September 11, 2009

• Quodlibeta and "Are Atheists Conspiracy Theorists?"

  Intro:

  Jim S over on Quodlibeta and Agent Intellect attempted to frame skepticism of religious experiences as an atheist conspiracy theory (link).  So I went over to his blog and shouted, "You lie!"  hehe

  ---

  Or maybe I said something like this:

  Let me be the first token naysayer. Hope you don't mind.

  "Throughout human history people have had experiences of "something" beyond the physical world. In fact, this is one of the most common experiences that human beings have."

  
  The human mind is a virtual reality machine. We have near constant access to its diverse abilities in our sleeping state when we dream. The mind is always preset to objectify incoming experiences and therefore any off kilter day time hallucinatory experience will naturally be a something "out there" that doesn't correspond to our normal environment. Hence you get the world beyond effect and you get it often. If this is your primary commonality, I see no reason not to expect it from a naturalistic point of view. The brain is an imperfect virtual reality machine and we should expect bizarre sophisticated (even value-laden) effects in the population.

  "Evolution is responsible for our having these experiences and thinking they're veracious when they're actually not."

  While it is normal to want to take for granted the legitimacy of all incoming sense data (and an evolutionary preset of hyperskepticism surely doesn't get the job done), that doesn't mean we should be at liberty to do so uncritically when we see so many examples of what the human mind is capable of that we *can* confirm.

  "1) the disagreements have been exaggerated. There are, of course, differing aspects of them and even contradictions, but there is also much more agreement than atheists are often willing to admit."

  I'm curious as to what you think those commonalities are or if they differ from what I've addressed above. As is, I think the naturalistic explanation better explains the commonalities and the differences and why we can't verify that say even two Muslims heard the exact same sophisticated speech from an angel. The fact that culturally we embrace this mental side show or even seek to participate in it in monastic ways is not surprising. Why wouldn't we?
  
  If I'm not mistaken, inducing an out of body experience, for example, entails starting off in a "reverse room" scenario where everything in the room you were in is flipped. That could be interpreted objectively as  though that's the airlock for some other plain of existence, but in all likelihood, it just means that's what always happens when you do that to your experience. It's like some bug in a video game. It's the same for everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone isn't running the level on their own Xbox.

  In my mind, I'm not worried about having to disprove every single religious experience. I'm waiting for even one of them to be vindicated. I'm not going to spend my entire life never having that level of proof to go on. I guess I understand the allure and the epistemic "why not" approach to some extent, but I don't hate myself that much. I'd like to know it's actually true first.

  "If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth."

  That's one way to look at it. I would argue it's the wrong way. Just because the metaphysical claims of every religion may be false, that doesn't mean at their root, there's not at least some kernel of truth to how they are satisfying the human condition. Most of the time it's just blown out of proportion. That doesn't make it "all wrong." Not all atheists miss that and it's a shame Lewis did.

  I sometimes ask myself what people seem to want when they are free to naturally gravitate unrestrained by rational concerns towards what suits their most cherished values. I think that's why Lewis appreciate fairy tales so much. Religions can tell us something about that though often in just another convoluted way. So you take it with a grain of salt like anything else. As a humanist, I take note, because I try to learn from everything, and look for whatever the closest real world version of it is as at least one more guide in life.

  And as Sam Harris seems to advocate, I see nothing wrong with seeking to cultivate the positive end of these experiences. It's your brain. You can do whatever you want with it. I do find that fascinating even if I think it's all together separately in our own heads.

  Ben 
  

  ---

  Karl responds:

  War On Error,

  Just a few things.

  The human mind is a virtual reality machine. We have near constant access to its diverse abilities in our sleeping state when we dream. The mind is always preset to objectify incoming experiences and therefore any off kilter day time hallucinatory experience will naturally be a something "out there" that doesn't correspond to our normal environment. Hence you get the world beyond effect and you get it often. If this is your primary commonality, I see no reason not to expect it from a naturalistic point of view. The brain is an imperfect virtual reality machine and we should expect bizarre sophisticated (even value-laden) effects in the population.

  If the average human mind was as prone to generating illusory images as you claim then we wouldn't be able to cross the street successfully much less be able to accept eye-witness testimony in a court of law. Not to mention the small little fact of life that none of us can step outside of our own brain and dispassionately view the world around us and if we start second-guessing ourselves by thinking that everything we see that is out of the ordinary is an illusion then we will develop some mental problems.

  While it is normal to want to take for granted the legitimacy of all incoming sense data (and an evolutionary preset of hyperskepticism surely doesn't get the job done), that doesn't mean we should be at liberty to do so uncritically when we see so many examples of what the human mind is capable of that we *can* confirm.

  Just because the brain can imagine something doesn't mean that everything odd that a person sees is imaginary. And what happens when there are multiple people who witness/experience the same event? Like the religious events in Fatima in 1917 witnessed by seventy thousand people; including skeptics who had mainly come there to laugh at the 'gulibile' religious believers?

  I'm curious as to what you think those commonalities are or if they differ from what I've addressed above. As is, I think the naturalistic explanation better explains the commonalities and the differences and why we can't verify that say even two Muslims heard the exact same sophisticated speech from an angel. The fact that culturally we embrace this mental side show or even seek to participate in it in monastic ways is not surprising. Why wouldn't we?

