every single human -- but we reason from what we have recorded that all conceptions result from the fusion of a human sperm and a human egg. There might be an odd rare instance of parthenogenesis, but that extraordinary claim would require the extraordinary evidence of a genetic test showing that the resulting daughter was genetically identical to her mother. We can be confident in rejecting a claim that some human was, or might have been, the result of fusion of a non-human sperm and a human egg, especially if no evidence in support of this claim is provided.
We cannot measure or record every single birth of every single human -- but we reason from what we have recorded that all births are from the womb of a human mother. We can be confident in rejecting the claim that any births result from the baby being brought by a stork.
Given that, can you respond to the analogous reasoning in #159?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 2:32 PM
The other night, I experienced a close-up encounter with bears. I could see their huge bodies, their muzzles filled with sharp teeth, their coarse grey fur, and their long claws.
Then I woke up.
Would it make sense to claim that I know that the bears that I experienced exist?
I am convinced that my experience happened. I am not convinced that what I experienced exists.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 2:34 PM
Jadehawk, it has nothing to do with being afraid of harsh language. But such language has no place in a discussion like this.
It also is not an issue of fear for me concerning discussing my own experience. You forget that I have discussed it with other atheists - and at that time, the point of the discussion was the consideration of various explanations. I just don't want to share it in this particular forum, and each unnecessarily nasty post further convinces me that I am correct in refraining from doing so.
I do not assume that my experience was unique. Perhaps it was, perhaps not. I am interested in this topic, and have kept up to date on the kind of work being done in labs to try to create experiences like those reported by various people. Nothing I have seen or read about in such work comes close to what I experienced. I would likely have dismissed the experience myself if it were of the sort that are reported in such lab experiments.
If you have heard from several friends that Route 3 does not go from Alphaville to Zeta Town, and you have a map that agrees with them, and some guy you don't know says he thinks it DOES go to Zeta Town, you are not likely to believe him. Testimony of a single witness, not as reliable as the other evidence. Indeed.
However, if you have heard from several friends that Route 3 does not go from Alphaville to Zeta Town, and you have a map that agrees with them, and yet, the next time you take Route 3 from Alphaville on your way to Beta Hills, you find yourself driving through Zeta Town, are you going to continue to believe your friends and the map, or are you going to accept your experience?
I'd wager that you'd accept your experience, and try to figure out what was going on.
As I have said before, personal testimony of an experience is not usually persuasive to those who did not participate in the experience. That is completely understandable. I would be interested to see how some of the posters here would react to experiences like those that I have read about or to experiences like mine.
Speculation is appropriate in situations like this. Speculation in any direction, subject to the evidence available. What is inappropriate is assuming that (and acting as though) you know the cause when you do not know the cause.
Perhaps you would prefer a different definition of supernatural? I am not sure what would satisfy you, but perhaps it would include something about phenomena that seem to violate the constrains of the natural world?
I find your dismissive use of the term "god of the gaps" interesting. Gods can exist only in the gaps, by definition. Once a natural explanation for a phenomenon is understood, there is no longer any room for gods in that phenomenon. But that is the way it has always been.
If something is experienced that cannot be measured or recorded, I am not sure that it equates to being nonexistent.
Drophammer
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 29, 2010 2:39 PM
re 183:
I am not arguing that the experience was really divinely generated. My point was that reproducing it mechanically will not necessarily be very convincing to one that had the experience without the machinery. Yes, it demonstrates that the experience was "in their brain", but does not answer the question of what actually caused it. For those of us who do not accept supernatural agents, yes the inference is that the state was caused naturally in some way, but for those who do believe in supernatural agents, I don't think the mechanical demonstration will dissuade them. When I wrote, "In fact, might that not actually argue that the original experience really was 'divine', because there was no machinery to produce it?", I was not clear that I meant it from the perspective of the "believer" and not an objective scientific viewpoint. He will say if it takes being in an MRI to generate that experience and he was not in an MRI at the time, then it must be supernatural. I am not saying he is aguing correctly.
P.S. Randy, please use blockquotes to quote other comments.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 2:41 PM
Owlmirror, assume for a moment that you are unfamiliar with dreaming.
If you then had the experience you described, what do you think would be appropriate responses?
You had other experience you were able to bring to bear in understanding the bear experience.
Drophammer
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 29, 2010 2:43 PM
To add to Owlmirror's dream comparison - I've experienced some amazingly non-existent things while completely conscious, and without the use of hallucinogenic drugs- I experienced being chased around the house by a piece of string, experienced SS stormtroopers marching through a wall, and experienced the apparent inflation of my room to approximately 10 times its normal size - all as a result of running a fever of over 102 - are we to assume from your assertion that I really was chased around the house by an inanimate object, or that time travelling Nazi's for some reason decided to invade my living room at 2am, or that my immediate surroundings inflated massively?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 2:56 PM
Which "definition" are you using here?
If a god were a real entity, it could demonstrate its existence empirically.
But if I had not, and other people had records of similar experiences (seeing/hearing things that had no effect outside of one's head at night), would it makes sense to claim that my experience was somehow different from theirs?
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 3:01 PM
Owlmirror, I would say that perhaps, as you are using it, paranormal would be a good term as a general catch-all.
As for what think belief is, it is more than a behavioral tendency, because people can act against belief. I would say that it is deeper than "something I think is true" - perhaps we could go with "something I think I know is true". Alternatively, "something I accept as true" might be better. I am not sure. It seems to be such a foundational word, believe, that it is hard to define without self-reference.
As for #159 and our discussion of Paul's experience, if we're going to attempt to explain it, we have to consider another portion of the narrative:
Acts 9:7, "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Paul's experience was not limited to just Paul.
Now, I know that what you wanted me to do was to consider it in terms of parsimony in the context of our knowledge of various conditions that could produce experiences like the one described. And I do think that it is a good argument. But parsimony isn't proof. It's just a good indicator. Sometimes, the actual explanation for a thing can be quite complicated.
I hope I did not miss any other questions you asked. If so, let me know.
Drophammer
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 3:07 PM
But this is all about external empirical things that you can investigate to account for the anomaly, at the very least. The time it took from your starting point; various landmarks; the various road signs.
