Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[PixyMisa]

Let's play evidence a while then. Always good to get grounded. How about mystical experience? It seems pretty objective that if you do (X,Y,Z,) you can experience these states and that many people experience them spontaneously, and claim to encounter a deity?

Two answers, both of which utterly devastate this:

First, this does not lead to a specific conclusion, as demonstrated by the vast array of supernatural beliefs, from ghosts and poltergeists to fairies and goblins to reincarnation and astral travel to gods and angels and demons of every stripe, not a single one of which is supported by any direct evidence.

Second, you can generate these experiences using magnets. It's called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, and by stimulating the right part of the brain, you can generate religious experiences in atheists. Also drugs, direct electrical stimulation, biochemical imbalances, strokes, anoxia, and brain damage can all cause such experiences.

So no, that's not evidence for gods.

Next?

 

[cj.23]

There are lots of biochemical explanations for "mystical states". Many people on LSD or peyote claim to have mystical experiences.

Sure, it was the subject of my first research as it happens, and i have kept up to date with the literature. (And a quick interesting note -- I think Geoffrey PArrinder was completely right back in the late 60's to note there are, contra Wilber and others, actually two basic types of mystical experience - the monistic "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." experience, and the "Encounter" experience more common in much of the mysticism of the Semitic religions - ego loss versus a feeling of encountering another cosmic ego (no joke intended!)

Mystical experiences can be produced by electrically stimulating certain locations in the brain.

If you can cite me a paper i'd be fascinated - I'm well aware of Persinger's work, but I'm afraid the failure of replication and the fact that people who do not know they are going to have a "mystical experience" don't - and indeed some who do, like Richard Dawkins f'rinstance when he tried it - does not fill me with confidence. Persinger strikes me as a great an brilliant guy, but still nowhere like demonstrating this.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that such experiences have anything other than a biological origin.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest any experience has anything but a biological mechanism - that tells us nothing about the origin. If we see a rainbow, the experience is biologically mediated by the brain, as is eating an icecream - I don't think anyone doubts mystical states are mediated by the brain.

Best neurological mechanism I have seen suggested is that of d'Aquili and Newberg (1993, 1999) which is in theory falsifiable. Earlier models explain the monistic state as arising from something like a breakdown in the reciprocal relationship between the ergotropic and trophoptropic systems (Gellhorn, 1969). d'Aquili and Newberg suggest instead desire to eliminate thought in right prefrontal cortex passes impulses to right posterior superior parietal lobule, and from there to right hippocampus to the right amagydala, through to the ventromedial structures of the hypothalmus (part of the trophotropic system) then back to the right amagydala, the right hippocampus, and finally back to the right prefrontal cortex. (Wulff 2006) This describes what they think may have occurred in their study of Buddhist monks meditating: but while it describes perhaps - and it is far from definite - the neurology, they are careful to avoid ontological reductionism - the experience may be mediated this way, but that tells us nothing about the quality or value of the experience. They state

It is not obvious that the "objective reality" of ordinary consciousness has a higher ontological status than the "hyper lucid" an "highly integrated and integrating visions" of mystical experience (cited in Wulff,2006)

Like Jaynes (bicameralist) and Persingers hypothesis, I have doubts, not least because i am not convinced as I said that we are dealing with a single experience type. I can cheerfully talk about the subject for hours, but usually resist the temptation! I have never personally had a mystical experience. Maybe know you can see why!

Once again we come to the Great Divide between theists and atheists. Theists take belief in God as the default position and argue that one must take an active step in order to disbelieve. Atheists take nonbelief as the default, and it's belief that takes an active step. Each side continually fails to understand this about the other.

I'm not saying that atheism is about believing 100% there. 73% of atheists polled on RD.net disagree with the notion "I know there is no God". Only 26% were certain of that.

CJ, can I get you to indicate your understanding that "most atheists" (generalising, I know) do not feel that nonbelief is an active state? That for us, nonbelief is the default condition? I'm not asking you to actually accept it as factual, but can I get you to understand that we do?

Absolutely - I think such atheism is a perfectly sensible working assumption. The whole point of the thread was to falsify the theory theists are irrational (see other thread), and I regret using the term atheism at all. One does not have to demonstrate atheism irrationality ot render theism rational - I think both are perfectly rational...

cj x

 

[AOK Tiger]

CJ you are dancing around what the “strong atheists” here are telling you.

It’s a matter of definition.. very few people are “strong atheists” by your definition.. they don’t .. “Believe there is no God”

They simple find the notion of a God irrational and extraneous.

The reason they associate with “Strong Atheism” is because others definitions sound like they are weekly admitting the idea of a god makes some sort of sense… it s a bit like saying if you are agnostic about the Easter Bunny you are allowing the notion some credence.

