tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post8847882532506436833..comments2023-09-22T15:44:10.411-04:00Comments on CUUMBAYA: "The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful"Joel Monkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-15385754858670632112009-11-23T11:22:24.873-05:002009-11-23T11:22:24.873-05:00Joel wrote:
-snip-
"the term 'epiphenomen...Joel wrote:<br />-snip-<br /><i>"the term 'epiphenomenon' means that the mechanism is counterintuitive; it does not mean that the mechanism is unknown. Using the term 'epiphenomenon' without knowing the mechanism is like using the term "idiopathic"- which means 'I don't know why it happened.'"</i><br /><br />I suppose one could say that the divine presence that some have felt is potentially an epiphenomenon. Right now, it's still idiopathic because we don't know what the cause of these experiences are (the causes may be plural and not singular too).<br /><br />On the TV series <i>House,</i>, the title character says that idiopathic "comes from the Latin, meaning 'we're idiots, because we don't know what's causing it.'"<br /><br />After the challenges that astronomy, geology, and biology have provided to traditional religious thought in the past 500 years, I think the next major challenge for traditional religious thought will come from neurobiology.<br /><br />If a divine presence experience moves from the idiopathic to the category of explained naturalistic phenomenon, it will affect how we view religion.Steve Caldwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333184436301854794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-29156550206490885022009-11-23T11:04:31.933-05:002009-11-23T11:04:31.933-05:00Epiphenominology is well known in medicine- for ex...Epiphenominology is well known in medicine- for example, in the way in which aspirin works. Aspirin doesn't actually relieve pain; it reduces inflamation and reduces swelling, which removes the cause of the pain and therefore relieves pain as a secondary effect- the term "epiphenomenon" means that the mechanism is counterintuitive; it does <i>not</i> mean that the mechanism is unknown. Using the term "epiphenomenon" without knowing the mechanism is like using the term "idiopathic"- which means "I don't know why it happened".Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-9625951717930347592009-11-21T23:07:07.995-05:002009-11-21T23:07:07.995-05:00Joel -- an epiphenomenon hypothesis isn't sayi...Joel -- an epiphenomenon hypothesis isn't saying that there is some sort of pathology in those who feel a divine presence.<br /><br />Feeling that one has experienced a divine presence could be a secondary byproduct of another aspect of human neurobiology.<br /><br />Right now, there are a lot of things that we don't know about neurobiology. Like you said, it's possible that one's experiences of divine presence could be just that.<br /><br />But they could also be something else that isn't mental illness, pathology, stray cosmic rays, or other mental problems.<br /><br />It would be interesting to see what differences there are in neurobiology between those report experiencing the divine and those who do not.Steve Caldwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333184436301854794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-16360326840668699782009-11-21T15:04:42.714-05:002009-11-21T15:04:42.714-05:00Steve- in the second part of this post, (and other...Steve- in the second part of this post, (and other times in the past), I do say that personal experience is non-transferable, and not usable in convincing others. On the other hand, if one has 1) had a profound experience, 2) has had extensive psychological testing for sensitive jobs and nothing out of the ordinary found, 3) extensive medical testing (for other problems handled by surgery)and no unusual conditions found, 3) it is unlikely that these were some kind of dream state when at least twice I was standing and in the company of others, then how do you read it? The possibilities become: 1)I had a temporary, but repeating (I have felt the Divine presence more than once) mental illness that is severe enough to produce hallucinations but has no other detectable symptoms. 2)I have a recurring, severe, but undectable neurological syndrome that has no other effects or symptoms. 3) I have accidentaly, repeatedly ingested some drug or chemical that can produce such symptoms- and no others- and doesn't show up in ordinary bloodwork. 4) I have, by pure chance, been struck in the brain on multiple occasions in different locations, by Cosmic rays that induced these perceptions without any other side effects 5)what happened actually happened.<br /><br />I grant that all five explanations are long odds- but is there any reason, other than a knee-jerk "There ain't no such thing" reaction, why explanation 5 is any less likely than the other 4?Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-81807725513551750912009-11-21T01:04:46.226-05:002009-11-21T01:04:46.226-05:00Joel wrote:
-snip-
"'The argument from pe...Joel wrote:<br />-snip-<br /><i>"'The argument from personal experience. (Example: "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists.")'<br /><br />Ah, here's the rub, the heart of the entire debate. This is not a weak argument, but the strongest argument of all- it is a primary source, and primary sources are the touchstone of logical argument ... "</i><br /><br />Joel,<br /><br />There are good reasons that revelation isn't considered "evidence" in our legal system or in the sciences. Would you want to see a legal system where revelation could be enough evidence to convict a person?<br /><br />The evidence from your direct revelation cannot be examined by others.<br /><br />Although you may know what you've experienced, others may not have shared this experience.<br /><br />When you report that you've had a direct experience of the divine, the most the neutral observer can conclude is that you believe you've had an experience of the divine -- not that this is actual evidence of the divine.<br /><br />When a neutral observer hears your report, how does this observer distinguish between the various hypothetical causes for your experience -- divine and otherwise?<br /><br />Your experience may be an accurate perception of the divine. Or it may be a neurobilogical epiphenomenon (a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary neurological phenomenon). Or there could be another explanation.<br /><br />The problem here is figuring out which explanation applies to your experience and should one immediately jump to the divine explanation without examining other possibilities in this search for truth.Steve Caldwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333184436301854794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20795009.post-25029868838180505222009-11-20T13:09:07.018-05:002009-11-20T13:09:07.018-05:00Woowee, Joel, this is good! I can't wait for ...Woowee, Joel, this is good! I can't wait for the next installment.Lilylouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02328027965155428624noreply@blogger.com