Is it possible that some prankster put "Route 3" signs on the road to Zeta Town, for example?
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 3:10 PM
Owlmirror, I think you are correct that if others described to you what dreaming was, and your experience matched it well, that it would be reasonable to assume that you had been dreaming, as well.
But what if your experience (for whatever reason) differed in significant ways from the descriptions of dreaming that you were given from others?
Ewan - I experienced hallucinations of a small gray being (oddly, not like the "greys" of UFO lore) that would attempt to touch me if I ignored it. The cause? An allergic reaction to a medication. My response to the experience? I asked my roommate at the time if he could see what I was seeing. He said no, and I said take me to the hospital. Analysis? Even during the experience, there was an unreality to it that made me suspicious of it. While I was surprised by the hallucination, I don't think I ever believed it was real. During your strange experiences, did you at any time think that they were real?
Drophammer
Posted by: Paul
|
June 29, 2010 3:25 PM
But all these "people" are traceable to the one person who wrote the account. Paul talked a lot about his experience later, so it's reasonable to assume he experienced something. Is there record of these other people who witnessed the event talking about the miraculous sound of the disembodied voice?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 3:27 PM
Are the differences empirical or nonempirical?
I've had fairly lucid dreams, for example. I've also had dreams about dreaming that I had woken up.
I've also had dreams where I found something in the dream which I wanted, and was holding in my hand at the time I woke up, or dreamed I woke up. Sometimes I dreamed that I still had it, but on really waking up, the thing of course was never there.
Comments on #198?
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 3:27 PM
Owlmirror, sure, it is possible that a prankster put up fake Route 3 signs. But at the moment of the experience, you aren't discounting the experience in favor of the other evidence.
That was really my point. I know the analogy isn't perfect, because (as you say) it would be an easy enough thing to verify later.
Unless when you got back to your friends, they maintained that they and the map were right, and so you go out to show them what you experienced, only to discover that they are right, and you can't get to Zeta Town on Route 3.
*cue spooky music*
Drophammer
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 29, 2010 3:32 PM
I wouldn't think so at all. We know human perceptions can be fooled. If I experience something, all I can reliably say is that I experienced something.
Posted by: Randy
|
June 29, 2010 3:47 PM
John Morales @post 184
You are absolutely right John. Now that I look back at it the post it was much too long. Thanks for the advice on breaking up longer comments. My only defense is I am new to the blogosphere, so am on a steep learning curve at the present time.
I understand your rationale defending the use of the word moron. My rebuttal is that regardless of the dictionary meaning of the word, the term has taken on in our culture an ugly, pejorative connotation. As a deeply committed humanist I flinch whenever words such as these are used, when I know that there are words in this language that can accomplish the same goal, are not wrapped in pejorative garb, and engender conversation rather than shutting it down. I deeply believe in polite, civil discourse and I always remind myself that the person at the other end of this stream of electrons has moral worth. On several occasions several posters have referenced the quote that ridiculous arguments can be fought only with ridicule. I think it is from a remark by Thomas Jefferson. I am a huge fan of Jefferson, but it does not seem to occur to those who use this line that it may simply be wrong. I think it is. Doesn’t seem to be working on Drophammer. And even if it does work, I think it a blunt instrument. I think there are more persuasive tools available. As we employ coarse, harsh, derogatory tools and words ever more frequently we coarsen, cheapen and poison conversation. You indicate that you don’t intend to offend when you apply the descriptor moron to Drophammer. But our ethical and moral behavior is not judged by our intent but rather by its actual consequences. Furthermore, as I so often tell by students and nieces and nephews, “Just because you have a thought does not mean it must be let loose.” You can say the same thing using terms or phrases that are not demeaning of a person’s dignity. I hold dignity as the first principle of my humanist philosophy. As an educator, I see Drophammer as an opportunity to educate, to illuminate, to edify, and to liberate from the trappings of the twisted form of reasoning which appears to imprison his mind. This is the target. Can’t get there if I take a hammer to him anytime he fails to see the proverbial “lightbulb.” And likewise neither will you.
Posted by: Randy
|
June 29, 2010 3:50 PM
Drophammer @ post #193
Again you raise the issue of the divine experience that led you to your God belief and that serves as the primary, if not sole, underpinning of this belief. The reason you have been continually hammered on this is not because the posters are dismissive of your experience, but you give them no opportunity to evaluate it. All anyone has is your word that it is a reasonable enough reason for your belief and that no acceptable natural explanation has been or can be offered to refute it. Surely you know that a group of rational, skeptical freethinkers, such as those who frequent this site, are going to demand more than your personal assurances?
“ It is a reminder that when we are dealing with folks that are not like us, that we remember that their motivations are very much like our own.”
Can’t accept that this is a useful reminder. A person who accepts a religion and the God(s) of that religion is not influenced by the same motivators as I. There is an engine of an entirely different design powering their mind and it is fed by a different fuel. My reminder is simply that all individuals are worthy of the same ethical and moral consideration.
You argue that it is inappropriate to dismiss a person’s experiences with statements that they must have some medical problem or have ingested some recreational pharmaceutical (a term a California friend of mine likes to use and it does have a more lyrical ring than the word drugs). Agreed. But it is unreasonable for a person to hold a conclusion or belief using poor logic or employing any of the logical fallacies and expect to be given a pass. Why can’t you accept that your “divine” experience most likely has a natural explanation and just settle for not knowing what it is until the explanation is found. If you accept the tenets, guidelines and rules of scientific thinking, then you know this is the default position of science. You instead leap to a supernatural explanation, violating all the rules of logic and guiding principles of scientific methodologies. And then you insist that skeptics accept your position as reasonable when the ground on which is rests is unreasonable.