In short there is NO need for a rational argument for atheism as there is NO rational argument for a God !

You are using the classic old switch.. you are wrong because you cannot disprove my completely inane ridiculous claim.. the onus is on the person making the inane ridiculous claim to prove it…

You cannot “rationally” argue against the existence of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”.. but should you have to ????

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

To reply slightly more seriously, it depends entirely on how you define either: are they logically coherent concepts?

cj x

I actually preferred your preceding post.

But of course they are logically coherent concepts. Most of science fiction is logically coherent. This has nothing to do with truth(qv) however.

Non-Christian religious concepts such as re-incarnation are also logically coherent.

One might better ask if they are predictive. What does the existence of God predict?

 

[cj.23]

Two answers, both of which utterly devastate this:

First, this does not lead to a specific conclusion, as demonstrated by the vast array of supernatural beliefs, from ghosts and poltergeists to fairies and goblins to reincarnation and astral travel to gods and angels and demons of every stripe, not a single one of which is supported by any direct evidence.

Almost all of those are supported by direct evidence. I would not call most of them supernatural, but I employ the word in a very limited sense. I've spent many years reading the evidence, and i can assure you it exists. I'm not saying I necessarily would accept the evidence means the beasties are what one might expect, or even beasties, but there is plenty of evidence. I have investigated first hand rather a lot of poltergeist and apparitional cases after all, so really you are arguing this to the wrong chap.

Second, you can generate these experiences using magnets. It's called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, and by stimulating the right part of the brain, you can generate religious experiences in atheists.

TMC causes mystical experiences? Thats a new one on me. Sure you are not just referring to Persinger's work? (See previous thread) I'll discuss that happily if you want. Find me a paper on TMC and mystical experience then! I'm always happy to learn, and this is pretty much my field.

Also drugs, direct electrical stimulation, biochemical imbalances, strokes, anoxia, and brain damage can all cause such experiences.

They can all cause experiences sure, but mystical ones? Go on, citre me some papers. As you may have ggathered i'm pretty familair with the research in this area.

To be "devastating" you will have to show what rather a lot of very interesting and expensive research has not to date, unless you are aware of publications in the last year I have missed somehow.

cj x

 

[PixyMisa]

Almost all of those are supported by direct evidence.

Name one. Present this "direct evidence".

I would not call most of them supernatural, but I employ the word in a very limited sense. I've spent many years reading the evidence, and i can assure you it exists.

I've spent many years reading the anecdotes, and I can assure you, they are worthless.

I'm not saying I necesarily would accept the evidence means the beasties are what one might expect, or even beasties, but there is plenty of evidence. I have investiagted forst hand rather alot of poltergeist and apparitional cases after all, so really yopu are arguing this o the wrong chap.

Oh, really?

Present your evidence. And we will explain to you why you are wrong. It's what we do here.

TMC causes mystical experiences?

Can do, yep.

They can all cause experiences sure, but mystical ones?

They can cause - variously - out-of-body experiences, religious experiences, hallucinations, and mystical experiences of various kinds.

And, after all, mystical experiences are just hallucinations interpreted as mystical.

To be "devastating" you will have to show what rather a lot of very intereting and expensive research has not to date, unless oyu are aware of publications in the last year I have missed somehow.

All you are presenting is anecdotal evidence of experiences which are not immediately explainable by regular brain function. All I need to do is present a biological mechanism - which I have done - and your anecdotes become worthless as evidence for anything else.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I wonder if Pix and CJ are going to come to a disagreement about the meaning of the word "mystical"?

**Grabs popcorn**

 

[PixyMisa]

Probably. Changing definitions is a favourite game among the woo.

CJ, I'll get back to you with specific papers if you want. I'm at work right now, so probably not 'til tomorrow, unless someone else jumps in. But I'm sure you're not claiming that biological or physical causes can't generate hallucinations, so if you'd care to tell me the difference between a hallucination and a mystical experience, we'll proceed from there.

Also interested in seeing your "direct evidence" of ghosts, poltergeists, fairies, goblins, reincarnation, astral travel, gods, angels and/or demons. You'll be the first ever!

 

[cj.23]

Name one. Present this "direct evidence".

I'll cheerfully discuss one if you want. New thread though. I'll catch up tomorrow, and post you a new thread - us irrational theists don't function that well at 3.14am

I've spent many years reading the anecdotes, and I can assure you, they are worthless.

And I've spent years reading 150 years worth of peer reviewed evidence, and i can assure you that the problem may be that you have satisfied yourself with anecdotes rther than actually making a serious study of the subject, which is rather a poor grounds to make an informed judgement?

Oh, really?

