A test that science passes and religion fails: reality "kicks back"

How do we know what is real? This is a question that has occupied philosophers and scientists for as long as we humans have been pondering the nature of reality.

I don't pretend to know the answer, but I resonate with physicist David Deutsch's approach to the question. In his book, "The Fabric of Reality," Deutsch views explanations as being key to understanding what is real. He writes:

Explanations are not justified by the means by which they were derived; they are justified by their superior ability, relative to rival explanations, to solve the problems they address. That is why the argument that a theory is indefensible can be so compelling. A prediction, or any assertion, that cannot be defended might still be true, but an explanation that cannot be defended is not an explanation.

Now, I realize that this quote isn't exactly crystal clear. Which is understandable, because Deutsch's scientific world view isn't reducible to a couple of sound bites. But I'll try to do just that with another nibble at his philosophical perspective regarding understanding.

What is an explanation, as opposed to a mere statement of fact such as a correct description or prediction?

In practice, we usually recognize the difference easily enough. We know when we do not understand something, even if we can accurately describe and predict it (for instance, the course of a known disease of unknown origin), and we know when an explanation helps us to understand it better.

But it is hard to give a precise definition of 'explanation' or 'understanding'. Roughly speaking, they are about 'why' rather than 'what'; about the inner workings of things; about how things really are, not just how they appear to be; about what must be so, rather than what merely happens to be so; about laws of nature rather than rules of thumb. 

They are also about coherence, elegance and simplicity, as opposed to arbitrariness and complexity, though none of these things is easy to define either.

Deutsch uses Galileo as an example of how mere prediction is much different from genuine understanding. He says that at first Galileo didn't get into trouble with the Catholic Church even though he promoted a sun-centered (heliocentric) view of the heavens. The reason: the Church viewed Galileo's theory as just a way of predicting the motions of the planets.

Thus the Church was able to keep on believing that the Earth was at the center of the cosmos by considering that the planets behaved as if they orbited the Sun, not that they actually did so. 

To our modern sensibilities this doesn't make sense. But we live in scientific times that are far different from the religion-dominated era of Galileo. 

Deutsch says that one reason the sun-centered view won out was that the Church's perspective required a belief in everything that Galileo taught (because that was how fairly accurate predictions of planetary motions could be made), plus an additional belief that somehow reality was responsible for making it seem as if the sun was at the center of the cosmos, even though it actually wasn't. 

For example, if one were asked why a planetary conjunction occurred on such-and-such a date, or why a planet backtracked across the sky in a loop of a particular shape, the answer would always be 'because that is how it would look if the heliocentric theory were true'.

So here is a cosmology -- the Inquisition's cosmology -- that can be understood only in terms of a different cosmology, the heliocentric cosmology that it contradicts but faithfully mimics.

Religions obviously fail to produce the same sorts of understandings about reality that science does. In fact, it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a single fact about the world that any religion has produced that science didn't already know. 

This is a major stumbling block for those who consider that religion has a privileged view of reality. If this is the case, why hasn't a saint, prophet, or other holy person ever come up with an explanation of some phenomenon that was so persuasive, that explanation eventually came to be added to the world's common store of knowledge?

Here's one reason: religion deals largely with supernatural entities that lack what David Deutsch calls "kick back." This term is derived from the story of Dr. Samuel Johnson responding to Bishop Berkeley's solipsistic view that matter doesn't really exist by kicking a rock and saying, "I refute it thus." 

Philosophers correctly point out that Johnson didn't really refute Berkeley's assertion by kicking the rock. Rather, Deutsch uses this episode to point out a criterion for reality:

But Dr. Johnson's idea is more than a refutation of solipsism. It also illustrates the criterion for reality that is used in science, namely, if something can kick back, it exists. 'Kicking back' here does not necessarily mean that the alleged object is responding to being kicked -- to being physically affected as Dr. Johnson's rock was.

It is enough to say that when we 'kick' something, the object affects us in ways that require independent explanation. For example, Galileo had no means of affecting planets, but he could affect the light that came from them. His equivalent of kicking the rock was refracting that light through the lenses of his telescopes and eyes.