Am curious as to where you plucked your definition of supernatural: things that have no definitive explanation? This is not to my knowledge a recognized definition in any standard reference. Additionally, this definition means that anything at any given moment that has no explanation is by default supernatural. All sorts of logical and cognitive red flags should be popping up in your head. And how do we decide and agree on what is a definitive explanation for some phenomenon in the midst of an ongoing investigation into the phenomenon? Science does not use this as a default position. Science makes the assumption that all natural phenomena have explanations grounded in natural processes. There are numerous natural phenomena that at present have no explanation - what is dark energy, what is dark matter are just two examples. Yet we don’t conclude that their explanation is supernatural because we don’t currently understand them. This is yet another logical fallacy or faulty argument. You incorrectly assume that since no natural explanation is yet known the explanation must be supernatural. There is no logical reason to make this assumption in the absence of positive evidence for the assumption. Do so assumes the validity or truth of the very conclusion for which you are arguing. This is circular logic. You really do need to acquaint yourself with the different logical fallacies. I suggest reading Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted word, particularly the chapter on the Baloney Detection Kit. I also refer you to the following websites: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacking_Faulty_Reasoning
There are many more and a google search well reveal them. But the above is more than an adequate set of references.
Posted by: Randy
|
June 29, 2010 3:58 PM
Drophammer,
Just noticed that I did not give the fully correct title of Sagan's book: The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Also I butchered a sentence near the end. "Do so assumes the validity or truth of the very conclusion for which you are arguing." This sentence should read "To do so..." I hate it when I fail to catch such mistakes on my part. Also noticed the typo in the last sentence. The word "well" should be "will."
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 4:01 PM
Or someone put "Welcome to Zeta Town" over/in place of the sign for "Welcome to Beta Hills".
I'm not talking about the moment of the experience, but the analysis and reasoning you do afterward. Clearly, something anomalous took place. But I don't understand just stopping there, at the moment of recognition of an anomaly.
Do you try and reverse your route? Do you look for definite signs that you are in Zeta Town rather than Beta Hills, and that you were on Route 3? Do you note landmarks? Do you check the time?
How did you get back to Alphaville from Zeta Town before trying to show them?
Do you note differences between what you saw the first time and the second time?
Can you look at the map and see where you were when you thought you arrived in Zeta Town, then go there, then work your way backwards along that road?
You've described a puzzle. What steps do you take to investigate the puzzle? It may not be soluble, but the analysis is important to be sure that you haven't made a mistake in your conclusion that the anomaly is real rather than illusory.
I am reminded that some years ago, Jim MacDonald retraced the path of Betty and Barney Hill (archive link used because the site itself has been timing out for me just now), keeping track of time as he did so, and explaining their experience as the result of extreme tiredness, confusion, and misinterpretation of completely natural phenomena in the light of unfamiliarity and sleep deprivation (pun intended).
I realize that you're just making an analogy, but you might find the above essay interesting nonetheless.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 4:03 PM
Owlmirror, I am looking at #198 to try and cover anything I might have missed before.
Well, let's look at that definition again:
A thing that exists outside the domain of currently plausible science. As such, it could just be a natural phenomenon we don't yet understand or haven't yet seen. But it could also be something supernatural. Or an entirely bogus claim. We won't know until we have enough evidence to make a determination.
I'd say that especially because you don't know exactly what my experience was, it falls within this definition. But let's say it was such a thing as you might want to account for it via some neurological condition. That would merely be a guess, until some evidence could be secured that would show that it was caused by a neurological condition. That evidence is 20 years in the past, if it was there at any time.
I would not fault you for assuming that there had to be a natural cause. You are an atheist, after all. Your position is entirely reasonable. I don't happen to agree with you on this particular event, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't agree with you on some other event.
I think I have responded to all of #198 now over the course of several posts. Thanks for your patience.
Drophammer
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 4:42 PM
(Missed #205 before)
OK, thanks. I may come back to this later.
Uh... only according to an otherwise unreliable text, as Paul @#208 points out.
And something is not right with the scenario. If a disembodied voice can speak once so that others can hear, why can't it speak more than once in that way? Why did Paul need to speak for the voice when preaching, instead of the voice speaking for itself?
Parsimony does not mean simplicity, in and of itself. It means rejecting that which is not necessary as an explanation.
I am quite sure that whatever happened inside your head was rather complicated. But is it necessary to posit that the only way that it could have happened is that a god exists that decided, for whatever reason, to talk to you once, and (insofar as I understand you) not say anything that could be verified by anyone else, nor ever say anything again?
I would say "no".
Is your response "definitely yes" or "maybe yes" or just "maybe"? It's been hard to pin down exactly how certain you are of what happened.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 29, 2010 4:48 PM
Randy -
You misread. My experience does not underpin my beliefs. It does contribute to them, especially in terms of how I deal with others who claim to have had experiences, themselves.
Hmm. There may be a natural explanation for it. I have also stated several times that I do not expect anyone, let alone the staunch atheists here, to accept that it had anything other than some strange, natural cause. Being there myself, I did not see any evidence of a natural cause.
I don't expect them to be convinced. I guess I am confused as to where this misunderstanding came from. I am trying to explain why I am not convinced that it was natural, and that I don't feel my position is unreasonable.
I don't think you understood me. Maybe I did not communicate my point well. They're people. Just people. They believe sincerely. I don't think they deserve to be called stupid (even all the ones whose beliefs I don't share). I think they deserve to be engaged with respect. Atheists often get the short end of that stick from fundamentalists, and atheists likewise deserve to be engaged with respect.
Agreed.
I mostly agree. But if a person remains reasonable and engaged, but does not agree, I don't think that your judgment that they are using poor logic or using logical fallacies justifies rude treatment.
Why can't you accept that I accept the possibility that there is a natural explanation, though I do not believe that there is?
Actually, I did not leap anywhere. I experienced, and then I lived with that experience afterward. My experience being an accurate depiction of reality was, admittedly, my starting point. I had, after all, just experienced it. There were no possible natural causes to what happened that seemed strong enough to contradict the reality of the experience.
I am actually insisting that I be taken as a reasonable person in general. I do not expect skeptics to believe that my experience was divine.
Whoa, relax! LOL, I was just offering an off the cuff response, trying to honestly express what I was thinking, rather than running to the dictionary. I am open to changing the definition, as has been demonstrated in several other posts.