Present your evidence. And we will explain to you why you are wrong. It's what we do here.

Yes, I gathered. I'm quite used to being told i'm wrong. That si why I am very careful to actually think about what I say, and back it up with hard facts. Sure. New thread as i said.

Can do, yep.

Never come across TMC associated with mystical experiences - and in deference to MM's comment, I'd better define the generally accepted features of said later - though I can't really use my model, so I'll grab a smattering from the literature. Anyway I'll do a lit search tomorrow see what I can dig out. If you have any links do post them.

They can cause - variously - out-of-body experiences, religious experiences, hallucinations, and mystical experiences of various kinds.

Cause? maybe. All of the baove happen to fall within my area, so what causes what then? I'll happily run you through the research, up till about 2007, on neurological and organic brain disorder issues associated with these, and comment on theories from Sagan to Blackmores on it. And yes I do mean Sagan - he came up with a very interesting, but sadly later shown by experimental research to be incorrect hypothesis for the NDE. Good bloke Carl Sagan.

And, after all, mystical experiences are just hallucinations interpreted as mystical.

I really hope you know about hallucinations, in a medical sense, or this could get very tedious. Still, I'll discuss this with you tomorrow...

cj x



All you are presenting is anecdotal evidence of experiences which are not immediately explainable by regular brain function. All I need to do is present a biological mechanism - which I have done - and your anecdotes become worthless as evidence for anything else.[/quote]

 

[arthwollipot]

Absolutely - I think such atheism is a perfectly sensible working assumption. The whole point of the thread was to falsify the theory theists are irrational (see other thread), and I regret using the term atheism at all. One does not have to demonstrate atheism irrationality ot render theism rational - I think both are perfectly rational...

Then, if you don't mind me asking, why are you a theist and not an atheist?

 

[cj.23]

Probably. Changing definitions is a favourite game among the woo.

Hey, I've gone from "Anglican Apologist" to "Woo" in a week! That's going some!

CJ, I'll get back to you with specific papers if you want. I'm at work right now, so probably not 'til tomorrow, unless someone else jumps in. But I'm sure you're not claiming that biological or physical causes can't generate hallucinations, so if you'd care to tell me the difference between a hallucination and a mystical experience, we'll proceed from there.

Sure they can hallucinations and pseudo-hallucinations. No doubt at all. The question is can they generate veridical hallucinations? OK, sounds good to me - I'll do it in the morning because i will want to cite a number of papers. For now I really need sleep. And please don't be offended by my jokey and flippant manner - I do really respect your insight, opinions and posts, which are always of a high quality and interesting, and that may not come over in my often quite playful replies!

Also interested in seeing your "direct evidence" of ghosts, poltergeists, fairies, goblins, reincarnation, astral travel, gods, angels and/or demons. You'll be the first ever!

Then you shall.

cj x

 

[PixyMisa]

I'll cheerfully discuss one if you want. New thread though. I'll catch up tomorrow, and post you a new thread - us irrational theists don't function that well at 3.14am

Okay.

And I've spent years reading 150 years worth of peer reviewed evidence

There is no positive, reliable evidence of any of the entities I mention. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Again, if you disagree, give us a specific f'rinstance. We've probably seen and dissected it before, though.

and i can assure you that the problem may be that you have satisfied yourself with anecdotes rther than actually making a serious study of the subject

Nope.

Yes, I gathered. I'm quite used to being told i'm wrong. That si why I am very careful to actually think about what I say, and back it up with hard facts.

You have yet to present any facts.

Cause? maybe. All of the baove happen to fall within my area, so what causes what then? I'll happily run you through the research, up till about 2007, on neurological and organic brain disorder issues associated with these, and comment on theories from Sagan to Blackmores on it. And yes I do mean Sagan - he came up with a very interesting, but sadly later shown by experimental research to be incorrect hypothesis for the NDE. Good bloke Carl Sagan.

And? (And yes, I've read Sagan.)

As I said: Direct evidence, zero. Evidence that brain dysfunction can generate similar experience, extensive and verified.

I really hope you know about hallucinations, in a medical sense, or this could get very tedious.

Or, just maybe, you could answer the question.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hey, I've gone from "Anglican Apologist" to "Woo" in a week! That's going some!

You claimed that there is "direct evidence" for ghosts, poltergeists, fairies, goblins, reincarnation, astral travel, gods, angels and/or demons.

That'll buy a one-way ticket from Anglican Apologist to Woo, and leave enough over for a cup of homeopathic coffee.

Sure they can hallucinations and pseudo-hallucinations. No doubt at all. The question is can they generate veridical hallucinations?

No.

The question is, why should we even consider the possibility of veridical hallucinations?

