One of the pleasures of having a blog devoted to the praise of churchlessness is being exposed to the strange reasonings of religious true believers. If you're a regular reader of comments here, you know what I mean.
I'm sincere about the "pleasure" part. Disagreements are part of the spice of life. If everybody thought the same way, that'd be horribly boring.
But I enjoy creative, strong, substantial arguments in favor of religiosity (or against science and rationality). After almost five years of hearing the same platitudinous, weak, flimsy arguments, I frequently start reading a fundamentalist's comment and think, "Oh no, not this again."
In hopes that the anti-churchless types will come up with some fresh gotchas! to send my way, I'll share three examples of the sort of "religion is right and you're wrong" spurious arguments that keep being repeated here.
(1) Science can't explain X (love, music, consciousness, life, art, whatever).
Yeah, agreed. So what? The scientific method isn't intended to provide explanations about every aspect of existence, human or cosmic.
Some questions seemingly are unanswerable, such as "why is there something rather than nothing?" Others fall into the realm of personal subjectivity. My wife keeps asking me why I don't like to eat pinto beans. All I can reply is, "There's no why. I just don't like them."
Science, however, can explain a whole heck of a lot more than religion can.
So when I'm looking for an explanation to scratch a question mark itch in my mind concerning some aspect of objective reality, I look toward science rather than a holy book -- even if the scientific hypothesis is tentative and incomplete while the religious dogma is confident and well established.
As the saying goes, "it's better to be roughly right than precisely wrong."
(2) There's no proof that X doesn't exist (God, life after death, heaven, miracles, whatever), so that's why I believe in X.
This argument is guaranteed to generate a WTF? in my mind whenever I hear it (and that's often). I can't believe that anyone takes this flawed reasoning seriously. But it keeps popping up in comments, no matter how many times the absurdity of it is pointed out.
A satirical You Tube video does a pretty good job of laughing off this "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" argument. Gosh, since there is no evidence that gnomes aren't making the flowers in my garden bloom, it must be true!
Most of the comments on "Ask Atheist Reddit: Can you prove God doesn't exist?" support the same conclusion: it's virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist; the burden of proof is on someone to show that it does.
Here's another guy's way of saying the same thing:
First, those who study logic will freely admit that you cannot disprove God's existence. Disproving a statement of instantiation in the context of a very large domain requires visitation of the entire domain. We don't have that technology.
Second, those who claim existence may claim whatever they want, but traditional logic principles and various formal rules of logical debate require the person making the affirmative claim to offer the proof.
Stated another way, you claim existence of God. We dispute your claim. The monkey (your evolutionary uncle...) is on your back as the next step in the formal process....Just don't go nuts and try to assert some kind of bonehead logic. That, we will shoot down in a heartbeat.
(3) Skeptics about religion are secular fundamentalists because they're sure there's no God.
Wrong. Skeptics are looking for demonstrable evidence in support of metaphysical beliefs and don't find any. That's what makes them skeptical.
If someone said, "There's an elephant in your kitchen," you'd look around to see if this was true. Not finding an elephant, you'd be justified in saying "I don't believe you."
But who knows? Maybe there is some sort of pygmy elephant that you've never heard of. It could be in a cupboard that you failed to look in. Neither scientists nor skeptics claim 100% surety.
They simply tilt toward accepting the truth that has the most evidence in favor of it. Since there is basically zero evidence that God exists, or for life after death, a sincere truth-seeker is drawn toward the most defensible conclusion.
Which isn't always the most pleasant or emotionally satisfying conclusion. Personally, I'd much rather know that there is a God who will take care of me after I die. But since I don't know that, I can't delude myself that I do.
Every morning I meditate.
I've meditated daily for almost forty years. If God wants to pay a visit to my consciousness, my door is open. I'm not 100% convinced of anything when it comes to metaphysics, mysticism, the supernatural, and non-bodily consciousness.
For sure, I'm no secular fundamentalist. Fundamentalists believe without evidence. I'm a non- believer without evidence. Big difference.
Brian,
I am interested in meditation and would like your viewpoint as a now semi-skeptic who has dabbled in various mystic traditions.
In short i wish to ask you 2 questions:
1) why do you meditate?
I understand there are pseudo health benefits with ppl trying to accumulate evidence for it and that it is a way to generally relax the mind etc - but is there some other reason you do it so religiously (every day for 40 years) for lack of a better word?
