tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post6052317269993970583..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: The Unimportance of God (or, Why I'm an Atheist)Larry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-23643774389038746482007-05-31T12:14:00.000-06:002007-05-31T12:14:00.000-06:00I've had auditory hallucinations as well as hypnag...I've had auditory hallucinations as well as hypnagogic paranoid ideation. I suspect that visual hallucinations are not a different <I>kind</I> of experience, they're just the same sort of visual experiences we all have, just with a different causal mechanism.<BR/><BR/>Feynman describes a number of his isolation tank-induced hallucinatory experiences and altered ideation.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-34112515683470338032007-05-31T12:01:00.000-06:002007-05-31T12:01:00.000-06:00I don't know, frankly if even outright schizophren...<I>I don't know, frankly if even outright schizophrenics have different kinds of experiences, or if they have the same sorts of experiences but so randomized that they're unable to form any beliefs that correspond to—if you'll excuse the laxity of the term—reality.</I><BR/><BR/>This almost gets it right. One of the hallmarks of schizophrenia is not that they experience "different" things from us, unless one is experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, but rather that many schizophrenics interpret those same events differently. It's the <I>causality</I> of the event that is perceived differently: The breeze through the trees isn't a miracle of god or the result of airflow, but rather the trees exhaling poison at passerby. <BR/><BR/>I'm telling you, Jaynes was on to something. There's a reason religious revelation and schizophrenia have a lot in common.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-61429084373325456082007-05-31T09:25:00.000-06:002007-05-31T09:25:00.000-06:00Sure, lay the list on me. I can't promise I'll get...Sure, lay the list on me. I can't promise I'll get to it soon, though.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-71171979037840129092007-05-31T08:23:00.000-06:002007-05-31T08:23:00.000-06:00You'll definitely find Dan interesting when you ge...You'll definitely find Dan interesting when you get to him. I agree that evpsych is only in its infancy as a scientific research programme, and indeed that's one of the points of Breaking the Spell; that there should <I>be</I> a scientific research programme in relation to the evolution of "religion". But the enterprise (I mean scientific testing of evpsych hypotheses in general) has already progressed further than you may be aware. See for instance <A HREF="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7129/abs/nature05510.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> in Nature. Unconscious kin detection mechanisms are necessary for quite a few evpsych proposed explanations; the study is adducing evidence that they actually exist. (This is just a fairly random example because I remembered reading it in Nature recently).<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-5248148-8302527?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180621166&sr=8-1" REL="nofollow">This</A> is another excellent book which is relevant, if your reading pile isn't too high already.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I read the Edge article and thought it was fascinating. (I'd actually like to read the underlying Science paper too). I could give you a list of interesting psychology books too!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-16548992181335353442007-05-31T07:07:00.000-06:002007-05-31T07:07:00.000-06:00Check out this study: Why Do Some People Resist Sc...Check out this study: <A HREF="http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html" REL="nofollow">Why Do Some People Resist Science?</A>Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-3749838432572208992007-05-31T05:36:00.000-06:002007-05-31T05:36:00.000-06:00You could be right. I still have Chris (God is not...You could be right. I still have Chris (<I>God is not Great</I>) and Ayaan (<I>Infidel</I>) to finish before I get to Dan.<BR/><BR/>When I talk about "conjectures specific enough to be plausible," I'm talking some sort of scientific hypothesis and experimental data to which I can actually calculate a p-Value, or an hypothesis sufficiently well-formed that we could at least in principle set up such an experiment. Even a survey study collecting descriptions of religious experience in a rigorous way would be a good start. If such a survey exists, I'd love to read it.<BR/><BR/>What I have read of EvoPsych does not as yet seem fully scientific. There are lot of "just so stories", but little experimental data differentiating between alternative hypotheses. This is not a terribly bad thing—all good science starts with speculation—but I'm waiting for the next "data-filtered" step.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-67548975894494075882007-05-31T04:29:00.000-06:002007-05-31T04:29:00.000-06:00I don't know that we have enough information yet t...<I>I don't know that we have enough information yet to make conjectures specific enough to be plausible</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I find them plausible! but I don't know whether that's because I have read more evolutionary psychology than you or because we have judged the plausibility differently. "Breaking the Spell" is a pretty good summary, don't know if you have read that? Also some very short-hand stuff linked from my post. And <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Anyone-Believe-Cognitive-Science-Religion/dp/0759106673/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7900799-6015317?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180606909&sr=8-1" REL="nofollow">tthis book</A> looks as though it's giong to be good, although I haven't finished it yet.