Balancing Skepticism and Faith

[David Mo]

Not quite what I was getting at -- you speak here of religiosity in general, not necessarily mysticism per se -- but still, this is interesting! Would you have a cite readily available?

Only an abstract from ResearchGate. I have requested the full article but I have not any answer yet.

Geeta Khwaja; Gurubax Singh; Neera Chaudhry: “Epilepsy and religion”, Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology 10(3); July 2007


Abstract:

This study has focused on the interplay between epilepsy and religion. A total of 100 patients in the age range of 15-84 years were included in the study. The duration of epilepsy in these patients ranged from 1-35 years. The majority (66%) had generalized seizures and good to complete seizure control (77%). Regarding social/religious beliefs, 6% of the patients attributed their epilepsy to the curse of God and 14% saw their affliction as a form of punishment for bad deeds committed in the current or past life. Epilepsy was regarded as contagious by 13%. After the onset of epilepsy, 7% of the subjects became skeptics and less religious, while 29% became more religious. Only 2% reported mystic experiences. There was, however, no significant impact of the duration of epilepsy or seizure type on the pattern of religiosity. In 44 cases with symptomatic epilepsy, no definite correlation was observed between the lesion site and laterality and the religious temperament. Delay in seeking treatment and poor compliance due to false religious beliefs, ignorance, and superstition was observed in 33%. However, all religious beliefs were not maladaptive and overall, 80% cases felt that religion had helped them in coping with epilepsy.​

NOTE: My mistake: it was not 2% but 7%

 

[David Mo]

From what I've read in the past, there does seem to be a direct link between epileptic attacks and religious experiences. Not so much burning bushes, but sensing a presence which is presumed to be God.

The guy I've most seen associated with this stuff is Michael Persinger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

However, Persinger does not believe that epilepsy is a religious phenomenon. Cf: https://sacredneurology.com/2015/05/30/religious-belief-is-not-an-epileptic-phenomena/

Note: I think the question is remarkably ambiguous.
Perhaps it would have been better: Does epilepsy produce experiences that subjects interpret as contacts with the divine?

See my previous comment: only 2% make this interpetation.

 

[HansMustermann]

However, Persinger does not believe that epilepsy is a religious phenomenon. Cf: https://sacredneurology.com/2015/05/30/religious-belief-is-not-an-epileptic-phenomena/

Note: I think the question is remarkably ambiguous.
Perhaps it would have been better: Does epilepsy produce experiences that subjects interpret as contacts with the divine?

See my previous comment: only 2% make this interpetation.

Err, no, it says that only that many make the polar opposite interpretation.

 

[HansMustermann]

Fair enough. I'll do my best to give you the benefit of the doubt that offence isn't intended (and I do believe that). But when you use the term "babble book" to describe texts like the bible, which, like it or not, is the most published, distributed, read, quoted, and almost certainly influential peice of literature of all of western culture, that doesn't really seem like "not sugarcoating facts", it sounds like indulging in a favourite, derogatory/inflammatory made-up term.

But, I'm confident we can carry on nonetheless and am happy to do so.

Err... Being popular media doesn't mean jack about whether it's gobbledygook or not. One of the most published books in the late 1400's and 1500's was the Malleus Maleficarum, a.k.a. the nonsense book which got Europe started on burning witches. And it certainly was influential, seein' as it started a couple of centuries of terror against women. If you're going to defend something just because it's popular or influential, you would have to defend that one too.

Or the best selling book of the modern era is The Da Vinci Code, which sold over 5 million copies in the UK alone. I dare say that exceeds the number of bibles the Brits bought in the same time frame. Are you going to take it seriously because of that?

The next places in the top 10 for UK are Harry Potter books and Fifty Shades Of Grey. Between them, the Harry Potter books sold probably something like 20 million copies in the UK alone. But you'd have to be rather daft to take magic seriously because of their popularity.

Etc.

 

[attempt5001]

It was "babble-books" actually and I was using it as a catch-all title for all religious books/texts, not just the Bible. I’m fully aware that millions take these text/books very seriously and have a strong emotional investment in them. I don’t however (quite the opposite), and using the term "babble-books" is a way I represent my position using banter (“the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks”). To take it as derogatory/inflammatory represents an emotional overreaction that reflects the degree of overly emotional investment (IMO).

Yeah. That's a fair point I was considering as well after I wrote the comment. No doubt, I am emotionally invested and have to make an effort not to let that impact (or dominate) my responses. It's hard to capture tone (despite the 18 available emojis), so I sometimes misinterpret as well. How about you? Do you find you have a visceral reaction against religion?