The light responded by 'kicking' his retina back. The way it kicked back allowed him to conclude not only that light was real but that the heliocentric planetary motions required to explain the patterns in which light arrived were also real.

I was a religious believer for about thirty-five years, so I'm intimately familiar with the many ways people convince themselves that God, Jesus, a guru, angels, spirit, or some other form of divinity is "kicking back' within their consciousness.

Prayers seem to be answered. Unusual events are viewed as miracles. Sights and sounds are perceived in meditation. God is viewed as working in mysterious ways that are plainly apparent to believers.

Yet there is scant evidence that any of this adds up to reality "kicking back" with evidence of a supernatural realm. If there were, converted atheists like me wouldn't be so skeptical of religious claims that fail to stand up under not only close scrutiny, but any kind of serious examination. 

Science progresses with its understandings of the universe. Religion doesn't. This alone points to the failure of religious believers to demonstrate that reality does indeed "kick back" when someone attempts to understand divinity.

Yes, all sorts of phenomena do transpire within the minds of believers. However, almost certainly this is their own psyches kicking back against themselves. Meaning, religious beliefs result in mental phenomena produced by those same beliefs. This isn't the sort of really real reality that Deutsch, along with along scientists, are looking for.

Me neither. I'd much rather know something demonstrably true about the world, even if this is a small thing, than believe in the grandest religious fantasy. 

Comments

[Arjuna]

Brian you sound like a good man. Don’t waste your time with this rubbish. No scientist will ever be able to tell you what reality is. I’m Sant Mat will.

However there must be another way to determine what reality and time is.

Not preaching - as frankly I could not care less what anyone does this in this world as long as they don’t hurt others. But it does appear you have stopped worshipping one false God and found other False Gods in the guise of Scientists.

Ps I am seeking too

[Arjuna]

Correction:

I’m Sant Mat will. I meant “not that Sant Mat will”

[Spencer Tepper]

Two kick backs

1. Gallileo only confirmed in 1632 what Capernicus had published decades earlier in 1609 on his death bed, which had been held unpublished for several more decades earlier fearing reprisals.

Capernicus gingerly offered these findings only as a means to calculate trajectory (the Church was the major funder of all scientific enquiry at the time, and was Capernicus ' employer).

Had the Church not funded science, how many more centuries would it have taken for science to flourish and generate these findings?

2. Galileo, an employee of the Church, wrote his book as a dialogue with two characters discussing the argument for and against the Heluocentric theory. But the character he made wrong again and again used the same arguments as the pope and was indeed an unflattering caricature of the pope. Never a good idea to run down your employer with unflattering memes in public.

Galileo was never imprisoned but held under house arrest, though free to travel for his work.

2. You stated once again your previously refuted, but will loved dogma

" In fact, it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a single fact about the world that any religion has produced that science didn't already know."

Pythagoras statement that the Earth is round, actually elliptical, as are the other planets.

The Hindu belief that we are one world Amidst billions of worlds.

3. Many early scientists were religious leaders.

Religion has been the major supporter of science throughout all but recent centuries. Newton was a devout Christian.

The Bishop who defended Galileo famously said "The Church tells us of the heavens, but science tells us how the heavens work."

The conflicts are no different than the conflicts today between business and science, or government and science. Ex, when a drug company funded research comes up the wrong way. But rather than admit it, they change the statistics to show "no harm" by inflating their testing population to reduce the negative consequences to statistically insignificant.

Dogma is anti - scientific in any form, religious or political.

[Arjuna]

Yes Big Pharma has killed millions and is making millions by people being on tablets for depression they don’t need,

Enjoy life - have a pint , do some art , read abit and let the world go on.

Seriously all this debate - we live in a world where the majority don’t care.

Save your own ass and fuck all the rest

[vinny]

Atheists are serving half-baked truth, science is based on Atom, Atom is the energy of Shabd, nothing but Shabd.

[Arjuna]

Has science proved that shabd comes out of atoms?????!!!!!!!??????

