Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 1

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.

When semantics takes its toll.

I should be entertaining myself with homework and assignments, but I've realised there's something bugging me far too much for me to let it go unnoticed any longer. I've been out of the whole online debating scene for a few months. I'm not sure whether I've grown tired of always fighting the same people or if I've become physically unable to tolerate their use of the same, old, stretched arguments over and over again. Whatever the reason, the mere idea of logging in on a public forum and engage in a debate makes me feel nauseous. Still, I sometimes check out boards and blogs all over the web and I sometimes feel the urge to bang my head against the wall, just like the good ol' times when I had to dodge ad personams Matrix-style to get my point across.

One of the last debates I took part in was one concerning the existence of Free Will and Free Agency and the issue of whether or not the mind is a physical entity bound to the principle of causality. Now, of all the arguments I've heard there is a recurrent one I find extremely annoying. Believe it or not I've happened to stumble upon people who contend the mind is a non-physical entity linked to the physical brain by a process of feedback loop because the most common definition of mind as used by most speakers of all natural languages is that of a non-physical entity.

Admittedly all this transcends the particular debate and mine is a criticism against a debating technique used by some people regardless of topic. Dictionary entries and the use we make of words - which are, I'd like to remind, nothing but conventions - reflect the mainstream way of understanding reality and the universe we live in. They by no means build the reality we live in or constitute proof of anything. Our use of words and the meaning we attach to a particular utterance and to its representation in written language is directed by our ever changing understanding of reality and not vice versa. Do you want to prove that the mind is a non-physical entity beyond the reach of causality? Then you must provide an instance of physical changes in a living brain, be them traumatic or not, producing no change whatsoever in the behavioural patterns of a living organism. It would also be nice if you could explain how anything in the physical world we live in can be uncaused above quantum level - and even at quantum level we might one day find out that the apparent randomness of microscopical systems is actually not that random at all. Time will tell.

An equally irritating argument used by many Free Will proponents goes as follows:

1. we live and act throughout each day of our existence with the clear perception of having free will and agency.
2. therefore free will and agency do exist.

Wrong. Perceiving free will is no more a proof of its existence than seeing the sun move through the sky is proof that our system is geocentric. If anything, one might argue that our perception of free will is but an evolutionary defence mechanism to preserve self-image. So many people are so manifestly unable to cope with the mere idea of having no real free will that the need for such a defence mechanism becomes blatant from an evolutionary perspective, just as many individuals seem to need to cling to their beliefs in order to keep themselves alive.

Since I'm at it I think I might as well address a point I deem much more important than the need of single individuals to embrace the illusive perception of free will. It's a point whose discussion, I think, has been made necessary by the emergence of the gene-centred theory of evolution. Let's assume for a moment that Dawkins' thorough explanation of why and how altruism still has a place in the Selfish Gene theory were not enough for some people and that the deletion of free will on a naturalistic basis could pose, according to the same people, an equal threat to the ethical existence of our civilisation. To be honest I've always had a hard time understanding what all the fuss about this stems from, as the solution has always appeared fairly blatant to me. If I were to make an educated guess I'd say that the problem some people have with the theory is caused by a deeply rooted adherence to dualism. People will always have issues with a gene-centred theory of evolution and its obvious implications for as long as they will stick to seeing themselves as something separated from their genes. If you think about it, the most common argument against the acceptance of the theory is not unlike one of the most common points raised against atheism.

Once you eliminate free will and free agency, if we are nothing but machines whose actions are determined by genetics and causality, then everything is allowed and there is no longer accountability.

Once again, wrong. That would only be the case if our genes were the decision-making components of machines of which we represent the conscious self. The problem ceases to be as soon as you accept the idea that we are not controlled by our genes, we are our genes. We are genetic machines that evolution has provided with self-awareness and the illusion of free will as defence mechanisms and as means to a posteriori rationalise all those decisions we take as a result of all those underground processes that placing under our direct control would jeopardise the survival of the genetic machine we are. As a result we, our own genes, can be held entirely accountable and judged by a jury of peer genetic machines.

Ultimately, if the idea of giving our free will up is really so terrifying, one could very well phrase the whole thing slightly differently and say that the free agency of our genetic machines is perfectly intact and that it is our self-awareness that is actually more deficient than we'd like to think.

Sometimes they come back.

One month since my last post. About one month since I got here, one month of my exchange year gone, and a lot to fill you people in about. Most of the past month I've spent going to class, going to parties and having what most people my age would think of as fun - and perhaps, however unremarkable to most, that is exactly the most relevant aspect of the time I've spent here. I, who have never been the life and soul of the party - and never will, mind you - am at least starting to go to parties in the first place. It's not really about me enjoying the social convention named "party" or not, it's about me finding myself willing, even eager, to be around people. I'm not quite used to that, I admit, but I must say I'm starting to like the feeling and, above all, the idea of this whole experience changing me in such a way. Or of change happening in my life, regardless of form and entity. I have spent my whole existence up until now openly resisting change, rejecting anything that could threaten to break the fragile balance I had found in my life, even if that meant keeping people away and experiencing much less of some aspects of life than would be healthy for a guy my age - although I've clearly experienced other aspects of existence most people are fairly clueless about, for good or for bad. And now here I am, facing change in small doses just about every day, with a strange mix of respectful caution and clumsy fascination. Here I am, experiencing things that should be common place for someone my age, but I don't care. I've never been a fan of tight schedules anyway.

But hey, sometimes I nearly forget this is also supposed to be yet another "angry atheist" blog, engaged and all that. Since I wouldn't want to piss off part of my readership - wait a sec, what readership? - I guess the topic deserves at least one mention. Yes, I'm still an atheist and I'm just as angry one as I was when I left Italy. That's one thing that is not going to change, exchange year or not. I must say I've met quite a few evil unbelievers here already, proving my point that we're far from being a dying breed. I've also met the occasional, promising agnostic paralysed by that one nasty form of fear of death and kenophobia. Last night in particular was quite entertaining. I spent it with Tobias, Lawrence, Diego and Sylvain, the funny Belgian guy who speaks Italian better than many Italians. We watched Lucky Number Slevin - definitely a good film - and then a short piece of Dawkins' The Root of All Evil?, which triggered the following debate about belief, relgion, politics and - not quite sure how - girls. I guess the fact that girls are the greatest mistery in the universe made the link seem less absurd last night. It was one of those times that can make even an angry, cynical, militant atheist realise that debate and hermeneutic exchange still have something to offer to this world if we just bother to give it a shot. Probably none of us has managed to convince anyone of his own thesis and vice versa, but we have learnt something new about each other and, one might argue, that's the main point in a conversation.

Well, tonight it's party-time yet again, so I'd better pull myself together. There would be much more to tell about my first month here, but most of it would seem fairly trivial and would only make sense to me and a close few others. Therefore, I'll just leave it at that.