No. I simply do not discount the supernatural in all cases where the cause is unknown. It depends on the thing in question - dark matter and dark energy are not things I typically consider supernatural. I am quite content with the "we just don't understand it yet" position on those.
Hmmm. I had an experience, and can find no logical reason to discount that I actually had the experience nor to discount that it reflected the nature of reality accurately. As I said, some suggestions have been offered by some atheists who I discussed it with - and those suggestions were more plausible to them than my own belief that the cause was not "natural" but rather divine. The reality of the experience itself, admittedly a subjective judgment, speaks against that for me. I recognize that this is convincing only to me, not to others, because I cannot SHOW this evidence to anyone. I cannot hand the reality of the experience to you and let you make your own judgment.
I have to run now... appointments and such.
Thanks again,
Drophammer
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 29, 2010 4:56 PM
Well there's your problem.
What criteria do you use to determine whether you consider something supernatural or not yet understood?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 29, 2010 5:12 PM
bullshit. your evasion and sophistry have no place in a discussion like this; tone OTOH is entirely irrelevant, since it doesn't affect the content. and your cowardice convinces me that you don't think your experience could stand the criticism of extremely skeptical, and not easily blinded with shiny rhetoric and other bullshit atheists, as they can be found on this blog. can't be that closely (or with that much understanding), considering the free-flowing bullshit from earlier about the sockpuppet-god study. If that's how you form your opinion about science, I'm not impressed. no; far more likely, I'd assume that I accidentally took a wrong turn somewhere, or that I'm misremembering and conflating several different trips. But if I re-took the route several times to test my experience and I ended up in Zeta Town every time, I'd consider that a well-tested hypothesis. Shoot, I might even take a picture of a Zeta Town and Route 3 sign, to prove that I'm neither hallucinating nor lying. If however Route 3 never again takes me to Zeta Town, the far more rational explanation is that it didn't that one time either, and i'm either misremembering or got lost, than to assume magical wormholes.And that's the main difference between your analogy and personal experiences: discovering a road goes somewhere it isn't supposed to is an empirical experience that can be easily tested, even by others, in precisely the same way you experience it. it can be easily and objectively measured. Personal experience is much harder to test in such a way. it's entirely subjective, since it relies entirely on internal processes, most importantly memory. remembering a single experience is 100% inaccurate. There's precisely nothing you can do about it.
as I've already mentioned, some posters had such experiences. Depending on where in life they were at the time, they reacted like theists are wont to do, and only afterwards realized that it was just a brainfart. It's certainly my conclusion about my experience. At first, before I learned more about the brain, I also thought it was magic. But no, just scrambled up memories. phenomena that are violating the known laws of nature, with no natural explanation possible. Only that way you can avoid a god of the gaps fallacy. It's a basic scientific setup: the null hypothesis is the lack of the supernatural (more parsimonious); only when the null-hypothesis fails to explain the data, and is therefore disproven, can we start talking about evidence for the supernatural existing (btw, disproving the null hypothesis doesn't prove its opposite; it's merely one datapoint. as I earlier mentioned, science doesn't prove, it specifically disproves positive claims. A failure to disprove a positive claim (i.e. the failure of the null hypothesis) is only the first step) the point is to avoid assuming that current lack of knowledge is already reason enough to assume, or even propose, the existence of the supernatural. it isn't. by definition, a hypothesis that can only exist in the unexamined is a superfluous hypothesis. it only makes sense to propose a hypothesis if an actual phenomenon could need it as an explanation. But then you have to disprove the alternatives before you can start assuming that your hypothesis might be accurate. everything that happens to or with things in the natural world, including the human brain, can at least in principle be measured. So far, we've not found anything that we tried to measure and utterly failed(at least in the sense Owlmirror explained). therefore, the unmeasurable is the nonexistent, or synonymous with it. this is entirely irrelevant to the reality of the bears; and is merely another example of why personal experience is worthless as evidence for anything that can't also be objectively measured. eh, i've even had dreams so real and realistic that i've had to ask people whether the stuff in them really happened or not. on several occasions, i've even gotten into arguments about things i thought had happened, but apparently hadn't. like i said, the human brain is notoriously shitty at perceiving reality, and even worse at remembering its own experiences.OTOH, the personal experiences that have been thoroughly studied and repeated in the way the road experiment all have shown (to stay with the analogy) that you've only imagined that Road 3 goes to Zeta Town, because you had a brainfart caused by specific sections of your brain malfunctioning in specific ways.
Posted by: sayak banerjee
|
June 29, 2010 5:59 PM
"If you're a well-adjusted person, once you've discarded the unhealthy fictitious relationship with a phantasm, you can look around and notice all those other people who are likewise alone, and you'll realize that we're all alone together. And that means you aren't alone at all — you're among friends. "
Well said!!! Kudos for a very good post.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 29, 2010 7:13 PM
hmmm.... that should have been "inaccurate in 100% of instances" in my last post, not "100% inaccurate". that was waaay to imprecise, sorry.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 29, 2010 7:22 PM
Drophammer, your alleged alleged evidence is a one on a one to ten scale. Ten is the Eternally Burning Bush™. Which makes your alleged alledged evidence nothing but random noise, better known as static. Try again with something physical...
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 29, 2010 8:31 PM
It's not merely a guess. It's an inference based on observation of how the world works, and how intelligent entities behave, and how brains misfire.
Even if I had no knowledge of truly weird brain malfunctions, I've had enough weird things happen inside my head that I would tend to generally mistrust an account of something that only happened inside someone's head. But I've also read the neuropathological case studies by Oliver Sacks and V. Ramachandran, which make me realize that much weirder things happening inside people's heads than I've ever experienced are indeed real possibilities.
Have you read either of those authors, or similar works, or seen the youtube documentaries they participate in?
It might also be something that resulted from something that left traces in your brain -- a scar, or something similar.
If you had a brain scan now and found such a scar, would you consider it to be evidence in favor of your having had a neurological event 20 years ago?
Or would you maintain that nothing had changed and that the divine explanation was exactly as strong a possibility as it ever had been?