The only reason would be objective evidence. And if you have objective evidence, why are we discussing anecdotes of subjective experiences? Just present this objective evidence.

 

[Damien Evans]

Who cares?

If god exists, the universe does not change.

If god does not exist, the universe does not change.

The universe is the same either way, as far as we can tell.

So really, I don't give a **** if god exists or not. The universe is still the way it is.


This message was brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood apatheist.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't see what the problem is about being a strong atheist. As long as I get to decide what is acceptable as "God" and what is not, then it is easy as pie. I just have to insist that anything in order to be called "God" needs to have logically impossible free will. Some "cause" just doesn't cut it; it is necessary that the cause had a "choice" to create - everything equal - X, Y, or Z without it boiling down to randomness. Done.

(Anything that is beyond my/our understanding, or some such, will not even be considered. And how could it?)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There is no god.

There, that makes me a strong atheist. I give no more countenace to the idea there is a god than the idea that I am a butterfly's dream, and for the same reason - there is no evidence of either and no attempt made to provide evidence of either, only hollow sophistry.

Does this make me irrational? I'd happily whistle a different tune in the face of compelling evidence. A personal, unverifiable, mystical experience doesn't count; I could simply be drugged or insane.

 

[Dysphemist]

I know that this has already been gone over in the first two pages, but many people seem to get muddled up with what atheism is, despite it being discussed muchly in other threads. As far as I know, the atheistic concept by itself implies nothing about knowing there is no god(s). It is merely a lack of belief in god. Knowledge comes down to gnosticism - gnostic atheists claim to know that there is no god.

It is irrational to be a gnostic atheist and it always will be, IMO. It's impossible to prove with complete certainty that something doesn't exist. It is possible (or at least could be) to be a gnostic theist, because a god can show itself to you and prove its own existence. But at the moment, with no evidence for god(s), the most rational position (again, or course, imo) is atheism.

I guess I call myself a strong atheist because I believe that there are no gods or supernatural forces, I don't just lack belief in the many concepts of god. But I guess that people could call that gnostic atheism... How many people would define strong atheism and gnostic atheism the same thing?

 

[PixyMisa]

I guess I call myself a strong atheist because I believe that there are no gods or supernatural forces, I don't just lack belief in the many concepts of god. But I guess that people could call that gnostic atheism... How many people would define strong atheism and gnostic atheism the same thing?

Generally, that is exactly how the terms are used by the atheists here (and with good reason).

 

[truethat]

I believe people experience a divine reality, and that Zeus etc are reflections of that reality, just as my model is. To use a term from philosophy of science i'm an Objective Instrumentalist, and apply the same reasoning to theology as to science -"the map is not the territory: but different maps can closer approximate the ineffable reality".

Hope clarifies.

And I forget who posted the Spinozan argument, but lovely post. I'll talk about it later if i may...

cj x

For your argument to make sense you would have to amend it to "I believe SOME people experience a divine reality."

Any investigation of religion shows that basically all cultures across the planet share some sort of God theory. Therefor this reflects a certain reality in humanity.

You suggest that its a dual reality. However I point out that if God exists in some form, if this dual reality was defined in books such as the Torah, Bible, Quran etc and its simply a matter of them misunderstanding this God reality and trying to make sense of it by explaining it as God, then it would not be doubted.

God would not be doubted, only his messengers. Mankind doesn't doubt natural things. You don't see raging debates as to whether a child is really growing inside a mother's belly. Prior to the baby being born people didn't suggest that the baby magically appeared when it was born.

Mankind doesn't doubt death. There aren't scads of people suggesting that when you bury a body it pops back to life down in Mexico.

So if you are talking the natural existence of man, if we were indeed made in God's image, we wouldn't doubt it. We might doubt the prophets but why would we doubt what is natural?

The fact that people doubt God and the fact that some people experience God strongly and others not at all, of course demonstrates logically that God is not a universal thing at all. Rather it depends on the individual. Therefor its an internal construct.

Since brainwave activity and epileptic fits have been shown to have some effect on people's perceptions of God, its apparent that God is a state of mind.

So what that means, as to the reality of it, depends on whether you are willing to concede that to SOME people, God really doesn't exist. It is only then that you can give validity to the claims of those who say they have experienced God.

In that case those people who have not experienced God and do not, are probably not capable in their brains. In this case God, is not a creator of the universe outside, but a creator of the universe inside. Either way the God out there, most definitely logically can not exist as defined by you here.

 

[Darat]

cj.23 - the thread's moved on a bit but can I draw you back to a "yes / no" question I asked earlier:

I believe people experience a divine reality, and that Zeus etc are reflections of that reality, just as my model is.

...snip...

Do you believe Zeus exists as described by the people that say Zeus is god?