  There is plenty of literature detailing those similarities, some of which are articles written in peer-reviewed scientific journals, out there. The fact that you haven't seemed to have read them doesn't exactly bode well for your ability to reliably judge these subjects. Oh, and if we get two people to agree on what was said between them and a third party it means the conversation never happened? I am sorry, but that strikes me as an intellectually lazy way of dismissing something. I mean if two eyewitnesses in a court case disagree on what a robber said that doesn't mean the robbery didn't happen.

  In my mind, I'm not worried about having to disprove every single religious experience. I'm waiting for even one of them to be vindicated. I'm not going to spend my entire life never having that level of proof to go on. I guess I understand the allure and the epistemic "why not" approach to some extent, but I don't hate myself that much. I'd like to know it's actually true first.

  And we are still waiting for science to provide proof for the String Theory, multiple universes, the Higgs Boson, dark matter/energy, memes and about a hundred other little things. Hell, Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that we can make true statements that cannot be proven to be true in mathematics of all things. So what exactly is your point? Isn't it something of a non-sequitur to say that "Proposition A can't be tested so we are therefore justified in ignoring it or believing some other proposition?" Just because an idea cannot be tested does not make it false. It also does not excuse you from the consequences of making a wrong choice in the matter.

  Suppose I tell the police that someone is planning to kill you and they ask me what evidence I have. I reply 'none' and they say that they would rather wait until better evidence comes along and vindicate my statement before taking action you could very easily wind up dead.

  That's one way to look at it. I would argue the wrong way. Just because the metaphysical claims of every religion may be false, that doesn't mean at their root, there's not at least some kernel of truth to how they are satisfying the human condition. Most of the time it's just blown out of proportion. That doesn't make it "all wrong." Not all atheists miss that and it's a shame Lewis did.

  A lot of atheists, in fact I would dare say the vast majority of them, do. Yeah, there will be exceptions but Lewis was speaking from his own experience and from reviewing the common arguments that atheists tend to advance in support of their positions so his point still stands. When debating with a group people tend to address what ninety-eight percent of them believe not the two percent with a slightly different opinion.

  I sometimes ask myself what people seem to want when they are free to naturally gravitate unrestrained by rational concerns towards what suits their most cherished values. I think that's why Lewis appreciate fairy tales so much. Religions can tell us something about that though often in just another convoluted way. So you take it with a grain of salt like anything else. As a humanist, I take note, because I try to learn from everything, and look for whatever the closest real world version of it is as at least one more guide in life.

  Unrestrained by rational concerns? Questions like 'does my life have a purpose?' or 'will some part of my conscious survive my own death?' are extremely rational questions. In fact, I would say a failure to seriously engage them would be a hallmark of irrationally. And how exactly do you determine what the 'closest real world version' of it is?

  And as Sam Harris seems to advocate, I see nothing wrong with seeking to cultivate the positive end of these experiences. It's your brain. You can do whatever you want with it. I do find that fascinating even if I think it's all together separately in our own heads.

  And how is that belief that 'it's all together separately in our own heads' affecting how you view any evidence or arguments presented to the contrary?
  

  ---

  I responded:

  Hey Karl,

  You can call me Ben, btw.

  There are many things I disagree with in your response, and some unfortunate misunderstandings, but in order to keep things from going all over the place, I'm going to focus on what I think are three prominent issues. Fair enough?

  "If the average human mind was as prone to generating illusory images as you claim then we wouldn't be able to cross the street successfully much less be able to accept eye-witness testimony in a court of law."

  Peter Slade and Richard Bentall in "Sensory Deception: a Scientific Analysis of Hallucination" apparently have shown that hallucination is fairly normal. Over the last hundred years, between 7 and 14 percent of people surveyed, who did not exhibit any mental illness, reported having experienced hallucinations (excluding those who had them and didn't know it of course). Of these identified experiences, over 8 percent were multisensory hallucinations, and 5 percent involved entire conversations. I don't know about you, but I don't really meet that many people who purport to have significant religious experiences so there doesn't seem to be a whole lot to explain.

  "Oh, and if we get two people to agree on what was said between them and a third party it means the conversation never happened?"

  That's the complete opposite of what I said, btw. No big deal, but it seems you are reading a bit uncharitably here and in general. I didn't mean to irritate anyone and would appreciate a straight forward conversation about what I understand may be a sensitive issue. I'm just here to represent the other side of the debate, not attack anyone.

  "And we are still waiting for science to provide proof for the String Theory, multiple universes, the Higgs Boson, dark matter/energy, memes and about a hundred other little things."

  That's true, and indeed we should wait. Is that what you are doing with your interpretation of religious experiences? Rather, I think that's what I was advocating. If good evidence comes down the pipeline in the future, so be it. On *any* issue. I don't think it's my perspective that is inconsistent here. I'm not advocating hyper-skepticism of religion or hyper-credulity of science.

  Ben

  ---

  Outro:

  I'm almost tempted to try to induce an OBE for fun.  Almost. 

  Ben

  • 1:15 pm
  • 8 Comments