Surfing the web, looking for something, anything, to blog about tonight, I stumbled upon one of those "Questions for Atheists and Skeptics" pages - this particular one being part of the spotlightministries.org.uk website which, admittedly, I had never heard of before. Anyway, whoever published this is irrelevant as most of the points raised are fairly trite and stink of old. Regardless, it might prove to be a fairly entertaining way to kill some time. So, here we go.
Q: If we live in a purely material world then how do we account for the many supernatural experiences that people have, such as encounters with God, ghosts, spirits, etc (obviously, exactly what all of these encounters actually are are all interpreted by different people in different ways but the fact remains that people encounter things that do not fit a purely naturalistic world view). Are we really to conclude that all of these people are delusional, deceptive, or mad? Or could it be that people are having real encounters with real supernatural beings not explainable through purely scientific mediums?
A: Usually when the person setting out to answer the first question of such a list is immediately obliged to point out that the question is built on a false premise, things don't bode well for whoever wrote the question in the first place. I think I may have dedicated a whole blog entry a while ago about why the very idea of "supernatural" is self-contradicting, but I'll just limit myself to saying that if something happens and has recordable consequences, then said phenomenon is physical, natural and, therefore, explicable by means of scientific investigation. As far as hard evidence goes, the physical, the natural, is all there is and nothing "supernatural" can, by definition, exist. Now, this made clear, we can move on to the interesting part. The sheer number of reports make it so that no one could possibly deny that such accounts, or at least part of them (we must always keep in mind the occasional mythomaniac and compulsive liar), are accounts of real phenomena. What the sceptic will have a problem with is their mainstream interpretation. Are the people who live OOB experiences actually leaving their physical body? No. Are people living NDEs actually walking in a cone of light that would lead them towards another plane of existence? No. Metaphysical hogwash stopped having any relevance in serious debates some three centuries ago and it certainly cannot be taken seriously in 2008. Does it mean then that these people are "delusional, deceptive or mad?" Not in the least. Where metaphysical arguments are crushed, neurology is working hard to provide some answers and has already done so in many cases. The interpretation most theists have of such phenomena is firmly built upon the assumption of an irrefutable mind-body duality (in some cases a mind-body-spirit trinity, but the distinction is fairly trivial for all practical purposes.), an assumption largely and consistently rejected by modern science. We are not separated from our brain, we are our brain. From such a perspective, paranormal phenomena such as OOB and ND experiences become nothing but a subject of study for modern neuroscience. An interesting and complex one, but still within the reach of scientific scrutiny. Roughly put, every "mystical" phenomenon can be explained as the result of a stimulation of certain areas of our brain, regardless of such stimulation being traumatic or not. We can safely assume all this because of all the exhaustive research that has been carried out in recent years by scientists such as Mario Beauregard (regardless of his own, personal interpretation of his research), Dr. Barry L Beyerstein, Dr. Olaf Blanke - who, together with his colleagues, actually managed to repeatedly trigger OOB experiences in people by means of electrical stimulation of specific areas of the subjects' brain (for further information see Blanke O., Landis T., Spinelli L. and Seeck M., Out-of-body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin, Brain, Vol. 127, No. 2, 243-258, 2004, full text available here.). Electrical stimulation, of course, is likely not to be the only trigger for mystical experiences, as stimulation can occurr in many ways. Interestingly, many of the most famous and most crucial mystical experiences and visions in the history of world religions have been reported happening on top of mountains or at high altitudes. It has long been known that both the low oxygen rates and the isolation can deeply affect the temporoparietal junction in the brain, the very same area linked with mystical experiences by Blanke's research and the reason behind so many mountaineers with no relevant, deeply held beliefs experiencing comparable happenings (for further information see Arzy S., Idel M., Landis T., Blanke O., Why revelations have occurred on mountains? Linking mystical experiences and cognitive neuroscience, Med Hypotheses, 2005; Vol. 65, Issue 5: 841-5, full text available here.). Once again, delusion and pathological predisposition - although valid explanations in many cases - are far from being the only ones. People who live such experiences are hardly to blame for what happens to them. What is unjustified, however, is the eagerness of some to label such phenomena as a clear sign of the existence of a divine and of a transcending reality. It is a naif approach to things, sometimes even the result of ill will and ulterior motives. Such rushed conclusions cannot stand the pressure of rational scrutiny, so we might as well stop shouting miracle whenever something apparently inexplicable happens.
