Choose reality, not religion

If you could be hooked up to an "Experience Machine" that keeps you in a state of permanent happiness (or take a drug with the same effect) would you do it?

I came across this intriguing question in Thomas Metzinger's "The Ego Tunnel," a book that I've been blogging about recently. This thought experiment was suggested by Robert Nozick.

Metzinger says:

Interestingly, Nozick found that most people would not opt to spend the rest of their lives hooked up to such a machine. The reason is that most of us do not value bliss as such, but want it grounded in truth, virtue, artistic achievement, or some sort of higher good. That is, we would want our bliss to be justified.

...He [Nozick] insisted that we would not want sheer happiness alone if there no actual contact with a deeper reality -- even though the subjective experience of it can in principle be simulated.

When I first read this, I wasn't sure what my choice would be. I took a lot of psychedelic drugs in my youth, being the baby boomer that I am (as the saying goes, "if you remember the '60s, you weren't there").

So, like most of us, I've got a strong leaning toward if it feels good, do it.

On the other hand, I enjoyed those psychedelic experiences because they weren't permanent. The first time I took LSD, another guy and I became convinced that we were permanently crazy. It wasn't a pleasant feeling. The best spin we could put on it was, "Crazy isn't so bad."

But what if we were in a permanent blissed-out state and didn't have any way of remembering what had gotten us into it? This would be the Experience Machine.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want that. I can't say for sure, because some circumstances -- like being in severe intractable pain -- probably would make me want the suffering to go away, no matter the existential cost.

On the whole, though, I think Nozick is correct.

We humans are meaning-seeking creatures. We want our happiness to be grounded in reality, though we're perfectly willing to take temporary excursions into la-la land via drugs, alcohol, imaginings, movies, fictional books, and such.

Religion also. There's no problem with embracing religious fantasies that make us feel good, so long as we keep in mind what opiate we imbibed.

However, many true believers end up plugging themselves so strongly into the Experience Machine of religious dogma that they forget a crucial fact: their blissful feelings of divinity are being cranked out by their brain's fantasy generator.

Nothing wrong with this. Like Janis Joplin sang, "Feeling good was good enough for me."

But is feeling good good enough, when it isn't grounded in reality? This was one of the first questions I asked myself when I started this blog in 2004. Then, as now, for me genuine faith isn't blind at all.

Which is why I prefer reality over religion. This is some of what I said back then -- pretty much the same conclusion Robert Novick came to.

Here's how to tell the difference between true faith and false faith: Imagine that you are standing in the middle of a bare windowless room. Two doors lead out of the room. Both are closed, but can be opened with a turn of the doorknob. The doors are marked with signs that describe what awaits on the other side: (A) Reality, (B) Belief

After you open a door, you have to walk through it. The door then will shut and you never will be able to leave the place you have entered. Choose Reality and you will know things as they really are, from top to bottom of the cosmos. You will know whether or not God exists and, if so, the nature of this ultimate divinity. You will know whether death is the final end of your existence or if it is the beginning of another form of life. You will know whether there is a meaning to the universe beyond what human beings ascribe to it.

Or, choose Belief and you will know only what lies within the confines of your current suppositions about the nature of the cosmos. For the rest of your life you will be confident that what you believe to be true, really is. Any evidence to the contrary will not make an impact on your mind. You will remain doubt-free, faithful to the beliefs you now hold about God, creation, life, death, and the purpose of human existence.

Which door would you choose to walk through?

Before answering, consider carefully the potential ramifications of your choice. Reality is an unknown, a mystery. It could be frightening or fabulous, painful or pleasurable, warmly loving or coldly uncaring. Do you want to embrace absolutely real reality? Or would you rather hold on to your beliefs about what is real?

Someone with the type of faith extolled by the Church of the Churchless would unhesitatingly choose Door A and boldly stride into Reality. For their faith is not in anything particular, but is a faith that truth can be known, should be known, and, indeed, must be known.

Comments

[The Rambling Taoist]

Having been an anomaly of the 60s & 70s (no drug use whatsoever), I can't fall back on experience as a reference point. That said, I don't think I'd want to be eternally happy nor sad. My choice would be to just be.

[Bob]

Of topic - for Tao if you're around!