<BR/><BR/>Myself, I think it's plausible that ordinary believers have had more, and/or stronger experiences of the sort you instance, on average, than have ordinary atheists. Also, indeed that they may place different constructions on them, but that this in turn might be because they have stronger genetic tendencies to some of the traits hypothesised to contribute to the "spandrel" of religiosity; agent-detection, for example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-62259331749732264772007-05-30T18:49:00.000-06:002007-05-30T18:49:00.000-06:00It's tough to talk about "genetic" propensity in s...It's tough to talk about "genetic" propensity in something as complex as belief formation. Anything's possible, but I don't know that we have enough information yet to make conjectures specific enough to be plausible. Of course genetics has <I>something</I> to do with belief formation, since our brains are constructed by our genes, but that's not saying much at all, nor does it say anything about the kinds of experiences we have as opposed to the kinds of conclusions we draw from those experiences.<BR/><BR/>My points above are more to the position that most ordinary atheists have had the same sorts of experiences that most ordinary believers interpret as being about "God": feelings of wonder and beauty, imagination, connection to other people, mystery, that sorts of thing.<BR/><BR/>I don't know, frankly if even outright schizophrenics have different <I>kinds</I> of experiences, or if they have the same sorts of experiences but so randomized that they're unable to form any beliefs that correspond to—if you'll excuse the laxity of the term—reality.<BR/><BR/>Get a few beers in me, and I'll venture to speculate that no small few mental illnesses are due to an simple inability to distinguish between perception, memory, and imagination; the ease in which false memories can be inculcated in most ordinary people seems quite suggestive in that regard.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-52670722188976010062007-05-30T16:11:00.000-06:002007-05-30T16:11:00.000-06:00I also submit that you have had "revelatory" exper...<I>I also submit that you have had "revelatory" experiences</I><BR/><BR/>Don't you think it is plausible that there is genetic variation in human propensity to have revelatory experiences, and also (probably separately) to be drawn to spiritual explanations? See <A HREF="http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/mets/?p=99" REL="nofollow">here</A>, not because I think it's a particularly well-written exposition, but because I can't be bothered to compose and type a long comment just now.<BR/><BR/>None of your 1-4 really support the postulate that <I>everyone</I> has had a 'revelatory' experience. I'm pretty sure I haven't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-6222346901621366382007-05-30T10:00:00.000-06:002007-05-30T10:00:00.000-06:00Ah, I was very angry at Allah, and hated him very ...Ah, I was very angry at Allah, and hated him very much before I stopped believing in him. I was convinced that Islam was the truth, because of 'Koranic science' but did not <I>like</I> the Islamic religion or the nature of Allah. But I believed it was true, because there seemed to be proof.<BR/><BR/>When I found out it wasn't, in fact, true, I was so relieved. I was very eager to not believe in it because it offended my reason and was destructive in its pure negativity. Hatred is a huge burden to carry. I was glad to let go of it, to know that there was nothing there to hate. So although I understand your wife's hatred of God, I don't understand why she wouldn't take the only way out of that troubling state of mind (it can't be fun to *know* you're going to hell). <BR/><BR/>I love your analysis of the whole "You hate God" issue -- spot on, very perceptive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-6985259422154430092007-05-30T07:56:00.000-06:002007-05-30T07:56:00.000-06:00I'm moved by your wife's attitude towards God. It'...I'm moved by your wife's attitude towards God. It's just about the only ethical position I can admire of anyone convinced of the existence of the Abrahamic God.<BR/><BR/>I would challenge the basis of your desire not to self identify as a "strident" or "evangelizing" atheist on the basis of your agnosticism.<BR/><BR/>I think this sort of self-identification is a <I>political</I> issue, not a philosophical or epistemic issue. When you have infinite time and infinite resource, I might challenge your ethics, but until then it seems entirely uncontroversial to grant you the right to pick your battles, and I certainly do not fault the battles you <I>do</I> choose to fight.<BR/><BR/>I think, though, your epistemic grounds are weak. Granted, we cannot know about the existence of a God with absolute certainty. But we cannot know <I>anything</I> with absolute certainty outside of our direct experience—to insist on absolute certainty before admitting knowledge is to insist on epistemic nihilism: We cannot know <I>anything</I>; we cannot even make the simplest generalization from our own experience.<BR/><BR/>I submit that if you think you know <I>anything</I>, then you know that God does not exist. What you choose to do politically with that knowledge is your own choice.<BR/><BR/>I also submit that you <I>have</I> had "revelatory" experiences, or, rather, you have had the same sorts of experiences from which believers (at least those not experiencing extreme <A HREF="http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/T/templobelability.html" REL="nofollow">temporal lobe lability</A>) conclude the existence of God. I base this conclusion on:<BR/><BR/>1. The general principle that it is plausible that people with similar brains have similar sorts of experiences,<BR/><BR/>2. The demonstrated existence of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia" REL="nofollow">Hypnagogic</A> hallucinations,<BR/><BR/>3. The descriptions of believers of the details of the actual experiences, as opposed to the conclusions,<BR/><BR/>4. Reports from religious people who have deconverted to atheism.<BR/><BR/>Compare and contranst, for instance, James Huber's (of <A HREF="http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank" REL="nofollow">Kissing Hank's Ass</A> fame), experiences of <A HREF="http://www.jhuger.com/mystic_atheism" REL="nofollow">Mystic Atheism</A> and <A HREF="http://www.jhuger.com/mat_enlight.php" REL="nofollow">Materialistic Enlightenment</A>. I think the whole "religious experience" game is a big con, where prosaic experiences are wrapped in so much mystical mumbo jumbo that they seem impressively mysterious.<BR/><BR/>Last, I think we should reserve the word "violence" for harmful physical force. The phrase "violence of subversive, deconstructive reason" is, in my opinion, unwarranted, and "violence" should at least appear in scare quotes or, better, omitted entirely.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com