Is there divine music coming out of atoms??????

NO is the Answer!!!!

Next one please !!!!!!!!

[vinny]

Is there divine music coming out of atoms??????
Yes, divine sound pervades the whole universe. Its called cosmic vibration.
Next one please ??????????????????????????????????????????

[Dungeness]

"But Dr. Johnson's idea is more than a refutation of solipsism. It also illustrates the criterion for reality that is used in science, namely, if something can kick back, it exists. 'Kicking back' here does not necessarily mean that the alleged object is responding to being kicked -- to being physically affected as Dr. Johnson's rock was."

That narrowly biases "kick backs" to manifest themselves as external
observable phenomena. It omits the impact on the observer himself.
If someone "imagines many things", he may be irrational certainly
or perhaps have PTSD but he may be a gifted writer, or a scientific
savant, or even a mystic who, through meditation, has experienced a
transcendental reality repeatedly inside.

The fact that there are secondary "kick backs" is immaterial. Kick
backs may force a damaged vet to a psychoanalyst or a frightened
child to look under the bed for monsters. But then the very same
imagination may be the genesis of a great novel or a brilliant
scientific theory.

"Yes, all sorts of phenomena do transpire within the minds of believers. However, almost certainly this is their own psyches kicking back against themselves. Meaning, religious beliefs result in mental phenomena produced by those same beliefs. This isn't the sort of really real reality that Deutsch, along with along scientists, are looking for."

But, as mentioned earlier, "psyches kicking back against them-
selves" is arguably the source of all imagination, our intuition,
our art, our scientific speculation. A scientist then devises
tests and looks for repeatability and dismisses blind faith. So
does the mystic. To argue otherwise is dogmatism running amok.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Arjuna!

You ask

"Is there divine music coming out of atoms??????"

All matter vibrates.
All energy moves through frequency.

[pooh bear]

So many of these posts of Brian's are arguments comparing science and religion. Atheism confines itself to these two arenas to do battle. What it fails to do, is place science, spirituality and religion on the table as separate entities for debate. Because science has no experience of spirituality, it renders it synonymous with religion. As long as it does that, science can offer no intelligent debate on a subject it chooses to vilify.

The Persian mystic, Hakim Sanai expresses it well:
'Your intellect is just a hodge-podge of guesswork and thought, limping over the face of the earth.'

[Arjuna]

@ Spencer hello I hope you are well?

Yes I am aware of the fact that matter vibrates.

I have a degree in Physics and follow modern research in all matters relating to the cosmos.

My point to vinny was that we can not hear shabd through the physical ears or at CERN so why harp on about it here. This is why no one takes us seekers seriously as we make claims no one can prove in the physical world.

On that not all the very best and as they say “Mork calling Orsen, come in Orsen” 😀

[vinny]

Every claim of Shabd's energy is proven, no freebies here. Atheists have a problem, they want to keep it secret so that it may not empower common man and they continue to draw fat paychecks from universities built by exploiting research of Christian Innovators.

[Appreciative Reader]

Explanations are not justified by the means by which they were derived; they are justified by their superior ability, relative to rival explanations, to solve the problems they address.

Lovely way of looking at things, pithily described. Well worth remembering, that quote. Thanks for sharing.

Roughly speaking, they are about 'why' rather than 'what'…

I suppose you meant “ they are about ‘how’, the mechanism, rather than ‘what’ ”? ‘How’ -- that is, the mechanism -- and not "why".

(I’m nitpicking, I know, given that I already know your views about this, but I’m doing that only "appreciatively", and because it is rather apt as far as I myself am concerned -- I remember I first came across the idea of the fallacy of teleological thinking in one of your blog posts. And I remember being majorly struck by that thought when I encountered it for the first time here.)

So here is a cosmology -- the Inquisition's cosmology -- that can be understood only in terms of a different cosmology, the heliocentric cosmology that it contradicts but faithfully mimics.

To be fair, it isn’t as if we never do it these days. That’s the spirit, the sense, in which we ‘understand’ much of quantum physics, far as I know.

