"Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion

Ilya B Shambat

According to the logic of the so-called “skeptics,” spirituality and religion is craziness.

By that definition, the bulk of humanity is mentally ill, as the bulk of humanity has one or another form of spirituality. This leaves these people thinking that they are the only sane people out there.

If there is such a thing as narcissism, I can think of no more glaring narcissism than that.

Most “skeptics” are not even scientists. Real scientists are curious, and many are as curious about spirituality as they are about everything else. I am good friends with a distinguished scientist who openly talks about having had very real spiritual experiences. He has a vast body of academic knowledge, is very well-reasoned and uses scientific method to excellent standard. That has not prevented him from having a spiritual life.

Spiritual experiences happen all the time, at least they do in my life. I've had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening; and I am nowhere close to being the only one. Many people either forget the experiences that they have or deny them; but if you dig enough you will find in many cases that they have in fact had very real spiritual experiences. The problem is that they do not know how to make them parse with what they know about the world from science and mathematics. This results in many of them denying these experiences; and toward that effect any number of people have come up with any number of tricks.

Some want to say that experience is “anecdotal” and does not count as valid evidence. Others want to ascribe it to being on drugs, or being depressed or anorexic, or being otherwise non compos mentis during the time of the experience. Others still start going into beliefs such as that truth itself is relative. In all cases we find dishonesty. It is dishonesty that comes from dischordance between the logical implications of the experience and the worldview.

Is science wrong? No, it isn't. Materialist fundamentalism however is completely wrong. I seek an explanation that will be consistent with both scientific fact and the facts of my and other people's spiritual experiences; and I am continuing to look for this explanation in any number of paths.

I wouldn't go as quite as far as to classify them as mentally ill, although there are certainly similarities. They're just bad at logic when it comes to that sort of thing. It can happen to anyone, including scientists. The experience simply isn't credible evidence of what they jump to the conclusion that it is. It is only credible evidence of that if there are no better explanations, but there always are, so they're fighting a losing battle. I'm intelligent enough not to make the unwarranted logical leap which they do.

They don't have to give up their illogical belief, but I think that they should be intellectually honest about what it isn't, and it isn't logical or credible.

I like sushi

I am, quite obviously, the ONLY “sane” person breathing. I know this because everyone else is blatantly insane. Therefore if I assume I am the only “sane” person, then I guess I will be considered by others as insane, and I therefore know I am insane in their eyes ans so understand my insanity as sanity.

Knowing you’re insane instantly makes you sane. Eventually you;re left understanding that these terms are not merely relative constructions of language, but a phenomenon brought forth to be viewed NOT phenomena - the idea of a plurality of “phenomenon” is rather silly!

Jake

I'm intelligent enough not to make the unwarranted logical leap which they do. — S

No. You're not. You believe in the infinite power of human reason with the same blind faith with which many religious people believe in their holy books. In fact, your faith is stronger, because you don't even understand that it's faith.

You're not interested in reason, but in ideology, and don't actually understand the difference between the two.

But, you're probably 23, and that's a good excuse. Seriously, it is.

Baden

But, you're probably 23 — Jake

@S is 30 I think.

VagabondSpectre

According to the logic of the so-called “skeptics,” spirituality and religion is craziness. — Ilya B Shambat

Crazy in what sense? That's such a loaded term.

Crazy from an empirical standpoint? Sure, most religions are downright nuts (though "spirituality" in some respects may one day find a scientific home), but religion hasn't evolved to scratch the same set of itches that science has, and vice versa.

By that definition, the bulk of humanity is mentally ill, as the bulk of humanity has one or another form of spirituality. — Ilya B Shambat

Actually, being factually mistaken is far flung from being "mentally ill", under any sensible definition... People who believed or even yet believe that the earth is flat are woefully mistaken and often under-educated, but they aren't "mentally-ill".

his leaves these people thinking that they are the only sane people out there. If there is such a thing as narcissism, I can think of no more glaring narcissism than that. — Ilya B Shambat

I'm quite skeptical of this...