 

[attempt5001]

Err... Being popular media doesn't mean jack about whether it's gobbledygook or not. One of the most published books in the late 1400's and 1500's was the Malleus Maleficarum, a.k.a. the nonsense book which got Europe started on burning witches. And it certainly was influential, seein' as it started a couple of centuries of terror against women. If you're going to defend something just because it's popular or influential, you would have to defend that one too.

Or the best selling book of the modern era is The Da Vinci Code, which sold over 5 million copies in the UK alone. I dare say that exceeds the number of bibles the Brits bought in the same time frame. Are you going to take it seriously because of that?

The next places in the top 10 for UK are Harry Potter books and Fifty Shades Of Grey. Between them, the Harry Potter books sold probably something like 20 million copies in the UK alone. But you'd have to be rather daft to take magic seriously because of their popularity.

Etc.

Hi Hans. I think you're conflating my position. I'm not contending it is correct or factual simply because it is popular, I am contending that "babble books" (got it right that time) or "gobbledygook" are silly and not precise/productive descriptors that help advance a meaningful discussion. Certainly you could contend religious writings are inaccurate, confusing, self contradictory, fictional, damaging, etc., and a discussion could ensue. When you use "gobbledygook", I have no idea what you mean and can't really respond. If feels (to me) like a mic-drop punchline, not an effort to further the discourse.

 

[attempt5001]

I think it would be very reasonable for someone to take it as derogatory. I happen to agree with you, and I think it's derogatory. It certainly doesn't come across as "playful banter".

Thanks arth. I don't think my reaction was unreasonable either (and it's always nice to know one is not alone in that). Having read ynots clarification, I can re-read the post with a different mindset though, and I will try to maintain that as we chat further.

One of the reasons I put off engaging in forum discussions for so long was that I saw so many examples of potentially interesting discussions getting derailed by name-calling and deliberate and repeated use of inflammatory language, which turned me off. I'm not trying be "the moral language police", I just really appreciate the constructive discussion. Cheers!

 

[8enotto]

A problem with religion is it evolves. New ideas are slowly pulled in as old obsolete ideas slip away with passing generations. If missionary types take it to Africa and South America it will be continue to evolve but now in three distinct manners independently. Each adapting to current generation reality in each place.

Let a century pass and take the holy book of each one and put them in the hands of a faith friendly scholar to make all three one definitive book again.

Will any of the local religious leaders be able to accept this new version ? It has the same root but now has lost or gained material as well as become generic. In a worst case it no longer speaks to any of the believers and they all split off onto separate paths.

Or possibly they forbid any changes and use only the one true 1754 printing forever and shun the outside world.

Either way it isn't what it was or does not fit society on the greater sense.
We will see conflict but it is our reaction that matters.

And each in his own place is correct. Including scientists and atheists.

Until a winner is defined a level of tolerance is required on all, if not possible then distance.

We all know the bad intolerance can bring. No sane man wants that.

 

[Belz...]

Probably the best way is to ignore the problem.

I've solved it by ignoring the faith side of the equation.

 

[HansMustermann]

Hi Hans. I think you're conflating my position. I'm not contending it is correct or factual simply because it is popular, I am contending that "babble books" (got it right that time) or "gobbledygook" are silly and not precise/productive descriptors that help advance a meaningful discussion. Certainly you could contend religious writings are inaccurate, confusing, self contradictory, fictional, damaging, etc., and a discussion could ensue. When you use "gobbledygook", I have no idea what you mean and can't really respond. If feels (to me) like a mic-drop punchline, not an effort to further the discourse.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that my goal here is trolling. Which is the accurate name for posting mainly to try to get a response.

But if I just wanted to further the discussion, I'd go on some Star Wars board and ask what colour light saber did Jean Luc Picard have. Or ask what's their favourite episode, 'cause mine is the one where the Enterprise is stuck in a Romulan mine field. That'll further it by about 50 pages

I'm just stating my position. You can discuss it or not, it's your choice.

That said, whether you have a problem with certain terms or not, defending it as being a bestseller is neither here nor there. FSM knows people have even bought LITERAL gibberish before, such as copies of the Necronomicon that are just a jumble of random arabic letters.

 

[ynot]

Yeah. That's a fair point I was considering as well after I wrote the comment. No doubt, I am emotionally invested and have to make an effort not to let that impact (or dominate) my responses. It's hard to capture tone (despite the 18 available emojis), so I sometimes misinterpret as well.

My original intent was to write “babel-books” but when I realised my mistake I thought “Oh well that also works, maybe even better” and left it as “babble”. Ignoring the historic content, religious texts/books are pretty much babble in my opinion. It’s my right to have and express that opinion every bit as much as it is for other’s to express their opinion that it’s inspired messages from a divine god. At least I don’t tell theists they’re damaged goods, evil, nasty humans that are so horrible and worthless they deserve to suffer an eternity of pain and torture with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

How about you? Do you find you have a visceral reaction against religion?