As I was answering this question it occurred to me that it would be much better if I spread my answers over different, daily blog entries. This would both make them easier to read and allow me to go on posting for a few days without having to stand the tedious search for a topic on a daily basis. So, stay tuned for the next Q/A.
Q: If we live in a purely material world then how do we account for the many supernatural experiences that people have, such as encounters with God, ghosts, spirits, etc (obviously, exactly what all of these encounters actually are are all interpreted by different people in different ways but the fact remains that people encounter things that do not fit a purely naturalistic world view). Are we really to conclude that all of these people are delusional, deceptive, or mad? Or could it be that people are having real encounters with real supernatural beings not explainable through purely scientific mediums?
A: Usually when the person setting out to answer the first question of such a list is immediately obliged to point out that the question is built on a false premise, things don't bode well for whoever wrote the question in the first place. I think I may have dedicated a whole blog entry a while ago about why the very idea of "supernatural" is self-contradicting, but I'll just limit myself to saying that if something happens and has recordable consequences, then said phenomenon is physical, natural and, therefore, explicable by means of scientific investigation. As far as hard evidence goes, the physical, the natural, is all there is and nothing "supernatural" can, by definition, exist. Now, this made clear, we can move on to the interesting part. The sheer number of reports make it so that no one could possibly deny that such accounts, or at least part of them (we must always keep in mind the occasional mythomaniac and compulsive liar), are accounts of real phenomena. What the sceptic will have a problem with is their mainstream interpretation. Are the people who live OOB experiences actually leaving their physical body? No. Are people living NDEs actually walking in a cone of light that would lead them towards another plane of existence? No. Metaphysical hogwash stopped having any relevance in serious debates some three centuries ago and it certainly cannot be taken seriously in 2008. Does it mean then that these people are "delusional, deceptive or mad?" Not in the least. Where metaphysical arguments are crushed, neurology is working hard to provide some answers and has already done so in many cases. The interpretation most theists have of such phenomena is firmly built upon the assumption of an irrefutable mind-body duality (in some cases a mind-body-spirit trinity, but the distinction is fairly trivial for all practical purposes.), an assumption largely and consistently rejected by modern science. We are not separated from our brain, we are our brain. From such a perspective, paranormal phenomena such as OOB and ND experiences become nothing but a subject of study for modern neuroscience. An interesting and complex one, but still within the reach of scientific scrutiny. Roughly put, every "mystical" phenomenon can be explained as the result of a stimulation of certain areas of our brain, regardless of such stimulation being traumatic or not. We can safely assume all this because of all the exhaustive research that has been carried out in recent years by scientists such as Mario Beauregard (regardless of his own, personal interpretation of his research), Dr. Barry L Beyerstein, Dr. Olaf Blanke - who, together with his colleagues, actually managed to repeatedly trigger OOB experiences in people by means of electrical stimulation of specific areas of the subjects' brain (for further information see Blanke O., Landis T., Spinelli L. and Seeck M., Out-of-body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin, Brain, Vol. 127, No. 2, 243-258, 2004, full text available here.). Electrical stimulation, of course, is likely not to be the only trigger for mystical experiences, as stimulation can occurr in many ways. Interestingly, many of the most famous and most crucial mystical experiences and visions in the history of world religions have been reported happening on top of mountains or at high altitudes. It has long been known that both the low oxygen rates and the isolation can deeply affect the temporoparietal junction in the brain, the very same area linked with mystical experiences by Blanke's research and the reason behind so many mountaineers with no relevant, deeply held beliefs experiencing comparable happenings (for further information see Arzy S., Idel M., Landis T., Blanke O., Why revelations have occurred on mountains? Linking mystical experiences and cognitive neuroscience, Med Hypotheses, 2005; Vol. 65, Issue 5: 841-5, full text available here.). Once again, delusion and pathological predisposition - although valid explanations in many cases - are far from being the only ones. People who live such experiences are hardly to blame for what happens to them. What is unjustified, however, is the eagerness of some to label such phenomena as a clear sign of the existence of a divine and of a transcending reality. It is a naif approach to things, sometimes even the result of ill will and ulterior motives. Such rushed conclusions cannot stand the pressure of rational scrutiny, so we might as well stop shouting miracle whenever something apparently inexplicable happens.