Bob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EacQEhrbBQ

[jezis kripes]

What Would Jesus NOT Do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE

[Yoyo]

I want to be eternally happy because for a good deal of my life I have felt the opposite. I'm sure there is some correlation with biologically depressed individuals and 'truth seeking'.

Sometimes believing and feeling good is better than being realistic and feeling like crap.

[+Ao]

The reason you feel like crap is not due to embracing reality... it is because you assume (ie: you believe) that reality does not feel good.

In addition, it is your unexamined notion that having belief in a fantasy will make you feel better, that is what is actually causing and contributing to your depression or "feeling like crap".

The problem is duality. You assume that reality or "being realistic" is part of a real versus fantasy, or a good versus bad dichotomy.

But actual reality is non-dual. The assumed duality of a "good" versus "crap" is only in your mind.

If you would simply embrace present reality (without apprehension or expectations), and not attempt to resort to any sort of belief in anything, and simply accept what IS, then you will find that without any doubt, reality and/or "being realistic" feels quite good compared to any belief in fantasy or fiction...which inherently feels bad because it is predicated upon fear.

But you will not be able to realize this until you let go of your present assumptions and beliefs, and completely embrace whatever may be happening in the ever-present moment.

[Smack]

I came across this wonderful quote recently :

"Human beings can get so caught up in wanting to prove to themselves the reality of what they believe, they don't realize that this need to preserve a delusion can, in of itself, prevent the realization of
that which they so desperately seek."

By Marilynn Hughes in "Out of Body Experiences - What You Need to Know".

Nice.

[Roger]

"Human beings can get so caught up in wanting to prove to themselves the reality of what they believe, they don't realize that this need to preserve a delusion can, in of itself, prevent the realization of
that which they so desperately seek."

---Smack, do you know what the origin of the "desparately" seeking is?

Thanks for a reply,
Roger

[Smack]

Roger,
Not sure if I understand your question. Do you mean "Why are humans desperately seeking to understand the universe/God/reality" ?

[Roger]

Smack,

Well, there are two issues,

The "seeking" issue. Why is One seeking?
Who trained them on the need to seek?

and,

The "desparately" issue. If One knows why they are seeking, then why does the seeking process have to be so desparate?

Roger

[Rose]

I would go for the same thing most people choose and not choose to be eternally happy. I mean I see the value of that kind of machine if people are being hooked up, for psychological treatment purposes (but only temporarily). But I think in order to understand and enjoy what happiness is, you need to have also experienced sadness.

I would also choose reality. If I really could know everything that I wanted to know, and it would be 100% true why wouldn't I? If the truth is available, I wouldn't choose a lie. Even if it would contradict my beliefs at least I would be sure of things.

[Smack]

Roger,

You write: "Why is One seeking?"

My response: I can't speak for anyone else, but personally speaking, I am 'seeking' to find out if there are answers to the questions "Why am I here? What's all this about? Is there life after death?". Nothing new, just those same age old questions philosphers and mystics have tried to find answers to. These questions intrigue me.

You write: "The "desparately" issue. If One knows why they are seeking, then why does the seeking process have to be so desparate?"

My response: Probably because the seeker has not found that which s/he seeks. Some seekers are desperately seeking, their desire to find answers takes over their lives. Others are just curious and don't put too much effort into it, so we can't say that they're desperate.

I guess what I take away from the quote from Marilynn Hughes is that if I am searching for 'truth', then it's better to keep an open mind and not take anything on blind faith. Otherwise I may spend my life trying to prove that which I have faith in, and be blind to the 'truth'. For example, IF I accept all Sant Mat principles as true and spend my life trying to prove that the Sant Mat principles are true... and IF it turns out that Sant Mat is wrong, well then I wasted a hell of a lot of time trying to prove a wrong theory. But if I keep an open mind and rely on my personal experience, I am more likely to find the answers to those questions.

[Roger]

Smack,

Thanks for your reply. Nothing wrong with subjective/objective seeking.

I enjoy the subjective/objective seeking of information. How this information is converted into a truth or theory is secondary. I'm having trouble becoming desparate, in this kind of seeking process.

Smack, is it possible that seeking fades away in a realm of non-subjectivity and non-objectivity? In this realm, is it ok to not have a need to prove a theory right or wrong?

Roger