Posted by: cassandratoday
|
June 30, 2010 12:44 AM
As I commented to my son, when he posted a link to your essay on his Facebook page, your attack on the metaphor is well done. However, you leave logic behind when you imply that proving a metaphor's vehicle unsatisfactory is equivalent to proving the non-existence of the metaphor's tenor.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 30, 2010 1:14 AM
You leave logic behind when you imply that the non-existence of metaphor's tenor needs logic to be proved when no valid logic has ever been provided in support of the existence of the metaphor's tenor in the first place.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 30, 2010 9:51 AM
Jadehawk, I'm simply not interested in your content if you can't control your language. There's a reason why Sagan never threw expletives around during a conference. It's childish.
Again, I'm not the least bit intimidated by name-calling either. I've been clear about why I am not interested in sharing the details of my own personal experience. It has not proved a hindrance to others in discussing the topic with me. I am sure you'll be able to carry on.
As for the Alpha-Zeta road analogy, it isn't perfect, because, for example, in my own experience, I did not have the opportunity to verify what was happening while it was happening. The driver who finds himself in Zeta Town could stop, pop out the cell phone, and call someone to try and verify what had just happened.
Maybe a fictional experience would be a good tool for our discussion. Though I do not care to share my own experience, I would be fine with deconstructing a fictional one, to stretch out the processes involved.
I agree, for the most part, that there is no need to jump to a supernatural explanation for things. I certainly do not attribute every mystery in my life to the supernatural. To illustrate, at one point, I got rid of all my socks and bought new socks, since I had so many singles. I also put into place a new process for making sure that I did not lose socks. I would pair them up before putting them into the laundry hamper, and then unpair them when putting them into the washing machine. When taking them out of the dryer, I would pair them up again immediately. (Can you tell I was a little frustrated about losing socks? lol) The very first time I ran the process through from start to end, carefully following it, I discovered as I folded laundry and paired up socks coming out of the dryer that I was short one sock. I immediately took all the folded clothes, unfolded them and search them for a hiding sock, checked the laundry room, including under the washer and dryer. To this day, I have no idea how I lost a sock. But I doubt that the gods took it.
Likewise for lots of issues of scientific exploration. I don't assume, just because we don't know what it is, that dark flow is supernatural.
You say that whether or not you were familiar with dreams has no bearing on the reality of the bears in the analogy of the bear dreams. That is true, but it does have a bearing on how you might react to that experience, and the reasonableness of your reaction. Remember, I do not expect you to accept my understanding of my experience. I expect you to be fully convinced that there is a natural explanation for it. And, to realize that I understand that there could be an unknown natural cause for my experience.
I have had dreams that, upon waking, took minutes for me to process as not being real. They had seemed so very real during the dream that waking was a very potent shift in worldview. I have also had dreams that insinuated themselves into my memory as if they were real events. Having experienced both of those, I can tell you that my experience was neither - although I appreciate the suggestion. I had not specifically considered that as a possibility before.
Owlmirror, Ramachandran is a name that sounds familiar to me. I might have seen him in documentaries or read of him in articles on the subject.
I will admit that perhaps, if my experience was the result of some neural condition, it might have left a scar or somesuch. If a scar were discovered in an area of the brain that has been demonstrated to be tied to dreaming or hallucinating, I would certainly be much more skeptical of the event. I probably would not consider it to be supernatural. It is, of course, hard to be sure of how I would react, but I think my beliefs about the experience would probably change.
I would be curious if doctors could, knowing what the scar was and how it would have impacted me when it was formed, be able to create a similar experience (without additional scarring, one would hope) for me to have as a comparison.
Thanks
Drophammer
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 30, 2010 9:59 AM
truthspeaker - I found it amusing that you think my problem was that I began with the assumption that my senses were trustworthy and that I just experienced what I just experienced.
lol
As humans, we experience new things all the time. If we decided that we must be hallucinating any time we experienced something new, we wouldn't get very far.
What criteria do I use in determining whether or not to set aside the supernatural as a possible cause? Hmmm. A good question and a difficult to explain answer.
How do you determine whether or not "blue" is an appropriate descriptor for an item that is an unfamiliar color?
Drophammer
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 30, 2010 10:08 AM
blah blah blah. if you're not intimidated, then you shouldn't be bothered by me expressing what I think of your evasiveness. and in any case, don't lie about others being able to have a reasonable conversation with you. everybody here is trying to get you to stop with the faulty, misplaced analogies and the evasion, and trying to get you to get some substance into your arguments. you haven't presented yet any. it wasn't meant as a suggestion for what your experience was. since you're being so annoyingly evasive, I merely addressed the fact that your memory of your event is guaranteed to be incorrect, especially considering the timespans involved. so it the memory of every other even in your life, to some degree or another. And also, it was to point out that the brain can't distinguish between "real" and "imagined" and therefore it's utterly absurd to say that someone experiencing something makes that something real. Are you aware how you twist arguments of probability and parsimony into arguments of certainty, or does this happen subconsciously? if there's scarring, then exact recreation on you would be likely impossible, since scarring implies permanent damage to very specific parts.Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 30, 2010 10:13 AM
Owlmirror, I missed something, and wanted to respond.
But does that bring us to truth? Not always. Sometimes, there is quite a bit more to the truth than might have been strictly necessary. Let's say we went out to dinner to discuss all these issues over some food. You select your favorite Mexican place. When we get there, I order a hot dog off the menu.
The simplest explanation (or a very simple one) would be that I just don't like Mexican food. In reality, there could be a very complicated reason why I ordered the hot dog. Maybe we happened to go out on the anniversary of the day I lost my only child in a tragic car accident. Before the accident, my child and I had enjoyed going downtown and getting a hotdog from a street vendor. It was a special thing for us, bonding us as parent/child. On the anniversary of the date, I eat a hot dog to remember. Silly analogy, but you get the point.
And I would agree with you. It is not the only possible explanation.
I am extremely certain of my experience. I had an experience.
As to the cause... I am convinced that the cause was supernatural, but I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong. No, that possibility is not the same vanishingly small possibility that I would ascribe to the chance that I am not actually sitting at a computer right now typing a response. But as I said, I am convinced that the cause was supernatural. Further evidence could convince me otherwise (as in the discussion of a possible scar on my brain somewhere).