2) have you ever had a mystical experience through meditiation?
By mystical experience i do not mean walking your dog, riding your scooter or tango, tai-chi, etc. I understand you've experienced a sort of void-like dread on the cusp of sleep, but that is not meditation.
Having spent 30 years with RS, i presume you've had extensive experience of shabd yoga and was wondering if you have ever felt or glimpsed the shabd or its pull? Or indeed having experienced something else using another meditation technique.
Posted by: George | August 19, 2009 at 03:33 AM
Repetition is law of nature. This world runs on repetition alone. Everyday the sun rises in the east and rests in the west to reappear and repeat. The breathing exercise is no different from repetition. By repetition alone one can memorize any number of events, numbers or words.
Every living being comes in to life by repetition and multiplication of cells. Similarly, non-living things are by virtue of repetition of atoms, molecules, elements and compounds. Life has evolved from amino-acids, is by means of repetition only.
Virtually, every phenomenon on this earth involves repetition. Repetition is the fundamental unit of the fabric of this existence.
Therefore, religious arguments keep being repeated, are not something strange but follow the law of nature.
It is not copied from any book/ journal. But imo……………………………………..
Posted by: rakesh bhasin | August 19, 2009 at 07:02 AM
rakesh
Before brian and his gang wade in to demand proof or tAo makes his ridiculous and entirely predictable comments, you do raise interesting points.
We experience this world as a series of repeating events, and so we form the concept of time, the period between repeating events.
If it was not a cyclic world, OR, every event that took place had a period longer than our lifetime, how would we experience the world?
Is the experience of time simply that resulting from the repetition of events, after all, the scientific value of time (which cannot be measured directly) is in relation to repeating events (frequency for example).
Posted by: Neut er all | August 19, 2009 at 08:08 AM
George, good questions. Before meditating this morning I was re-reading an interesting book about meditation and the nature of consciousness. I'm planning on blogging about it tomorrow, so that will be a more complete response to you.
Briefly, currently I meditate because I'm fascinated with consciousness. After all, what else is there for me? If I wasn't conscious, I'd be nothing. Life and living is nothing but consciousness, really.
The book asks, "Is there such a thing as pure consciousness, consciousness without an object?" I don't know. But I enjoy experimenting with my own consciousness to see what happens when I do such and such. Like, ignore the external world, calm my mind as much as possible, and be aware of what remains.
Regarding mystical experiences: I've had a few sensations of inner sound and light, being pulled out of myself (whatever that means) into another realm or state of consciousness. I don't know whether these were truly mystical experiences, or a result of brain sensory deprivation -- as some theorize.
I feel better when I meditate. I guess that's the main reason I continue to do it, although not as long as I did before (20-30 minutes now in the morning, versus 90-150 minutes before). I look upon it, in part, as brain exercise. I work out at an athletic club three days a week. I figure it is good to do some mind exercises also -- but that isn't the only reason I meditate.
Posted by: Blogger Brian | August 19, 2009 at 09:31 AM
Dear Neut er all,
You are absolutely correct. Time is the fourth dimension.
If the period of the events is longer than our lifetime, frequency does not exist for us. It will be static world for all of us.
Let us experience what lies before our eyes.
with kindest regards,
Posted by: rakesh bhasin | August 19, 2009 at 09:56 AM
Brian,
Yes i'm also fascinated with consciousness, but wondered if your extensive meditation has given you insights into consciousness or the psychological workings of your own mind? 'Know thy self' is the often repeated mystic mantra.
I will await the main article you intend writing on the topic.
On the question of mystical experiences, i'd also be most interested if you could expand on the unusual lights and sounds you experienced; and if there were any accompanying feelings other than the sensory stimulation.
It would be particularly interesting to hear a description of your experience of being pulled out of yourself into a sort of different reality - that sounds quite something. How often did you experience this and do you still experience it since foregoing the RS path?
Posted by: George | August 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM
George, I see two questions here: (1) what is consciousness? and (2) how does human consciousness operate? Settling down into a "not-doing" state seems to me to be the best way of looking into the first question. What am I when I'm not busily being me?
So on the "workings" question you asked, I think it's when I've been in motion, so to speak, that I've learned the most about how my mind works. The main lesson here is that doing something is different from thinking about doing something.