Most “skeptics” are not even scientists. Real scientists are curious, and many are as curious about spirituality as they are about everything else. I am good friends with a distinguished scientist who openly talks about having had very real spiritual experiences. He has a vast body of academic knowledge, is very well-reasoned and uses scientific method to excellent standard. That has not prevented him from having a spiritual life. — Ilya B Shambat

Your scientist friend might also remind you that if you want to make generalized statements about a certain segment of the population, you need more than a single data point.

In truth most scientists are not religious type folk, though having "spiritual" experiences is not at all exclusive to religion. Some scientists believe some really empirically questionable stuff, but they tend toward believing what can be demonstrated or measured rather than making unnecessary assumptions about the immeasurable. For some scientists, the intrinsic feelings they have upon acquiring new knowledge could be construable as spiritual, for other scientists it could be experimenting with LSD.

If you care to define "spiritual" in a specific context, perhaps I could give a more caricatured rebuke,

Spiritual experiences happen all the time, at least they do in my life. I've had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening; and I am nowhere close to being the only one. Many people either forget the experiences that they have or deny them; but if you dig enough you will find in many cases that they have in fact had very real spiritual experiences. The problem is that they do not know how to make them parse with what they know about the world from science and mathematics. This results in many of them denying these experiences; and toward that effect any number of people have come up with any number of tricks. — Ilya B Shambat

Can you give an example?

Is science wrong? No, it isn't. Materialist fundamentalism however is completely wrong. I seek an explanation that will be consistent with both scientific fact and the facts of my and other people's spiritual experiences; and I am continuing to look for this explanation in any number of paths. — Ilya B Shambat

Maybe you've just prematurely discounted materialist fundamentalism?

Frank Apisa

↪Ilya B Shambat

Ilya, some people guess that the REALITY of existence has a "god" (or gods) at its core. Some people guess that the REALITY of existence has no "gods" involved at all.

They are merely guesses.

For some, their guess makes them want to classify people who guess otherwise to be insane or stupid.

Sorta that same thing happens in politics these days. People on one side of the political spectrum often classify people on the other side as "nuts" or stupid.

So be it.

No need to get excited about it. It just happens.

wax

I have often seen sceptics put a lot of things down to confirmation bias...or which ever term it is, where a person remembers co-incidences, and forgets the rest.

This process is true, eg I have noticed that when I meet someone and say they have a car of a certain make and colour, I then start to see lots of the same make of car with the same colour, going down the roads...I assume this is some kind of recognition bias, and not an increase in the presence of those makes of car.

But when it involves certain things like thinking of someone, and then a few minutes later they ring you up, I think this can only happen so many times before it becomes quite improbable that this is down to coincidence, or conformation bias....

Like the OP said, there comes a time when someone would have to go into denial about the personal evidence in order to dismiss it...this is a shame....especially if it happens to a scientist..the whole point of science is to be open and curious about how the universe works, and not to try to make the evidence fit their preconceived view of how it works.

SteveKlinko

↪Ilya B Shambat

I have been doing battle with the Materialist/Physicalists for a couple of years now. My arguments are not about Religious Experiences but rather about Conscious Experiences. I maintain that the Conscious Experiences we have, such as the experience of perceiving the Color Red, are not explained by Science yet. The Physicalists just like to dismiss Conscious Experience as just an Illusion and not even worth thinking about. I say that Conscious Experiences are central to what we are. We don't know anything about the external World except through Conscious Experience. Because Conscious Experience is unexplainable by Science the Physicalists can only say they don't exist. They think that talking about Conscious Experience is the same thing as talking about Religious Experience. I tell them to think Deeper about their own Conscious Existence. But that just leads to more accusations that I am promoting Religion.

wax

↪SteveKlinko

I partly think science has been infested with financial considerations. It is perhaps easier to apply for research funding, if you have a mainstream research application, which leads to more materialistic research and mindset.......this cycle just promotes materialistic thinking in the scientific community...it's hard I would think for scientists to even break out of this mould in even materialistic research if the reseatch goes at all against the mainstream views......shame really.

Terrapin Station

I've had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening; — Ilya B Shambat

Speaking of likelihood in the absence of frequency data . . . (I just brought up the problem with this in another thread)

T Clark

Knowing you’re insane instantly makes you sane. — I like sushi

There's a name for this, by the way. It's called "Catch 22." Great book. Ok movie.