Drophammer
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 30, 2010 10:21 AM
erm... you show it to a sufficiently large number of people, or an artist/designer/other expert in colors, or, if consensus fails, you can test for which chunk of the light-spectrum is being reflected.what was the point of this analogy, precisely?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 30, 2010 10:46 AM
Which is worth one point on a 1-10 scale of evidence. Worthless in and of itself. Where is the physical evidence, not philosophical sophistry, to back up your assertion? That is what separates reality from delusion. Reality is what is left when the delusions go away. Until you can prove your experience wasn't a delusion, you have nothing substantial to offer us. And the burden of proof is upon you, the claimant to demonstrate you are right, from legitimate sources outside of yourself. Your word is suspect.Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 30, 2010 11:07 AM
Hey Nerd, I do not expect you to agree that my experience was supernatural. I have little evidence to offer you besides my own testimony, and I have (for reasons explained above) not offered detailed testimony.
I hope you misspoke concerning my word be suspect. My recollections, sure, they might be suspect, but not my word. I am being completely honest about the experience. I have nothing to gain by not being honest.
You may begin with the assumption that my experience was a delusion, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, remain right there. I find your position reasonable.
Jadehawk, you said, "...the brain can't distinguish between "real" and "imagined"..."
You must live a very interesting life, lol. I have no trouble distinguishing between real and imagined. And, as I pointed out in several different posts, my experience with hallucinations and dreams has shown that at least some of the time, I can tell the difference between them and reality. In fact, my "reality-o-meter" seems to work astoundingly well, except for this one time.
Drophammer
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 30, 2010 11:28 AM
1)you're welcome to misinterpret what i write (again), but it's making you look like a fucking idiot. for example, the brain cannot tell "real" pain from phantom pain, nor can it, by itself, tell other fake experiences from real ones. It does so only by reference to previously known reality, checking with the reality of others and learning what is likely to be real and what isn't. and even then, it's possible to trick it into accepting a fake experience as a real one. regression therapy fell into that nasty trap, for example. It really can't tell a real experience from a fake one, and it corrupts memories extremely and is therefore a shitty guide to the reality of personal experiences. Is this really so hard for you to understand and accept?Besides, how would you know how good your reality-detector is? do you double-check every single of your daily experiences, and every single one of your memories, to see how well they correspond to actual reality? After all, most non-reality is quite mundane and forgettable, and doesn't ping the bullshit radar because of that.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 30, 2010 11:42 AM
hmmm...that was some crappy editing there, ignore that lonesome number :-p
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 30, 2010 2:10 PM
No, you're still not understanding what I mean by parsimony. It looks like you're still thinking in terms of complexity. I completely grant that human beings are complex, and have complicated emotions and motivations and desires and perceptions and so on.
The principle of parsimony is: do not multiply entities unnecessarily, which is to say, that are unnecessary for explaining some phenomenon.
For me, as an external observer, the simplest explanation for why you ordered a hot dog, is that you wanted a hot dog. You might well have all sorts of internally complex reasons for wanting a hot dog, but you going into those details doesn't change that fundamental explanation. Parsimony is not violated.
However, to posit that you didn't want a hot dog, but rather, some invisible and intangible intelligent entity -- some sort of demon or ghost or whatever -- had possessed you and forced you to order a hot dog... Well, that would definitely be a violation of parsimony.
And I am not arguing that the experience did not occur. Again, I was discussing the explanation for the experience.
Hm. Did you read Carrier's definition of "supernatural" at #198, and the linked essays explaining that definition? Would you agree that that's an at least approximately good definition of what you mean by the term, now?
But you don't find the logical arguments even slightly convincing? I don't think you've really addressed them.
They're based on what the supernatural being real would entail, and known examples of similar brain hiccups.
Without going into too much detail, would you say that your experience was simply extremely vivid but completely internal, or were there also some real-world effects/consequences/correlates that you don't think have any possible natural explanation?
Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 30, 2010 2:25 PM
Jadehawk - man, relax. No need to be so angry. On the subject of the brain not being able to tell real from imaginary, I remain unconvinced by your blitzkrieg of certainty. I have had extremely realistic dreams, and yet, I know they are dreams. I used to be a teacher, and when I had first started teaching, I went through a two week period where I would get up in the morning, go to school, teach, go home, correct homework, watch a TV show, go to bed - then dream that I woke up, went to school, taught, went home, corrected homework, watched a TV show, and went to bed - and then I would actually wake up, and repeat the process. I never had any difficulty telling the dreams from reality, even though the dreams were realistic and mundane.
I use my imagination all the time, sometimes to imagine things that are plausible and mundane, and yet, I am never confused about what is imagined and what is real.
Perhaps you're just not communicating clearly.
Owlmirror -
I'd actually be fine discussing the whole incident with you, although not on this forum. You've been respectful and civil, though you do not agree with me. However, for now, I will say that the experience was not internal in that it was a part of the environment around me. Things happened in it that left physical evidence behind. The physical evidence, however, could have had other explanations.
I find the suggested natural explanations for my experience interesting and usually plausible, but they don't ring true.
You think that I am not understanding what you mean by parsimony, and I think you're still giving it too much credit.
Let me use a completely off the wall example. I take you out into a field and show you an ancient tree and ask you how that tree got there. Your response would likely be something about a seed being deposited there and growing. Then, I inform you that I had the tree trucked in last week, and for several days, expert landscapers made the tree look as though it had been there forever. You had no reason to suspect that landscapers, trucks, and my strange sense of humor were involved. Unnecessary to explain how the tree got there. Yet... true.
Drophammer
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 30, 2010 2:35 PM
No, I didn't misspeak. Here's a question you should ask a defense attorney. Which would he rather try to raise reasonable doubt on, scientifically derived physical forensic evidence, or an eyewitness? The attorney will take the eyewitness almost every time. The reason is peoples memories aren't that perfect, and memories and perceptions can change with time, and with later experiences. It is much easier to raise doubt there than with physical evidence. Your word is suspect, just like any other anecdotal piece of evidence from anyone else that can't be verified. It is meaningless to the real evidence that would change our minds.Posted by: Drophammer
|
June 30, 2010 2:51 PM
Nerd, I'll be more plain.