As I was answering this question it occurred to me that it would be much better if I spread my answers over different, daily blog entries. This would both make them easier to read and allow me to go on posting for a few days without having to stand the tedious search for a topic on a daily basis. So, stay tuned for the next Q/A.
5 comments:
Greetings! Glad to find your site! I thought I might offer some friendly critiques of your faqs so here goes.
1. To say that only the natural may happen is to beg the question. It seems, therefore, that the original premise is not necessarily faulty but your interpretation of it is. Furthermore, I have "hard evidence" that the Pythagorean theorem is true and yet, triangles and theorems nowhere exist in the natural realm. So it must be beyond the natural realm so their must be a supernatural realm contrary to your assertion that the natural is all there is.
2. I get very nervous when you use the phrase "metaphysical hogwash" but, if out of body and near death feelings can in at least some cases be explained by neurophysiological manipulations, that does nothing to show that all purported supernatural reality must be merely naturalistic.
3. First, legitimate mystical experiences are not made impossible by the denial of mind-body dualism (or what you mistakenly call a trinity of mind-soul-spirit). Secondly, it is difficult to see how love, for example, could exist in a brain but it is easy to see how love could exist in an immaterial soul. Third, modern science, at least according to you, can only study the natural (or material) realm. If that is so, then modern science must remain silent on such entities as immaterial souls whether their are such entities or not.
4. It does indeed behoove us to not immediately proclaim every remarkable event a supernatural one. You are right on this point. After rational scrutiny many purported supernatural events shall, I presume, have natural explanations. However, atheism-which is often non-supernatural-is also subject to close scrutiny. When examined, it is found wanting. In contrast, Christianity has been subjected to intense scrutiny for two thousand years and still passes every test when given a fair hearing.
Thank you.
1) I don't see the link. First of all, geometrical forms such as triangles do occur in nature. Think of fluorite crystals, of diatoms, of triangular algae, cuneate and deltoid leaves...I could list a few others. As for the theorem, the human capability of abstraction hardly proves the existence of a hyperuranium of sorts, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. In a physical world, all that happens is natural. Live with it.
2) Always looking for gaps, eh? Sorry, you're running low on them.
3) Yes they are. And secondly, it's not really all too difficult to see how love could exist in a physical brain. We already know how attraction works and what it triggers in our brains. If you claim that there's more to it than that, then the burden of proof is on you. No one has managed to prove the existence of this immortal soul of yours. And I can't see why science should keep silent. Science studies the natural world and tells us what is likely or unlikely to happen in our physical reality. You may wish to believe in the non-overlapping magisteria, but science does not.
4) These last comments of yours are empty claims unsupported by evidence. As such, they don't deserve my time.
Hello again Fabio. Before moving on to part two I thought I'd respond to your response.
1. Geometrical shapes are abstractions and do not exist outside of the human mind. Perfect circles, perfect triangles, and even perfectly straight line segments are only in the mind (which may or may not be the same as the brain). Now, humans do have the power of abstraction. But what is it that they abstract? In this case it is the entity "Pythagorean theorem". Can this entity be weighed? Can it be put in a jar on the shelf? How much energy is radiated by this entity? Being abstract, the entity is immune to all these scientific investigations. Therefore there are entities not subject to scientific inquiry. But the natural realm itself is always subject to scientific investigation. Thus, there is more than just the natural.
2. Your claim here is that I appealed to a God-of-the-gaps argument. I did not. You may want to reread what I said under 2 if you want to confirm this.