Is that an admission that you have a visceral reaction against non-religion? But seriously, I’ll try to answer honesty without too much babble.

I would describe my reaction as being more “to” than “against” religion, and as being more intellectual than visceral (emotional). I would certainly only ever take any physical action against religion if I needed to do so in self-defense. I would protest as loudly as anyone against banning of religion or any other paranormal/supernatural beliefs. I’m a strong believer in individual rights as long as they come with appropriate responsibilities.

My only re/action against religion is a lifetime of verbally debating against it, and I do so because I think it’s one of the most dangerous and debilitating of all human follies. I think I’ve also kept an open mind to consider arguments for it (more so in earlier days I admit). I’ve been invited to and attended several religious congregations but rather than “receiving god” I received an increased “How the hell can modern, educated adults believe that and act like that?” incredulity.

So do I “hate” religion? Well I certainly don’t like it and would prefer it to go away, and I think humanity would be better off without it. I try to offer intellectual rather than emotional arguments and responses against it so I don't think "hate" is appropriate. Regardless, my attitude toward religion doesn't reflect my attitude toward religious people. I have a few close friends that are devout theists.

 

[Thor 2]

Why should they care what you, an atheist, think? What makes you think that you, an atheist, can tell them jack about how and why they go about their Christian practice? They don't care whether you recognise their religion as Christianity or not. You're not a Christian. You have no authority.

Another change of tack by arth. Nobody cares about my definition of Christian because I aren't one. Quite right of course, you have to be one to know one. Mind you how do you know if you are one if the definition is so vague?

Oh I guess a marine biologist can't define different kinds of fish because, well because he isn't one, a fish that is.

Have you asked any marine biologists? Many of them are devout cladists.

Oh, so some may put themselves in the same clade as fish and can therefore speak with authority?

I see arth has dodged this question now after my piercing argument.

 

[attempt5001]

My original intent was to write “babel-books” but when I realised my mistake I thought “Oh well that also works, maybe even better” and left it as “babble”. Ignoring the historic content, religious texts/books are pretty much babble in my opinion. It’s my right to have and express that opinion every bit as much as it is for other’s to express their opinion that it’s inspired messages from a divine god. At least I don’t tell theists they’re damaged goods, evil, nasty humans that are so horrible and worthless they deserve to suffer an eternity of pain and torture with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"babel-books" would have helped me get the intended tone for sure. To me, "babble" implies incoherent sounds / made up words with no intended meaning. So religious texts don't fit by definition, regardless of opinion, but if you mean they don't make any sense to you, I accept that.

Is that an admission that you have a visceral reaction against non-religion? But seriously, I’ll try to answer honesty without too much babble.

I would describe my reaction as being more “to” than “against” religion, and as being more intellectual than visceral (emotional). I would certainly only ever take any physical action against religion if I needed to do so in self-defense. I would protest as loudly as anyone against banning of religion or any other paranormal/supernatural beliefs. I’m a strong believer in individual rights as long as they come with appropriate responsibilities.

My only re/action against religion is a lifetime of verbally debating against it, and I do so because I think it’s one of the most dangerous and debilitating of all human follies. I think I’ve also kept an open mind to consider arguments for it (more so in earlier days I admit). I’ve been invited to and attended several religious congregations but rather than “receiving god” I received an increased “How the hell can modern, educated adults believe that and act like that?” incredulity.

So do I “hate” religion? Well I certainly don’t like it and would prefer it to go away, and I think humanity would be better off without it. I try to offer intellectual rather than emotional arguments and responses against it so I don't think "hate" is appropriate. Regardless, my attitude toward religion doesn't reflect my attitude toward religious people. I have a few close friends that are devout theists.

Thanks. It's helpful for me to get your tone right knowing that background. Appreciate you taking the time to write it out and I understand where you're coming from. (And yeah, I admit, I do sometimes have a negative emotional reaction to things I perceive as being anti-religion. Although I also often have a negative emotional reaction to religious stuff too.)

 

[Thor 2]

G'day again attempt5001.

I have a question for you that I, and I think many other atheists, struggle with. It is the question of how do theists manage a division between stuff they apply critical thinking too, and and other faith stuff, not subject to critical appraisal.

That they manage this is a given as we know the faithful can function quite well in our complex world.

As a person of faith were/are you aware of making some kind of demarkation, between that which has to withstand critical appraisal and that which does not. Is there a clear line here or are there fuzzy edges you struggle with?

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not trying be "the moral language police"...

I wouldn't want you muscling in my my turf anyway.