I hope that you are not questioning my honesty, but only my recollection.
Drophammer
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 30, 2010 7:44 PM
check your assumptions. godwin, plus "certainty" again. you fail so badly, it's no longer fun. I'm communicating quite clearly; however, you knowledge of how the human brain works is not nearly as good as you claim, and therefore you have no means by which to understand the concepts I'm explaining. You really need to learn a lot more about perception (and not just in dreams, but waking perception) and memory before allowing yourself to make any sort of arguments for the reliability and reality of personal experiences. and easily provable if true, if only because a tree that recently transplanted would not have taken root yet. your analogies are still shitty, still not understanding why empirical experience differs from personal experience.Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 30, 2010 7:53 PM
also, there's nothing in the stupid tree-analogy that had no previous evidence for existing, per-se. you are failing to understand parsimony, badly. it's not about finding the simplest, statistically most likely explanation; but about the one that fits the evidence, without adding unnecessarily to it.
holy fuck. plausible, but they don't feel right? you're an irrational moron.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 30, 2010 8:05 PM
Yes, I believe you believe your experience. But, I sincerely doubt that your experience means what you think it means. Get the picture? You have to prove, preferably with physical evidence, you are right. That has not been determined by any stretch of the imagination, due to the errors involved in humans forming and maintaining memories. Essentially, as in any scientific endeavor, you are wrong until your prove yourself right. And your assertions are worthless...Posted by: Drophammer
|
July 1, 2010 10:17 AM
Nerd, thanks for the clarification. However, the default position of a scientific view should not be to assume either A or B if neither can be proven or demonstrated to be true.
I do not have to prove I am right. I only have to prove it to you if I seek to convince you that I am right. I do not seek to do that. My assertions are not worthless. I was the only observer to the event in question. My assertions must at least be considered. Are they PROOF? No, but they do have to be considered as evidence, weak or not.
Jadehawk, where to start? lol... Okay, first of all, "blitzkrieg" was not meant as a reference to Hitler, only to the feeling of overwhelming onslaught. You know, "blitzkrieg". So, no Godwin for you.
Secondly, I do think you are not communicating your ideas clearly. I mean, you plainly wrote that the brain cannot tell the difference between the real and the imagined. When I questioned you on that, you had to go into involved explanations of what it was you meant. *shrug* Perhaps it would help if you didn't pepper your postings with vulgarity, and instead, paid more attention to the content.
Moving on, my grasp on brain function is sufficient to our discussion, as is my grasp on perception and memory. You certainly have not demonstrated that they are not.
Concerning the tree example for parsimony, you don't seem to be able to show how my example did NOT demonstrate that using parsimony may not lead to the truth. Does using parsimony make sense? Sure it does. I never said that it doesn't make sense. My contention was that just because it makes sense in general does not mean that it will always take you closer to the truth.
And as for "ring true", that was my own lapse in communications skills. I'll be more exact for you. The natural explanations offered for my experience have either been demonstrably incorrect or demonstrably unlikely. A supernatural explanation could justifiably be considered unlikely, as well. In the end, I was the only one who experienced this event, and I am the only one who can make observations regarding the event to help me determine what explanation seems more convincing.
Likewise, since you did not experience the event, and since you discount the anecdotal evidence I can offer, your position is a reasonable one for you to hold. It would not be as reasonable for me to hold that position, however.
Drophammer
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 12:21 PM
Sorry, without evidence the idea is false. That is the null hypothesis.If you want to convince us at this blog of anything, you do. That is scientific, as the burden of proof is upon you, the claimant, that a supernatural occurrence impinged upon the real world. That should leave traces of evidence.They are worthless as evidence goes since they are unverifiable. They need not be considered otherwise. Demonstrate with hard physical evidence that your assertions are correct. We are waiting.What content. You have no content, just inane meanderings and repetitions meaning nothing.Wrong. Show evidence otherwise...Wrong again.I haven't sworn at you once. I did mention you could have a delusion. We all can. Being nice does nothing to aid or detract from your argument, or lack thereof. The facts/evidence do. And your whole argument is based on personal credulity. Not very convincing to anyone but yourself. You need better to convince the folks at this blog, which is what I have been saying all along. If you don't have better evidence and are willing to present it, time to fade into the bandwidth in search of easier prey.
Posted by: Drophammer
|
July 1, 2010 2:26 PM
Nerd, you seem to have picked up the part of my post to Jadehawk. You were not swearing.
I am not trying to convince anyone that my experience was supernatural.
While that is the position I hold, I already recognized, before coming here to discuss these topics, that the only evidence I could give you is anecdotal. I already knew that some of you would never consider a supernatural explanation.
Drophammer
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 1, 2010 2:37 PM
Except for yourself of course. And we are telling you that your experience could not have been supernatural. It affected you and you are part of nature, so it had to be part of nature too.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2010 2:51 PM
Some? Try almost everyone here. And demonstrating the supernatural, which is an extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary proof (Carl Sagan). Welcome to skeptics and science. In other words, Pharyngula...Posted by: Owlmirror
|
July 1, 2010 2:55 PM
No... I don't think your tree analogy works.
Assuming that your scenario is true, the first-order explanation is wrong, but there would be additional evidence in support of your more complex explanation, which could be investigated. As Jadehawk noted, there would be a lack of deep roots/root tendrils in the soil, and discontinuities between the undisturbed soil and the replaced soil.
That's not even taking into account evidence in the form of potential photographs of the site before your tree was put in, and evidence in the form of bills and work orders from the landscapers.
If all of these factors were investigated and taken into account, then the most parsimonious explanation would in fact be that the tree had been brought in from elsewhere: the evidence demonstrates that more entities are necessary to explain all of the observations.
The classic example of scientific parsimony is the matter of the solar system. A naïve explanation of the motion -- real and apparent -- of everything seen from the ground is that everything goes around the Earth because that's what it looks like.
But when the most careful of observations are made and collated and compared, the heliocentric system of Kepler has far fewer unnecessary entities to account for the observed motions of the sun, moon, planets, and stars.