3. There are Christians who deny mind-body dualism. Presumably, they do believe in mystial experiences. A mystical experience is nothing more nor less than a close unity with God. So if God exists and if monistic Christians exist-both of which are possible-then denying dualism does not necessarily deny real mystical experience. Next, a feeling of love or attraction may be detectable (or trigger-able) in the brain. But I am not talking about a feeling of love. Rather, I am talking about love itself. To love another is a choice on our part and there is no possible way that such ethical ideals as love can arise from chemistry and physics. After all, a rock can not commit good or evil deeds against another rock. I am not claiming that we do not yet know how physics and chemistry can produce ethics so let's stick God in there and keep our fingers crossed that science does not find out differently some day. Rather-and I think this is obvious to all who reflect on it-I am claiming that ethics and science are currently known to be eternally divorced. Next, didn't Plato prove the existence of an immortal soul? And finally, since you say that science studies the physical realm, if the immortal soul is not physical, science simply must keep silent on the matter according to your own view. How can the investigation of the material investigate the immaterial (supposing there is an immaterial)? It cannot. So if you are going to be consistent Fabio, then you must believe in non-overlapping magisterium.
4. You chose to ignore this last point so I may as well. But I would like to say a few points in explication of my original comments. First, positive atheism is a worldview which makes definite truth claims (at least, the positive belief that there is no God). As such, it is subject to analysis. All worldviews are subject to such analysis. It is found wanting on at least two counts. First, it is unlivable. For example, a consistent atheist has to reject the reality of morality but all atheists live as though there really is a right and wrong. Second, the strong atheist view does not account for everything found in reality. For example, such non-physical or non-material entities as numbers. But Christianity is also a worldview and is thus subject to close scrutiny. Educated Christians have always known the standard skeptical criticisms of their faith and yet continue to believe. It is not a matter of sticking out head in the sand and ignoring what others are saying. Rather, we take such arguments seriously and construct good rebuttals to the allegations. We have been doing this throughout our entire existence on the planet. I cannot go through each argument point by point right now, but, as I continue to respond to your faqs, you shall see what I mean.
In conclusion, my original comments stand and your first faq is found wanting. Still I must say that I sincerely do commend you for thinking about such important matters and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to let my voice be heard (especially in light of the fact that you no doubt disagree with my perspective). Goodbye until next time.
Geometrical shapes are not abstractions. Perfect geometrical shapes might be, but then again it's the idea of perfection that is an abstraction. And that does in no way prove the existence of a realm of ideas. Your only argument is that we cannot physically touch our thoughts and therefore a metaphysical reality must exist. Hardly. What would be a proper refutation of your argument? If we started sweating ideas through our pores? That will never happen. If you want to stick to the belief in a hyperuranium, feel free to do so, but bear in mind that such belief is entirely unsubstantiated.
I find philosophical debate rather sterile, so I won't get into that. Still, if your only argument rests upon a purported difference between "the feeling of love" and "love itself," then I think this is a good time to mention that metaphysics makes me laugh and that you can prove nothing of what you're saying. There's no "love itself" or distant perfect idea of love in a hyperuranium. Furthermore, you simply assume that an ethical sense cannot possibly arise from chemistry and physics. Well, as far as I can see you're claiming that without any sort of evidence and with a great dose of fear that you might actually be wrong. I suggest you look a bit more into the research that is being carried out to demonstrate the genetic and evolutionary origins of our moral sense. I suggest you start from Mark Hauser's.
No, Plato never proved the existence of anything or we wouldn't be here arguing about it. And no, you're wrong. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I do not believe in non-overlapping magisteria. Besides, yours the claim of an immortal soul, yours the burden of proof. I haven't seen a shred of it so far. Science, in the meanwhile, will keep on assuming that no such thing as an immortal soul or metaphysical reality exists and will keep on doing an amazing job at explaining reality without it.
Now, on to your last point. First, rejecting an objective view of morality as divine law does not equal rejecting morality as a contingent behaviour. As mentioned above, all this is solved by the idea of a genetic moral sense, and, even if that were not the case, social contracts are there to give some help. Atheists try to do right because it's the rational and most obvious thing to do in most circumstances. Believers do right - and not even all of them - because they're dead scared of their deity's wrath. You're in no position to be a moralist.
Come up with better arguments, I'm getting bored.
Post a Comment