Even something as simple as what atoms are made up of. I remember being confused by this very point, back when we were first taught about this in school.

“So electrons are not particles, but waves, right?”, one would ask.

“No,” the teacher would respond, “they sometimes behave like particles, and sometimes like waves. But actually they’re neither.”

“But which is it, then? Are they waves, or are they particles?”

“Quiet now! All turn your textbooks to page number XYZ.”

But of course, this was no more than a child’s confusion over their school curriculum, and an overworked schoolteacher’s inability to clarify that doubt effectively. (Not that I know that particular answer any better even now.) Perhaps bona fide physicists do have a better explanation than that -- "better”, that is, in the sense of this blog post of yours, and not just as a way of looking at things that gives off good predictions but does not necessarily reflect reality itself -- about what atoms are made up of, if not about quantum physics.

… it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a single fact about the world that any religion has produced that science didn't already know … why hasn't a saint, prophet, or other holy person ever come up with an explanation of some phenomenon that was so persuasive, that explanation eventually came to be added to the world's common store of knowledge?

The Buddha’s wholly counter-intuitive formulation of no-self, the absence of an “I”?

And his equally counter-intuitive formulation of both the universe and our (apparent) selves as processes -- "arising and falling” -- rather than things?

Both of these, made and recorded some two-and-a-half millennia before we as a species learnt to spell ‘Neurosience’?

(Of course, to be fair, and to play devil’s advocate to my own sense of wonder at this: The original ‘basket’ of teachings was written in Pali a long time ago. Might it be that this particular process-based explanation, and even this specific idea of no-self that seems to comport so well with our current view, is something that we ended up attributing to those writings only much later, after we’d already come across these ideas via science? I doubt that is the case, but I don't really know. The only way to conclusively weigh in on either side of this question would be by learning Pali and by studying the original manuscripts. But this weighing-in can be done, absolutely, and conclusively. Wouldn’t it have been done already by those who research and study these things? I have no clue. A very quick consultation with Dr Google does not answer this last question, about whether someone has looked at it from this angle already.)

[Arjuna]

@ vinny. There is no proof. Who are you justifying that to? Me or yourself????
Me - you do not convince.

No scientist has ever said there is music coming out of the vibrations of atoms.

This is getting boring you can repeat - there is proof thee is proof . None will appear my friend.

This is now boring me so I bid you well and let us not discuss this boring topic ever again!

[Arjuna]

@ vinny

And I believe in God even if he won’t face me. We are not all non believers- some of us just want truth.

And not the shit that we hear

[vinny]

Shabd's energy doesn't need a certificate from half-baked liars. Jesus calls such people " You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good"

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Arjuna!
Shabd is just our experience of it. We experience it as audible.

When you follow the instructions, and create very stable conditions, you hear it, and you may also see light, and feel wonderfully blissful. It is transcendent.

The Initial stages are considered "false" because you are hearing the idle mode of your own senses. But listening to that ringing with love and devotion can open the door to the true Shabds. Thunderingly loud, musical, divine bells in harmony.

These are the reports of mystics through so many millenia, and my personal experience. Therefore as far as my experience is concerned it is a hard reality. Just like setting the blue sky.

I hope science will verify this with instrumentation, but so far not.

I think that is because they would need the participation of long term shabd meditators who could verify that the tested variable is the same as what they are experiencing.

Until then we are limited to the lab within ourselves. That is actually the one that matters anyway.

[Jen]

vinny, you say: "Shabd's energy doesn't need a certificate from half-baked liars. Jesus calls such people " You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good"

Brian is doing a wonderful service to others by making available this kind of forum where people can discuss philosophy and spirituality and express their opinions.

Why do you have the need to vilify others with your spiteful, viperish comments?

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Jen

Brian wrote...

"Yes, all sorts of phenomena do transpire within the minds of believers. However, almost certainly this is their own psyches kicking back against themselves. Meaning, religious beliefs result in mental phenomena produced by those same beliefs. This isn't the sort of really real reality that Deutsch, along with along scientists, are looking for."