 

[llwyd]

I share Western christian-humanist values. They are actually pretty universal in the modern parts of the world - I would guess that by far the most members here share them too. And they absolutely don't need any imaginary supernatural being to be relevant (actually to my mind being all the more relevant without having any reward for adhering to them). Though some sort of awareness of their historical origins might not go to waste here, but anyway. What at times draws me towards Christianity is its idea of mercy, of quite cheaply gaining all-encompassing forgiveness. For without that aspect, it's actually pretty tough going keeping up with these values, ain't it not? Self-deception, self-indulgence, harshness, selfishness, coldness - all those things actually maybe not so bad without having this particular brand of ethics but not so awfully nice with having them.

 

[attempt5001]

I wouldn't want you muscling in my my turf anyway.

LOL.

 

[attempt5001]

G'day again attempt5001.

I have a question for you that I, and I think many other atheists, struggle with. It is the question of how do theists manage a division between stuff they apply critical thinking too, and and other faith stuff, not subject to critical appraisal.

That they manage this is a given as we know the faithful can function quite well in our complex world.

As a person of faith were/are you aware of making some kind of demarkation, between that which has to withstand critical appraisal and that which does not. Is there a clear line here or are there fuzzy edges you struggle with?

Hi Thor 2. I'll probably come back to this one after some more thought. The first thing that comes to mind though is that I don't think I agree that theists and atheists are fundamentally any different from one another. Both make the most sense they can out of the combination of their understanding, experience and belief (you may not agree that atheists have beliefs, but I don't think a very high percentage of them have actually done, or understood, the science that underpins their convictions. Also, I know lots of atheist-scientists who keep a herbal remedy around the house that they know would never pass a double-blind, placebo-based controlled trial, but take it nonetheless whenever they feel a cold coming on. And surely you must have some thinking or behaviours that are not totally logical right? But I digress.) I think different people from both camps will, with different frequencies, adjust their thinking/beliefs based on new information and experiences, though I think everyone has barriers to assimilating new information that necessitates changes in thinking or behaviour. I'm sure we'd both agree that religious convictions can be among the strongest of those barriers, but it's certainly not alone.

So for me personally, I expect it's like most people. If I take the time and energy to identify all my beliefs and "put them under the microscope" I can definitely recognize that some would be harder to defend against my own, or someone else's critical appraisal. But, for most of my life, I've had very little impetus to do this. I was very content in my faith, family, friendships, health, career etc, and while I didn't assume that I had everything all figured out, I did feel that things were at least mostly on the right track. There was no sense "rocking the boat" you might say. As I've mentioned, I've chosen to invest some significant time and energy into critical self-appraisal over the last number of years despite the mental barriers to doing so. I'm glad I made the choice, but at times it's been discouraging, disorienting, frustrating and exhausting. At times I have considered simply returning to what would now feel like a very immature faith, or giving up entirely and becoming cynical of my own life and experience, but those both feel, for me, to be ingenuous; like cop-outs.

Also, critical thinking is certainly not an infallible process and I don't agree that persistent critical self-appraisal will inevitably lead to atheism for very many people.

Hope to get back to this thought again soon. Cheers!

 

[David Mo]

Err, no, it says that only that many make the polar opposite interpretation.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your denial. What are you referring to?

Does Persinger believe that epilepsy is a religious phenomenon?
Or,
Doesn’t epilepsy produce experiences that subjects interpret as contacts with the divine?

By the way, I think that this discussion fits better in the thread Religious? Are you mad!?

 

[David Mo]

I share Western christian-humanist values. They are actually pretty universal in the modern parts of the world - I would guess that by far the most members here share them too. And they absolutely don't need any imaginary supernatural being to be relevant (actually to my mind being all the more relevant without having any reward for adhering to them). Though some sort of awareness of their historical origins might not go to waste here, but anyway. What at times draws me towards Christianity is its idea of mercy, of quite cheaply gaining all-encompassing forgiveness. For without that aspect, it's actually pretty tough going keeping up with these values, ain't it not? Self-deception, self-indulgence, harshness, selfishness, coldness - all those things actually maybe not so bad without having this particular brand of ethics but not so awfully nice with having them.

I don't think forgiveness/mercy is a Christian value. In the gospels, hell is mentioned 72 times, those who do not share the faith in Christ are threatened with it, and it is said that many will be called and few will be chosen. I do not share these values.

On the other hand, forgiveness/mercy seems to me to be a secondary virtue of difficult universal application. I do not believe that a rape victim should be required to forgive her aggressors. It is enough for me not to ask that justice against them be rampant, but fair and measured.

I do not know if our civilisation is Christian. If it is, we should begin to correct these things.

NOTE: "Mercy" is a concept derived from the Lord and servant. I have translated it as forgiveness. It seems to me more modern. Maybe I was wrong and you wanted to say exactly "mercy".