You're still not understanding the role of parsimony here. Or maybe I'm not getting the point across.
But the supernatural explanation is arguably less likely than a natural one. At least part of the problem is that you seem to be arguing that they are equally unlikely.
After all, no matter how rare brain malfunctions that give the illusion of a divine experience are, brain malfunctions in general are far more common -- and supported by evidence -- than genuine divine experiences would be, even if they were real.
How would you know that any divine experience was real? Did God give you some way of empirically confirming divine experiences?
Hm.
Would you agree that, even if the experience was supernatural, it might not have been from God?
Posted by: Drophammer
|
July 1, 2010 3:52 PM
Hey Owlmirror, great stuff!
I don't dispute that, but if you applied parsimony to the evidence at hand when you first saw the (expertly disguised) tree, you would have been mistaken. In fact, there might have been nothing to motivate you to investigate further. Nothing in your experience would lead you to believe that someone would go to all that effort to just make a point.
Applying the analogy back to paranormal experiences, my point is just that perhaps there is more to it, perhaps something unknown but natural - or perhaps something unknown and supernatural.
And you make that claim based on... what? As far as I know, you don't consider a supernatural cause to even be possible. But, for the purpose of analyzing the likelihood, let's assume that supernatural causes are possible. If so, then it could also be possible that many experiences that have been assumed to have natural causes don't. The likelihood of a supernatural vs. a natural cause could be roughly equal, or tilted to either possible cause, but because of the nature of what we are dealing with, it would be very hard to know.
Doesn't this take us back, again, to the very questions of epistemology that we normally don't need to go into? How do we know that any experience is real? Do we typically need to empirically confirm our experiences?
Therein lies another problem, to be sure. As I said long ago in another post (at least, I think we covered it here), given the subjective nature of our perceptions of the reality of the universe, there is no way to know for sure whether it was this god, that god, God, or Phbtb. That is one reason why my beliefs are not based on my experience. They provide a context for understanding my experience.
Drophammer
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
July 1, 2010 4:42 PM
It seems to me that your argument works against you, though.
You seem to be applying the same sort of naïve "parsimony" to your experience: It was divine because that was what it felt like at the time.
But more investigation over time shows that ... what, exactly?
In your example, I could dig deeper to examine the soil and the roots. I could examine additional evidence.
You haven't "dug down deep" to get at whether the experience was real or not, as best I can understand what you've said. At most, you've acknowledged that you haven't dug down deep, and therefore might be wrong.
Just to confirm the meaning of "supernatural" -- are you agreeing with Carrier's definition at #198? You never did respond to that, as far as I've seen, although there's been a lot of back-and-forth.
The failure of any alleged God to provide empirical evidence in any alleged experience of God.
The complete lack of consensus on who God is and what God wants, even in the general religious population.
The existence of brain malfunctions which don't involve alleged supernatural experiences, as well as those that do.
The general observation that we see much that is natural things, but no evidence of anything that is supernatural, despite the fact that we have looked. Tests of prayer; tests of ESP; tests of clairvoyance.
So far, nothing that hints that the supernatural -- as defined by Carrier -- even might exist.
I don't think I've actually asserted that anywhere. Using Carrier's definition of the supernatural, I think it highly unlikely, and completely out of line with all current evidence, but I have not asserted impossibility. If the supernatural were real, though, we would see more things that were consistent with it, hence my judgement of it being highly unlikely.
And you make that claim based on... what?
I think epistemology is at the very core of the whole problem.
If they are completely inconsistent with prior and subsequent experience, yes, I think so. And the scientific method is exactly the rigorous method to do so.
Or a putative deceptive entity pretending to be someone it is not.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 2, 2010 5:04 AM
no, I've merely not demonstrated it to you, since you're hindered by your huge Dunning-Kruger in realizing that you're wrong. You see, by claiming that you can reliably tell whether your brain is lying to itself, perception or memory-wise, you've already demonstrated your complete ignorance of how perception and memory work, the same way Ray Comfort demonstrated his ignorance of how vision works when he claimed not to have a blind spot. At this point, the only way you can show that I was wrong about pointing out this ignorance would be to either come to agree with me, or demonstrate, with empirical evidence, that I'm wrong about perception and memory in general, or yours specifically (who knows, maybe you're that unique individual with magical total recall)And you still don't know what parsimony is. Drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence isn't scientific. Parsimony means accounting for ALL possible evidence. Do you even know how scientific observations are set up? They're set up to disprove one's own idea, not to prove it. it's the search for contradicting evidence. Therefore, if I were to scientifically evaluate the claim of how a tree got there, the most obvious way to disprove myself would be to ask for an old photo of the spot, or if that's lacking, make a survey of old-time residents as to whether the tree has been there.
Most of the time, I don't need to know how a tree got somewhere. At which point I may or may not make unscientific and very possibly wrong assumptions about the various trees I encounter in my life. That's not parsimony though, that's simply ignorance. It's a fact that most of us are ignorant about most things, and often it doesn't much matter. Just another one of those ways in which what we perceive and think to ourselves as real very often isn't.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
July 2, 2010 5:22 AM
Your assertions absolutely must be considered – which means they must be interpreted according to the principle of parsimony, as Jadehawk said.
What is the most parsimonious explanation for your experience?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 2, 2010 6:00 AM
Then the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that conclusively. You failed big time. Just meaningless hints, like all the other attempts.No, wrong. The supernatural causes are impossible until there is utterly no other alternative. Which you have not thoroughly explored or demonstrated. Just vague claims like usual.Nope, no evidence. Still a losing argument.Nope, the supernatural doesn't exist without conclusive evidence. None has been presented.No, they show you don't fully understand the situation, and are engaging in wishful thinking. Hoping there is a supernatural rather than proving it.Philosophy without evidence is sophistry. Nice bit of meaningless sophistry. It doesn't get you where you need to go. That requires hard conclusive evidence.Still no conclusive physical evidence. Until that is presented you have nothing but philosophical meanderings that don't prove squat. You are wasting your time here. Not ours as our SIWOTI is strong.