In my case this is false. I had the experiences since childhood, but without explanation for two decades. Only Sant Mat described with detailed accuracy what I had been subjected to / blessed with / experienced repeatedly. And Sant Mat offered a method to repeat and control that experience under my own will. And to emerge through that experience to a fully conscious understanding of my place here. This has turned out to be successful.

What Brian writes is simply out of ignorance, and prejudice of others he does not know, understand or choose to believe. He simply invents an explanation that works for him. But it denegrates the legitimacy of true spiritual experience. He himself is victim to his own mind's refusal to acknowledge the evidence before him.

So this prejudice naturally creates a reaction in others who know better, at least for themselves.

This is why I strongly encourage people not to judge other people's personal experiences whom we have never met and do not know. It can't be done objectively and is generally just the bad habit of personal prejudice.

Brian still has an ax to grind.
As do those who indulge this prejudice.

[pooh bear]

Spencer wrote:

'I had the experiences since childhood, but without explanation for two decades. Only Sant Mat described with detailed accuracy what I had been subjected to / blessed with / experienced repeatedly. And Sant Mat offered a method to repeat and control that experience under my own will. And to emerge through that experience to a fully conscious understanding of my place here. This has turned out to be successful.'

I can corroborate having the same pattern of experiences starting around age 7. They were both wonderful and terrifying because I didn't understand what was happening. They stopped happening until I took up Hatha Yoga when I was 21 and started experiencing withdrawal of consciousness during the relaxation posture at the end of class.

I was subsequently initiated at 24 and the ability to control the consequent experience of withdrawal by means of meditation became part of my life.

So it seems that both Spencer and I had similar patterns of coming to an understanding of spirituality.

[Jen]

Spencer you say: "What Brian writes is simply out of ignorance, and prejudice of others he does not know, understand or choose to believe. He simply invents an explanation that works for him. But it denegrates the legitimacy of true spiritual experience. He himself is victim to his own mind's refusal to acknowledge the evidence before him."

Spencer you also say: "This is why I strongly encourage people not to judge other people's personal experiences whom we have never met and do not know. It can't be done objectively and is generally just the bad habit of personal prejudice."

Why should we believe someone else's inner experiences? We aren't supposed to speak about them because its very egotistical and we are not really interested anyway and it just sounds like boasting.

Spencer what makes you think you have the right to criticise another, especially when this is Brian's blog. I think Brian has the patience of a saint, either that or he does not read through all of the comments, or if he does read them he allows others to have their own point of view, which is something you do not allow. We are all entitled to choose to believe what we want.

He is entitled to be an atheist, he does not preach about it and wtf has it got to do with you and vinny?

Quote vinny: "Problem with atheists is that their half-baked mind is unable to comprehend Atomic energy/Shabd vibrating since ages, so the solutions they offer are half-baked.
These Atheists are not worthy of sitting at the feet of any Physicist, forget about Saints. Always misguiding innocent people, more dangerous than Snakes, these Atheists are a threat to any civilized society."

Spencer, I don't understand you and vinny, you preach about love and yet you show no respect for others and their opinions.

[777]

Shabd cannot be proved until you are aware of it and it's power
It stays subjective

But what can be so well proved :
Is a little % of the serendipities (Impossibilities, c q miracles ) on our way
The church would pay a billion for a clear one
All pointing at Solispism or Solopism

I like the second word ; it is so clear that only THE ONE exist haha
( Il fait n'importe quoi et tout tourne en Amour )

But a nothing believer will have one in his whole life
A Lover : one per month
A Shabd addict one per day or more
A Saint probably one p/second what seems unpracticle
and Gurinder might find that too ( sometimes )

777

Take this blog:
I started here , yes here to tell a giant serendipity in my life and offered PROOF

Nobody minus one ever asked me that proof Wow

[777]

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2013/05/early-editions-of-radha-soami-satsang-beas-books-wanted.html

777

[Arjuna]

It’s all kicking off on here now. The play of the mind.