T Clark

religion hasn't evolved to scratch the same set of itches that science has, and vice versa. — VagabondSpectre

I've always hated this type of statement, what Stephen Jay Gould called "Non-Overlapping Magisteria," NOMA. Even though he is one of my favorite writers, the idea is bullshit. There is only one world. We are all trying to describe it in our own ways.

Rank Amateur

↪SteveKlinko

are you aware of what Qualia is. I think it is very much what you are saying. The classic thought experiment goes something like this. A person is kept in a black and white room for their entire life, they live in a world without color. But they are taught everything we know about color, they are experts on wave lengths and frequency about how our optics work, how the brain processes it, they know all that can be known about color.

Then they are let out of the room and are amazed by a sunset. The experience of color is different than the knowledge of color. And they are both real.

Rank Amateur

So a primary idea on this to me, is this. If, you believe as I do, that some inherent search for meaning and purpose is part of the human condition. That for near our entire existence we have looked for meaning from a source outside or greater than ourselves and our understanding.

So we are left with 2 rather opposing views on why that is. At one end we have Camus' absurdity. There is no meaning and it is just some absurd quirk of human nature that we seek it. Or on the other end, Karl Rahner's pre apprehension, that all human beings are inherently aware of something greater than themselves- they do not know what this is, but there is some inherent knowledge that it is there.

So to me, before you can make some judgment about theism or atheism you have to address that fundamental question. And be comfortable in your judgment on why we human beings have such a need for meaning.

SteveKlinko

I partly think science has been infested with financial considerations. It is perhaps easier to apply for research funding, if you have a mainstream research application, which leads to more materialistic research and mindset.......this cycle just promotes materialistic thinking in the scientific community...it's hard I would think for scientists to even break out of this mould in even materialistic research if the reseatch goes at all against the mainstream views......shame really. — wax

Very true.

SteveKlinko

↪SteveKlinko are you aware of what Qualia is. I think it is very much what you are saying. The classic thought experiment goes something like this. A person is kept in a black and white room for their entire life, they live in a world without color. But they are taught everything we know about color, they are experts on wave lengths and frequency about how our optics work, how the brain processes it, they know all that can be known about color.

Then they are let out of the room and are amazed by a sunset. The experience of color is different than the knowledge of color. And they are both real. — Rank Amateur

Yes. I am very aware of what Qualia are. Also the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Explanatory Gap.

↪Jake

How amusing.

Isaac

Spiritual experiences happen all the time, at least they do in my life. I've had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening; and I am nowhere close to being the only one. — Ilya B Shambat

Well, you are... You're one in a billion. Otherwise how did anyone calculate there was less than a billionth chance of what happened to you happening?

tim wood

But, you're probably 23
— Jake

@S is 30 I think. — Baden

Still waiting to bloom.

VagabondSpectre

I've always hated this type of statement, what Stephen Jay Gould called "Non-Overlapping Magisteria," NOMA. Even though he is one of my favorite writers, the idea is bullshit. There is only one world. We are all trying to describe it in our own ways. — T Clark

Well I never said there is no overlap, but aren't you missing Gould's point? There's a world of facts and there's also a world of emotions; science approximates the former while religion comforts the latter; different itches.

What's objectionable about that? Do you want me to treat religious ideas as I would treat scientific hypotheses?

Fooloso4

very real spiritual experiences — Ilya B Shambat

I do not know what this means. Some describe sex as a spiritual experience or music or any number of other things as a spiritual experience. The problem. as I see it, is when one is moved to make ontological claims based on the experience. As if there were a spiritual realm or reality that is in some way distinct from everyday reality that one has become familiar with via the experience. I do not know whether or not such a thing exists, but I am skeptical of the idea that the experience is of something other than one's interpretation of a subjective state.

Fooloso4

Because Conscious Experience is unexplainable by Science the Physicalists can only say they don't exist. — SteveKlinko

This is not my understanding of it. Not all physicalists deny conscious experience, they simply go by the assumption that there is a physical explanation of consciousness even though we have not yet and may never figure it out.