I'm a touch typist. I type pretty fast and pretty accurately. Yet I have no idea where "q" or any other letter is on the keyboard, if I was asked to point out the location without moving my fingers. I know by doing -- though when I was learning how to type in high school (took a summer school course, at the urging of my mother, for which I'm lastingly grateful) I had to memorize where the keys are.
Same lesson applies to ballroom dancing. Martial arts. Skiing. Playing tennis. Riding my scooter. Tai Chi. And lots of other activities that I do or have done. Just doing, once you know how to do something, seems to work a lot better than reflective consciousness -- where a part of you is doing and a part of you is watching yourself do it.
On the mystical experience front, right after I was initiated into the RSSB system I sat down in my noisy college apartment next to a busy street in San Jose, California. I repeated the mantra as I was told. And heard a couple of loud "gongs," bell sounds, just as the initiation instructions said might happen at some point.
That point just was right away. I was thrilled. But then the sounds never returned. I have no idea what this experience means. One theory: my mind was so excited about getting initiated, and so wanting to have a mystical experience, one was manufactured unconsciously. Another theory: inner sounds (and lights) really do exist, perhaps as a subtle manifestation of the energy of consciousness that usually isn't apparent. Again, I don't know.
The being pulled out of myself actually was more like entering a void, a peaceful place of darkness, of unity. This is easier to explain non-mystically, as I did in some blog post about the neuroscience of meditation. Shutting off sensory input causes the brain to do something or other (can't remember details) that can lead to a sense of oneness, immersion in a void.
I used to meditate for a much longer time. I believe this "voidness" phenomenon requires that an area of the brain receive no stimulation for quite a while, but I could be wrong about this. This could explain why a longer meditation is more likely to result in an "immersion in the void" experience.
Posted by: Blogger Brian | August 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Thanks for your honesty Brian.
On those ringing bells, you sure you had not been smoking puff the magic dragon or there were not any churches nearby?
I've never experienced that, i've imbibed a few substances in my youth and felt feelings of euphoria, but never experience physical sensory inputs like noises or lights or bells, could be halluconogenic and LSD or mescallin might open a few doors of perception, but if its ultimate reality we are after, not sure they add much.
Posted by: George | August 19, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Dear Brian,
I think you would find this video from youtube very interesting...its a video on taboos..
It is interesting for everyone in this blog actually.
Dean Radin on Quantum Physics 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9aNl0J8-lo
I am in the academic world...if you zoom into your google map...you will see that this post comes from a uk institution. I can tell you with certainty that in the academia...from the chemical enginneer field to philosophy, to sociology this is the case as this man says. I will not elaborate more,,,its a taboo and I might come across as stupid.
Posted by: IT the Quantum Taboo, IT EAT | August 19, 2009 at 12:51 PM
To all:
For your possible further consideration:
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/3318/ .
Robert Paul Howard
Posted by: Robert Paul Howard | August 19, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Robert, thanks for the interesting link. I read it fairly quickly, skipping some parts, but got the main message about consciousness. This is one of the clearer (though still necessarily complicated) explanations of how the physical brain may produce a seemingly immaterial sensation of consciousness.
Posted by: Blogger Brian | August 19, 2009 at 07:56 PM
IT, I watched the video. This guy makes very little sense. He claims that evidence of psychic phenomena exist, but scientists are afraid to reveal it because they'd be considered "stupid." Huh?
The scientist who presents solid demonstrable evidence of ESP or some other psychic phenomena will garner great acclaim. It's ridiculous to argue that researchers are sitting on research that would generate a huge "Wow!" because the subject matter is taboo.
He also tries to argue that if intelligent people believe in something, then this helps prove that it is true. Well, lots of intelligent people believe in God. Does this make God true? No, demonstrable evidence is what makes something true, not the number of people who believe in it.
I've heard this tired argument before: that scientists, who are as egotistical and ambitious as the rest of us (I assume), would rather not reveal some ground-breaking fact about reality because it would overturn some cherished belief system.
Wrong. Scientists love to come up with fresh facts and new ways of understanding some phenomenon. That's how their careers flourish.
Lastly, this guy apparently is from the Institute of Noetic Sciences. I used to subscribe to their publications. Interesting stuff, but the Institute doesn't claim to be rigorously scientific. See:
http://www.noetic.org/about.cfm
Posted by: Blogger Brian | August 20, 2009 at 10:24 AM