SteveKlinko

Because Conscious Experience is unexplainable by Science the Physicalists can only say they don't exist. — SteveKlinko
This is not my understanding of it. Not all physicalists deny conscious experience, they simply go by the assumption that there is a physical explanation of consciousness even though we have not yet and may never figure it out. — Fooloso4

Your experience with the Physicalists might be right but my experience with them has been that they believe Consciousness is just an Illusion and is not even worth studying any further. They say the Hard Problem is solved and there is no Explanatory Gap and that is that. They will not listen to any other arguments. Ok so because of what your experience is I will have to say almost all Physicalists instead of all Physicalists.

T Clark

Well I never said there is no overlap, but aren't you missing Gould's point? There's a world of facts and there's also a world of emotions; science approximates the former while religion comforts the latter; different itches. — VagabondSpectre

I disagree. There are no facts independent of values. Values tell us how to split up the world in a way that makes sense to humans. Values are related to feelings, emotions. As has been said many times on the forum, perhaps even in this thread, humans with certain kinds of neurological damage that make it difficult to feel emotions also have trouble making decisions.

What's objectionable about that? Do you want me to treat religious ideas as I would treat scientific hypotheses? — VagabondSpectre

I would like you to recognize that what you call "scientific hypotheses" do not represent some sort of special phenomena which are independent of the entity doing the hypothesizing.

Fooloso4

Your experience with the Physicalists might be right but my experience with them has been that they believe Consciousness is just an Illusion and is not even worth studying any further. — SteveKlinko

Yes, I have read such things and even had conversations with such people. Perhaps first and foremost of those who claim that consciousness is an illusion is Daniel Dennett.

What I am suggesting is that it is not an either/or issue. The choice is not between physicalism and consciousness. Physicalism is the rejection of supernatural explanations, but this leaves open questions of the effect of culture on consciousness; whether, so to speak, one can understand consciousness by looking at the hardware or if the software plays an essential part.

[Edited]

T Clark

So we are left with 2 rather opposing views on why that is. At one end we have Camus' absurdity. There is no meaning and it is just some absurd quirk of human nature that we seek it. Or on the other end, Karl Rahner's pre apprehension, that all human beings are inherently aware of something greater than themselves- they do not know what this is, but there is some inherent knowledge that it is there. — Rank Amateur

In another thread, you and I were discussing Rahner's pre-apprehension as something similar to what I was calling an awareness of god. To me, that is something that comes before meaning. When we start focusing on meaning, we have already lost that direct experience.

Rank Amateur

↪T Clark

was referring to meaning of life, as in some inherent part of the human condition that we seek a meaning for our existence

Wayfarer

Here is a useful passage on 'the meaning of religion' from Maverick Philosopher's entry on the American idealist philosopher Josiah Royce:

1. It is very difficult to define religion, in the sense of setting forth necessary and sufficient conditions for the correct application of the term, but I agree with Royce's view that an essential characteristic of anything worth calling religion is a concern for the salvation of man. Religious objects are those that help show the way to salvation. The central postulate of religion is that "man needs to be saved." Saved from what? ". . . from some vast and universal burden, of imperfection, of unreasonableness, of evil, of misery, of fate, of unworthiness, or of sin."

2. The Need for Salvation. "Man is an infinitely needy creature." But the need for salvation, for those who feel it, is paramount among human needs. The need for salvation depends on two simpler ideas:

a) There is a paramount end or aim of human life relative to which other aims are vain.

b) Man as he now is, or naturally is, is in danger of missing his highest aim, his highest good.

To hold that man needs salvation is to hold both of (a) and (b). I would put it like this. The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them.

T Clark

was referring to meaning of life, as in some inherent part of the human condition that we seek a meaning for our existence — Rank Amateur

I don't want to play word games and I'm not trying to be tricky. One of the definitions of "apprehension" is "understanding." So, pre-apprehension would be something that comes before understanding. Before labeling. To me, identifying meaning is a kind of labeling. That's what I thought you were talking about.

To me, the experience of god is something that comes before understanding. Before words.

Rank Amateur

To me, the experience of god is something that comes before understanding. Before words — T Clark

Which is consistent with Rahner as I understand him. I would say his definition of pre apprehension is an awareness before an understanding

"Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions