Tuesday, May 13, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

The Neural Buddhists

by David Brooks, NY Times

David Brooks, New York Times Op-ed

In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called "Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died," in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.

To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are "hard-wired" to do this or that. Religion is an accident.

In this materialist view, people perceive God's existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate belief systems. You put a magnetic helmet around their heads and they will begin to think they are having a spiritual epiphany. If they suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, they will show signs of hyperreligiosity, an overexcitement of the brain tissue that leads sufferers to believe they are conversing with God.

Wolfe understood the central assertion contained in this kind of thinking: Everything is material and "the soul is dead." He anticipated the way the genetic and neuroscience revolutions would affect public debate. They would kick off another fundamental argument over whether God exists.

Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as "The Origin of Species" reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein's theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.

And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it's going end up challenging faith in the Bible.

Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.

If you survey the literature (and I'd recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It's going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They're going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I'm not qualified to take sides, believe me. I'm just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We're in the middle of a scientific revolution. It's going to have big cultural effects.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 101 - 150 of 249 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

101. Comment #180272 by annabanana on May 14, 2008 at 1:10 pm

epeeist,

You'll have to ask RM as he hold the rights.

Other Comments by annabanana

102. Comment #180280 by Peacebeuponme on May 14, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Richard Morgan

Just out of interest, how many of the 86 posts in this thread would answer your definition of "clear-thinking"?

Well the wise-ass answer would be: all except yours. However, that aside all open threads have a whole range of response types. I think the mix of intelligence and fun here is about as good as it gets.

Sauveterre (and anybody else who is interested) - if you are motivated by a genuine sense of inquiry concerning my epiphany experience, then I would be happy to send you a copy. But if you are just looking for another opportunity to mock and insult me, I think I'll have to ask for a rain-check on this one. (Although, if you are really interested, you could find what you want in a few seconds on Google.)

Hell, you did it 3 times (by your own admission). If its that easy to swing, its not front page news, boy.

(Whenever I have edited a post, I have always tried to do the honest thing, signify the fact by prefixing it with "EDIT")

Honest except when you were groping the arse of your sockpuppet.

Oh, now you have moved over to the dark side (the hunter becomes the hunted) does that mean you selectively respond? Can you answer me? I want to know why Jesus being a nice guy is important.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

103. Comment #180288 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 1:50 pm

PBUM

Can you answer me? I want to know why Jesus being a nice guy is important.

I never said He was nice guy, so I don't really know how to answer your question.
(You're right - the sock-puppet incident is still an embarrassment to me!)

I think the mix of intelligence and fun here is about as good as it gets.

My son, who has more experience of internet fora confirms that this is more or less correct. RDRNet was my very first internet experience of this kind. And I certainly don't regret it!

its not front page news, boy.

You're missing the point, you naughty boy! I was replying to requests, not front-paging anything!
Oh dear, if I fail to reply to questions, I get criticised. And when I do reply to a question, I get criticised.

Anybody interested in getting back on topic and talking about the problems of consciousness and qualia?

(I have re-opened PM access so if you do want to have further details, you can PM me.)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

104. Comment #180289 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Epeeist-

his book, "Black Man" is pretty good. He's got a fantasy book coming out in the summer, that ought to be an interesting take on the genre!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

105. Comment #180294 by Peacebeuponme on May 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Richard

Can you answer me? I want to know why Jesus being a nice guy is important.
I never said He was nice guy, so I don't really know how to answer your question.

Then why bring him in with comments like:

BTW - Jesus had some very kind things to say about the weak and the ignorant

?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

106. Comment #180304 by Diacanu on May 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm

So let's recap.

God- Used to be capable of big Hollywood miracles millenia ago, but now apparently is lazy and out of shape, and settles for fruity-ass hallucinatons in people's heads that have no corrobitory evidence.

Science- Daily delivers REAL fucking miracles like REALLY saving lives, REALLY healing the sick and the lame, REALLY making people fly, etc, etc.

Fuck the numinous.
Fuck it up the ass with a red rubber dick.

Other Comments by Diacanu

107. Comment #180308 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Diacanu-

you forgot "gets the credit when small children miraculously survive natural disasters, not blamed for the many other deaths".

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

108. Comment #180312 by Diacanu on May 14, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Hey, Richard, sorry for the confrontational tone, but I gotta ask ya what I asked Ka-ka Shovel.

Did Jesus just tell you a bunch of sappy "I love you", stuff that your own brain could've told you, or did you bother to ask him for the cure to cancer, or the blueprints to warp drive or something?

And given that he apparently didn't give them to you, did he have a really damned good excuse, or did he just say some inscrutible crap like "you know what you need to know", or some crap?

I mean, sorry for the 3rd degree, but skepticism is what this place is about.

Other Comments by Diacanu

109. Comment #180314 by Diacanu on May 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Quetzalcoatl-

you forgot "gets the credit when small children miraculously survive natural disasters, not blamed for the many other deaths".

Exactly.

Like I've said here a couple times, when you see these football and rapper assholes thanking God/Jesus, I always think "I wonder how many children were being raped and murdered who screamed to God for help while God supposedly gave this solipsistic asshole victory".

It's really a nasty bit of business that isn't worth the sappy comfort it gives the selfish person spewing it.

Other Comments by Diacanu

110. Comment #180318 by Quetzalcoatl on May 14, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Diacanu-

for the less selfish, the sappy comfort is balanced by the endless attempts to justify all the bad things that happen in a world overseen by an all-powerful, all-loving God. Still doesn't seem worth it.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

111. Comment #180323 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 3:15 pm

PBUM -

Then why bring him in with comments like:

BTW - Jesus had some very kind things to say about the weak and the ignorant

?

Because when it serves my purposes to serve cherries, I cherry-pick!
I don't consider this to be less useful than

Fuck it up the ass with a red rubber dick.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

112. Comment #180331 by Goldy on May 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Are you saying that since that which is apparently being perceived in the "religious" experience in unverifiable by scientific method

I think religious experiences can be verified by scientific method. It's all in the brain. You can treat it with drugs or by manipulation. You can also try and replicate the same experience by the aforementioned methods.
Nice to see you back, Richard.

Other Comments by Goldy

113. Comment #180333 by Quine on May 14, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Hi RM,

Just so you know, things like personal spiritual experiences are, at best, peripheral to the "hard problem" of the construction of a third person description of first person subjectivity. They go in the the bag with experiences while on mind altering drugs, stroke, temporal lobe epilepsy and other brain damage. These are more complex than the "easy problems" of general perception, reflex association, memory etc., but you have to have the base of first person subjectivity before you get to the altered experience.

Of course, you know that from our viewpoint a temporary brain infarction on your part is almost infinitely more probable than your actual visitation by supernatural beings. Also, you have been on this web site back in the Fleabytes days so you already know how this goes: the believer keeps being pushed back by questions and demands for evidence until s/he gets to the "I believe it because I believe it" point, and then goes away. What do you expect to be any different?

Other Comments by Quine

114. Comment #180341 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Goldy! How nice to see you again!

I think religious experiences can be verified by scientific method.

Don't you mean that the brain activity can be observed during certain experiences labelled "religious" or "mystical" and perhaps be replicated?
If so, I'm going to have to boringly repeat my question about consciousness and qualia.
There is, on the one hand, the subjective experience, and on the other, an interpretation of the experience. Which begs the question of where in the brain is the experience happening, and where else are the interpretations being made. (By this I mean the phenomenon of "attributing a sense".) I hope I'm not appearing more schizophrenic than usual here!
I certainly remember that as a Mormon in a long distant past, I used to hear the "whisperings of the Spirit" in very negative terms when I had eaten too much pizza the previous night. (Curiously, excesses of chicken korma shut the whisperings off altogether...)
Also, I am wondering if the experience that I refer to as my "epiphany experience" is repeatable.
(William Sargent studied the neurology of conversion experiences in some depth, and incidentally ended up developing the pre-frontal lobotomy.)
Please, tell me what you think about the qualia aspect of all this! Nobody else seems to wish to talk about it, yet it seems to me to be absolutely central to this kind of discussion. In this thread.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

115. Comment #180345 by Diacanu on May 14, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Richard Morgan-

I don't consider this to be less useful than

Fuck it up the ass with a red rubber dick.

Aw, come on, the buttsecks imagry used to be your favorite, I threw that in there just for you.

Tch, humor is always the first to go under Jesus-freakery.

Other Comments by Diacanu

116. Comment #180350 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Quine - thank you so much for your comment.
Hey - I didn't expect anything to be different - it's me that's different.
You're absolutely right - I am perfectly familiar with the "Evidence! Evidence!" mantra (been there, done that, bought the t-shirt etc).
And if I'd had visits from supernatural beings, I think I would have immediately grabbed for a handful of Prozac or some such!
Also it is not so much that believers are always being pushed back by questions, but rather, as I once remarked here as an atheist, whatever the answers, they would always be given a materialistic explanation.
At that level, going away is all that's left!
I sometimes think that if God appeared before a group of scientists and did a demonstration of creating a universe for them, or even just a humble star, the reactions would likely be:
"Can you do that again, please, a little more slowly?" or
"Where have you published your notes, and how can I get hold of a copy?" or
"Now can you show us how you did that?"
It's all a question of terms of reference, isn't it?
Life-changing experiences (nothing fuzzy here!) as temporary brain infarctions? Why not? Sure beats the heck out of pizza excesses.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

117. Comment #180351 by Diacanu on May 14, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Please, tell me what you think about the qualia aspect of all this! Nobody else seems to wish to talk about it,

No, you're right, I don't.

IMO it's ultimately another obscurantist gap to try to stuff God into.

All the arguments for qualia being non-physical are ham flavored ass.
Dan Dennett would seem to agree with me, and he does a decent job of stomping them.

Perhaps MPhil could tackle it.
He's better at beating the philosophical detail to death than I am.
I lack the patience.

Other Comments by Diacanu

118. Comment #180353 by righton on May 14, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I would love to here MPhils take on the qualia thing.

Other Comments by righton

119. Comment #180354 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Diacanu

Tch, humor is always the first to go under Jesus-freakery.

How right you are! I enjoy a good laugh so much that I'm happy I've never got involved in Jesus-freakery!
As my psychoanalyst used to say : "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you laugh!"
Or, better still, since I'm a part-time musician:
"Our mouths were filled with laughter, our tongues with songs of joy. " (Psalm 126 : 2)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

120. Comment #180355 by righton on May 14, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Diacanu,

"IMO it's ultimately another obscurantist gap to try to stuff God into."

IMO you are absolutely right.

Other Comments by righton

121. Comment #180357 by Quine on May 14, 2008 at 4:42 pm

I sometimes think that if God appeared before a group of scientists and did a demonstration of creating a universe for them, or even just a humble star, the reactions would likely be: "Can you do that again, please, a little more slowly?" or "Where have you published your notes, and how can I get hold of a copy?" or "Now can you show us how you did that?"

Exactly so. We have plenty of examples of magicians and mindreaders etc. who pull off amazing things as long as they do not have to do it twice under controlled conditions. You present the example from the view of the knowledge of the deity, but the audience does not have that knowledge, and is trying to see if it is justified to infer it. That is where we are all starting from, and your internal subjective experiences are not useful for us no matter how real they seem to you.

Other Comments by Quine

122. Comment #180358 by righton on May 14, 2008 at 4:42 pm

RM,

I am really sorry but your posts are making me naucious(sic).

Other Comments by righton

123. Comment #180361 by Goldy on May 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Don't you mean that the brain activity can be observed during certain experiences labelled "religious" or "mystical" and perhaps be replicated?

The brain activity IS the experience. There isn't any external stimulus that can be detected, so the focus is on the internal stimuli that cause these experiences.
You'll have to forgive me on the qualia aspect - that's for philosophers more than me :-) I am but a mere lab technician with some research background :-( All I can say regarding these experiences is that I do not generally have them - and if I do, another part of my brain "rationalises" them into something I am comfortable with. Like that UFO experience I had - I knew I was not sleeping un the umbra of a passing spaceship, though it felt like it and I was paralysed at the time. I knew I would be OK once that "craft" had passed by and I would be able to move. It all happened as I thought it would and though I still hanker after the UFO explanation (well, it does sound pretty exotic!) I knew then and I know now there was something else involved. And I'm not the only one - look, others! http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/439547
Sleep paralysis, apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis).
See, our bodies are not the perfect controllable things we'd like them to be. I think religion is the same, only sanctioned by society. I can't tell you about the UFO I encountered but if I changed that term to "God" then I'm quids in (except here ;-)).
So you see, it is all your brain telling you this. Which, in a way, is great news because if we knew how, we'd be able to replicate your epiphany then we'd all get to share!

Other Comments by Goldy

124. Comment #180362 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Quine

That is where we are all starting from, and your internal subjective experiences are not useful for us no matter how real they seem to you.

Yep. And that is my "hard problem".
But I'm working on it.

righton - don't be sorry. I'm sorry for you, that reading my posts makes you nauseous. Have you tried Alka-Seltzer? Or Maalox? Or just not reading my posts?

Goldy - I still haven't forgiven you for that UFO experience! I was driving it at the time!
Do you know the Edgar Allen Poe stories concerning sleep paralysis? Fun reading matter.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

125. Comment #180364 by Quine on May 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I would love to here MPhils take on the qualia thing.

Go read Quining Qualia to be ready in case he does. However, I suspect he won't bother.

Other Comments by Quine

126. Comment #180365 by righton on May 14, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Ooops, I am sorry again. I forgot you could'nt handle those mean cold hearted atheists.

Other Comments by righton

127. Comment #180368 by Goldy on May 14, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Goldy - I still haven't forgiven you for that UFO experience! I was driving it at the time!

It was you?? Aha, that reprobate Kardashovel claimed it was him...or did he say it was his god...memeory a bit lax. Gin, you know.
I am going home now - I have man things to do...well, actually, I have to tidy garage and get cars to at least move a short distance in preparation for our house move.
Hope you're not put off by the more aggressive posters here. Be interesting to dissect you, as it were, to find out how this religion things comes and goes from a person :-) And comes back, as in your case :-D
TTFN!

Other Comments by Goldy

128. Comment #180371 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Hey Richard, welcome back! I hope you're doing well. I won't let a little thing like religion get in the way of being a pleasant person.

"Hello"

That's all.

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

129. Comment #180383 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Quine - thank you for that most useful and enlightening link.
May I make so bold as to share my thoughts with you as they develop and evolve instead of waiting for the conclusion? If that is inappropriate here, tell me and I'll stop.
You said: "your internal subjective experiences are not useful for us no matter how real they seem to you." And I replied that this was my "hard problem".
But I am wondering if I did not reply a little too quickly. Certainly, what you say is intuitively "felt" to be correct. The knee-jerk reaction (well, my knee-jerk reaction at least) is, "Well, of course, that's logical."
But if we take that a little further, does that mean that none of my subjective experiences have any relevance whatsoever for people with whom I might wish to communicate? If I admit that, then notions of empathy or even projection would have to be abandoned. And even if the expression, "I know how you feel," can never be totally true, it can often be sufficiently true to permit varying degrees of understanding between two people.
So, no, I can not agree that all my "internal, subjective experiences" are always completely useless for other people.
Beyond the possibility of vast differences between your "qualia" and mine, at some level, there are obvious similarities, some common points of reference.
The only question that remains to be answered on that point (and it is far from being a negligible one) is "How can I distinguish between the areas of overlap, and the areas that are unique to one single human being?"
(When I was ten years old, my intellectual 15 year-old sister used to taunt me with things like, "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you - they might have different tastes.")

The second point, which is so huge that I failed to notice it when reading your post, is this : my epiphany experience did not occur as a result of another person's internal, subjective experience. And yes, the "temporary brain infarction" explanation could work very well here. Maybe a few deep-breathing exercises would have made it all go away.
Maybe Saul of Tarsus had an epileptic fit.
But are temporary brain infarctions and epileptic fits life-changing?

Could a brain infarction make me perceive so many things differently? Could it open to me to a greater sensation of love - given and received?
But that is not the point. For the moment, at least.
The point is that nobody told me that I could have the experience of God the way I did. Nobody else's internal, subjective experience procured it for me. So why should I worry about the usefulness of my internal, subjective experience for other people?
Something else is going on here.
If you have never, ever tasted salt, there is no way I could describe the taste of "saltiness" to you. You could only discover it for yourself.
If you have never stood on the parapet of a 90 metre high bridge, and felt the pure terror of throwing yourself into the void, even though you've paid good money to have someone attach you to an elastic rope, then I could never find adequate words to communicate that sensation to you. (and, yes, I've done that!)
As I said, I haven't finished thinking this one through yet. Thank you for bearing with me thus far. I sense that "Measured empathy and controlled projection" will become important notions here.
And, without wishing to spark off an avalanche of insults, I must include this idea, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

130. Comment #180384 by Caudimordax on May 14, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Actually had an amazing experience once where I felt very strongly that there was a *presence* with us in our vacation cottage. Then I realized I was extremely drunk.

I know this observation will do nothing to dissuade RM.

EDIT - Then I REMEMBERED that I was extremely drunk. Sheesh!

Other Comments by Caudimordax

131. Comment #180385 by Goldy on May 14, 2008 at 6:54 pm

But are temporary brain infarctions and epileptic fits life-changing?

Yes, if they make you change something about yourself. All depends, doesn't it? Some people think "Bugger me, that's odd. Hope it doesn't happen again!" and some people think that it is a sign from God or something. Kardashovel heard voices in his head. His immediate response was "God is talking to me". Now, not having had lucid and clear voices in my head, I can't say for certain but my immediate response would be to go to a doctor, with schizophrenia ringing bells where the voices are!

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"

Saved from what? I still maintain that faith is a mental construct, within you (hence I disagree with the "this not from yourself" line. That sounds like spin to me from someone selling the idea of a god). As there is no God, it cannot be a gift from him.
QED.
;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

132. Comment #180386 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Caudimax - you mean you hadn't already realized you were extremely drunk? It took the "strong feeling of a presence"? Wow.
lol

Goldy - you still here?
Good.
And yes, you're absolutely right about one thing.
Again - drat you!
I was so worried about that Bible quotation sounding like "spin from someone selling the idea of a god" that I almost omitted it. But I thought that if I started going down that path, I'd end up not saying a pile of things I need to say. And since this is the Internet, you know, a place where people feel free to say all sorts of things, I thought, "Publish and be damned!"
(You might find this hard to believe, but some people even use rude words. lol)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

133. Comment #180387 by Caudimordax on May 14, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Duh - I already knew I was drunk. It was the connection between drunkeness and bizzare hallucinations that was the *epiphany* - gosh you people will grasp at any straw!

Other Comments by Caudimordax

134. Comment #180388 by Goldy on May 14, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Could a brain infarction make me perceive so many things differently? Could it open to me to a greater sensation of love - given and received?

I believe it could, yes. Amazing organ, the brain. Interconnections everywhere, with repair mechanisms. Certainly some trauma to one site would make you feel different (they can make you feel and taste stuff by basically prodding different regions of the brain. Cool, eh?).
How you translate these feelings is up to you. You think God and therefore convert, others..well, they think it's a pretty good feeling and carry on :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

135. Comment #180391 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Goldy - just to make sure : do you really believe that I thought, "Oh this must be God. Therefore I will convert?" Do you think it happened that way? If so, it proves that I'm a lousy communicator. Sorry about that.

BTW, which part of my brain would I need to prod to get the taste of steak and kidney pudding, because you can't find it in France?
What did you say?
"Get the recipe and make some, dumbo!"
You're right - why didn't I think of that?

EDIT : Goldy, I think it's important not to forget one important point here : for the last fifteen years, I would have reasoned in exactly the same way as you. Without wishing to sound pompous, I have already used precisely the same kind of explanations a thousand times or more, to exlpain my own experiences and other peoples.
I mean, it's just so logical, isn't it?
Irrefutably reasonable.
I know where you're coming from. I understand what you're saying.
Then April 12th happened.
And everything changed.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

136. Comment #180393 by Caudimordax on May 14, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Could I get a job here ending discussions? Maybe I just get on too late, meaning *more than 30 minutes after discussion begins* Just saying, you *guys* are so fast - maybe you should go at the actual enemy (whatever that is)...

Other Comments by Caudimordax

137. Comment #180396 by Richard Morgan on May 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Caudimordax - thank you for those wise words. It's time for me to go to bed.
But never forget the ancient wisdom which says:
"Good threads never die, they simply ......"
(Complete this expression with two words, the second of which is "away.")
G'night, all.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

138. Comment #180398 by Caudimordax on May 14, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Did I miss something or does April 12th have some significance I am not aware of? So on April 12th correspondent lost intelligent capacity and that means god is real?

EDIT:

By a MIRACLE RM signed off just as I posted!

Other Comments by Caudimordax

139. Comment #180405 by Quine on May 14, 2008 at 8:03 pm

RM:

Quine - thank you for that most useful and enlightening link.
May I make so bold as to share my thoughts with you as they develop and evolve instead of waiting for the conclusion? If that is inappropriate here, tell me and I'll stop.

I am willing to answer some things but you have to understand that your prior record has removed your presumption of innocence, and thrown the rest of us into the domain of the "fool me twice" admonition. Please understand why we will be careful.

You said: "your internal subjective experiences are not useful for us no matter how real they seem to you." And I replied that this was my "hard problem".
But I am wondering if I did not reply a little too quickly. Certainly, what you say is intuitively "felt" to be correct. The knee-jerk reaction (well, my knee-jerk reaction at least) is, "Well, of course, that's logical."
But if we take that a little further, does that mean that none of my subjective experiences have any relevance whatsoever for people with whom I might wish to communicate? If I admit that, then notions of empathy or even projection would have to be abandoned. And even if the expression, "I know how you feel," can never be totally true, it can often be sufficiently true to permit varying degrees of understanding between two people. So, no, I can not agree that all my "internal, subjective experiences" are always completely useless for other people.

My statement was in the context of what establishes external truth. Yes, you can tell people "what it is like" for you, and it may be true for you. There are many times and situations in which this is the most important thing. Theological ontology is not one of them.

Beyond the possibility of vast differences between your "qualia" and mine, at some level, there are obvious similarities, some common points of reference.
The only question that remains to be answered on that point (and it is far from being a negligible one) is "How can I distinguish between the areas of overlap, and the areas that are unique to one single human being?"
(When I was ten years old, my intellectual 15 year-old sister used to taunt me with things like, "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you - they might have different tastes.")

Which is why it is better to start from the position of not doing unto others what you would not want done unto you (like religious indoctrination) until you get some idea of what they would like.

The second point, which is so huge that I failed to notice it when reading your post, is this : my epiphany experience did not occur as a result of another person's internal, subjective experience. And yes, the "temporary brain infarction" explanation could work very well here. Maybe a few deep-breathing exercises would have made it all go away. Maybe Saul of Tarsus had an epileptic fit. But are temporary brain infarctions and epileptic fits life-changing?

Sometimes, but it has not been long enough to say in your case.

Could a brain infarction make me perceive so many things differently? Could it open to me to a greater sensation of love - given and received? But that is not the point. For the moment, at least. The point is that nobody told me that I could have the experience of God the way I did. Nobody else's internal, subjective experience procured it for me. So why should I worry about the usefulness of my internal, subjective experience for other people?

You do not have to worry; it is not about us. You might worry if self delusion has set in, but that may not be a bad thing depending on how it impacts your life.

Something else is going on here. If you have never, ever tasted salt, there is no way I could describe the taste of "saltiness" to you. You could only discover it for yourself. If you have never stood on the parapet of a 90 metre high bridge, and felt the pure terror of throwing yourself into the void, even though you've paid good money to have someone attach you to an elastic rope, then I could never find adequate words to communicate that sensation to you. (and, yes, I've done that!) As I said, I haven't finished thinking this one through yet. Thank you for bearing with me thus far. I sense that "Measured empathy and controlled projection" will become important notions here. And, without wishing to spark off an avalanche of insults, I must include this idea, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God"

Yes, your description of the personal subjectivity of tasting salt is exemplary of the isolation we must each live with. Just as your physical body presents other limitations, you cannot directly experience what it is "like" to be someone else. Thus we have the expressions of art and music (your strong suite) to help us with an approximation of transferring this "likeness." We (sociopaths notwithstanding) are assisted by mirror neurons which pick up the "other" from cues and add to our subjective feelings. All of this is an important part of our emotional lives, but does not, impact on what really does or does not objectively exist.

Bottom line: the study of qualia is part of trying to understand consciousness but establishes nothing supernatural. It has been tried for decades; it is a dry hole.

Other Comments by Quine

140. Comment #180406 by leviticus on May 14, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Hello Richard, I'm kinda new here and haven't heard about your religious experience and was wondering if it was the actual Jesus you experience in revelation or mystic moment or whatever you want to call it?
I have more questions about your experience but i'd like to wait to here about it first perhaps you could e-mail send me a message about it or link or something, before i ask more questions.

I will however take a shot at this. Probably stuff you hear before but I'm in the mood to take some very basic counters to such a claim.

1) If your god(my former delusion) saved us with his grace, why not save us all? By this anyone who knows anything about the biblical god knows he was not world renowned and billions upon billions of people lived and died without any knowledge of his saving grace.

2)God doesn't simply wish to save us. He wants something in return --> Our faith and obedience. This seems more as curse than a blessing especially knowing how many people he decided to leave out of the loop. And why would an all omnipotent good god create man ask him to believe in him give him no evidence and then damn them to eternity in hell if they don't. Doesn't sound like a very loving God to me.

Other Comments by leviticus

141. Comment #180409 by righton on May 14, 2008 at 8:36 pm

RM

"Then April 12th happened.
And everything changed."

The day you fell in love.

Other Comments by righton

142. Comment #180418 by MaxD on May 14, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Richad Morgan,

I have never denied that the scientific posture enables considerable intellectual freedom.
(Pat answer NÂ° 1)

Pat and, not entirely consistent with the "strict and limiting" charge you hurled early in this thread.

But I have found a new freedom which I was unable find either in the intellectual brilliance of some posters here, (not this particular thread, alas) or in the "hate'n'bile", mockery posts.(EDITED)

For a fellow who decries the negative tone in this forum you don't mind injecting a little negative into the tone now do you? This is kind of David Robertson trick.

You seem confused by something I've said.

New phenomena? Religious and mystical experiences are "new" phenomena? I think maybe I ma misunderstanding your use of the word "new" in this context.

You may remember that I thought you were discussing consciousness not religion, or mystical experiences. Allow me to address them though. It seems as we don't yet have a good scientific account of religion, though we can explain many spiritual experiences. So yes I think a new, insightful explanation has yet to be proffered for religion and the ill-defined religious experience.
Phenomena can indeed be quite old and still be in need of explanation and research. I was merely saying my own world view would be capable of absorbing new informantion, and new views of the cosmos based on the evidence. More than this I am much more comfortable with ambiguity than you. I'm content to live as if there is no God, not because such a being has been completely disproved, but because there is no proof this being exists, and no reason to infer one there is also no need, as yet to bother with it.

And the argument from incredulity swings for the fences...

And forgive me for being a little suspicious when I read that "consciousness...all boils down" to something. Have you read Pinker on "The Mystery of Consciousness" - "the hard question"?

It may be a mystery, that doesn't mean, insert more-made up-mystery in an attempt to explain an already difficult concept. There may come a point where all the available evidence points toward something non-physical but until then what we do know about conscioussness (still an ill defined concept in my opinion and not one that has yet impressed me as anything more than a Macguffin), let me say human mental states, and awareness seems well rooted in the minutia of the physical. Anyone who finds this hard to even credit as the reasonable position is ignoring the past thirty years of research and discovery.

It is also interesting to read how atheists here are happy to try to describe an experience they have never had. Their favourite word is "fuzzy", but I can assure you that the epiphany experience I had on April 12th was anything but "fuzzy".

I think you would be forgetting that many people here, and many among the non-believing community in general were once believers themselves and know quite well the kinds of experiences of which you speak.

I for one would be anxious to hear about your epiphany experience. I think many folk here would be.

Which brings me to my unanswered point about "qualia" (And I think that this is a good thread for speaking about qualia - don't you?)Maybe you have something to say on that subject?

I think the notion of qualia is putting the cart before the horse, and it seems to neglect all that research I was discussing.

You said:

MaxD Said: it is hard to avoid this clear thinking oasis I know.

Just out of interest, how many of the 86 posts in this thread would answer your definition of "clear-thinking"?

Here is more of that negative Robertson style tone. This is an open forum RichardM, largely unmoderated. Whining about it won't do much to change it, nor does it constitute responding to an argument.

I suggest you just post it here. You were quite content to have your dialogue with Robertson be public despite the ridicule you were sure you would recieve. (You will note that the preponderance of the response here was one of worry for you and your mental state.) I suggest you just brave the storm and publish your epiphany here. I am sure you are right that there may be some ridicule. What are you so worried about?

Other Comments by MaxD

143. Comment #180421 by Goldy on May 14, 2008 at 9:29 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/steakandkidneypuddin_4410.shtml

do you really believe that I thought, "Oh this must be God. Therefore I will convert?" Do you think it happened that way? If so, it proves that I'm a lousy communicator. Sorry about that.

Obviously you must have thought fairly long and hard about it and could not think of another answer. Hopefully, if and answer does come, you might consider it...but then again, you might be happy as you are. I don't know. I myself can't envisage a god in my life, certainly not the god I was taught about and of which I am a cultural victim of his cult.
I know you said for 15 years you would have reasoned as I would. But somehow this time was different. Now, unlike me, you were a Mormon, if I recall. An evangelical one. Maybe therein is the difference between you and me. An alcoholic can go years without a drop passing his lips. Doesn't make him any less an alcoholic.
Gosh, just reading that makes me cringe a bit - it's a pretty harsh analogy! I apologise! But I think you can understand where I am coming from. I hope you do.
I am curious why this time it was different - and no trying to describe the taste of salt :-) Just sit and analyse the feelings leading up to this. Oh, and maybe an explanation about going to that Robertson cove. I think that annoyed more than any deity worship!
Now, best be off to pick up wife, unborn child and born child. And damned if now I can't get that steak and kidney pud out of my mind!!!! Swine!! ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

144. Comment #180432 by righton on May 14, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Goldy wrote:

"Oh, and maybe an explanation about going to that Robertson cove."

The explanation is that Richard Morgan craves attention and is overly emotional. Why else would he go there, of all places.

Other Comments by righton

145. Comment #180438 by Richard Morgan on May 15, 2008 at 12:53 am

Quine - I want to thank you for the thoughtfulness of your posts, the time you have taken to write them, and for your most useful rebukes.
I have ventured back here because of people like yourself.
And, of course, the irresistibly lovable Goldy.
MaxD : For the time being, in view of my personal strengths and weaknesses, especially the weaknesses, I would still prefer to entrust my "epiphany experience" to people on an individual, personal basis. I'm sorry if you consider that to be an unsatisfactory reaction but, as Quine has pointed out, this is all still very new in my life. I need to advance with caution - I'm sure you can understand that.
And since Quine considers that the "qualia" discussion is a bottomless pit, and his understanding of the subject greatly exceeds my own, then perhaps my contributions to this thread have come to an end.
For now.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

146. Comment #180439 by RickM on May 15, 2008 at 12:54 am

Couldn't read the whole article; wondering why this guy has a job as a writer.

Other Comments by RickM

147. Comment #180443 by Quetzalcoatl on May 15, 2008 at 1:14 am

They can be: your's seems to have been.

You keep talking about April the 12th being a sudden, unexpected, decisive change. But from reading your posts on the FCOS forum in the days prior t the revelation, it was pretty obvious that you were gearing yourself up to make that jump, so it didn't exactly come as a tremendous surprise to me.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

148. Comment #180450 by njwong on May 15, 2008 at 2:06 am

I'm quite surprise Richard Morgan has reverted back to religion. But since he cited that he had an incredible epiphanic experience on April 12, then so be it. Whatever he experienced must have been so incredibly real to him that nothing we say would dissuade him of the sensation, or turn him back.

I am more convinced of this after watching the V S Ramachandran documentary "Secrets of the Mind" that I linked earlier in this thread (post 50). I am truly amazed how powerful our brain can be in creating delusions.

In the documentary, besides the patient who believes he is god, there is another patient who believes his parents are impostors when he sees them visually, but has no such problems acknowledging them as his parents if he simply talks to them over the phone. Because of an accident, the connection between the visual centre of his brain to the long term memory store was severed, whereas the connection between the auditory centre and memory was not. Hence, he simply cannot "recognise" his parents if he sees them, but can if he just hears them.

If our brain wiring were thwacked for whatever reason, our blemished brain might create an illusion so realistic (e.g. an epiphanic experience) that no external party will convince us that what we have experienced isn't real. However, since our brains also control logic thinking, even rational thinking will be skewed. If that is the case, no amount of persuasion or evidence by others will convince us otherwise of the delusion that our blemished brain has formed.

Other Comments by njwong

149. Comment #180453 by Samson Agonistes on May 15, 2008 at 2:10 am

Brooks' tone is actually pretty close to the journalistic norm, isn't it? That Time magazine kind of thing, where some issue is discussed in terms of two groups contending about it, and how the truth is in between them or somewhere up the road or coming in from left field--something new that the wily journalist is in on but that those un-chill antagonists are too busy duking it out with each other to notice.

It requires a pretension to omniscience unsustainable by any one person, hence cracks appear, like Brooks' not noticing that Hitchens and Dawkins are both on record as not particularly caring whether people believe their consciousnesses can expand to touch the universe and its mystery (though they'd prefer this universal mystery not be summed up as "God," an infinitely misinterpretable, baggage-barnacled term).

Journalists writing on cultural subjects are probably afraid to go too deep into the details of what they're covering--going just past their typical reader's knowledge lets them blur out the truth, or replace it with a "fact" mosaic fitting this money-making Time pattern. Kind of a narrative art to magazine and editorial journalism, isn't there? Blech.

Other Comments by Samson Agonistes

150. Comment #180460 by Peacebeuponme on May 15, 2008 at 2:41 am

Then why bring him in with comments like:
BTW - Jesus had some very kind things to say about the weak and the ignorant
?
Because when it serves my purposes to serve cherries, I cherry-pick!

I don't consider this to be less useful than
Fuck it up the ass with a red rubber dick

You called me a "naughty boy" earlier. I think you are being a little clever here. Diacanu has a certain syle. If you have comments, please take it up with him. Do not confuse me with him or try to group us. It does your position no favours.

My query, which has still not been addressed, is that you were referencing Jesus being kind to the weak as somehow supportive of a theistic outlook (you were rebutting a comment from Nails). I say the fact that any historical jesus was a nice guy means nothing, and is therefore never worth mentioning when arguing the merits of religion. I wonder whether you are able to demonstrate why I should think otherwise.

There is no "cherry-picking" here. I specifically wanted to ask you about mentioning Jesus. If I was cherry-picking, I would be trawling through your previous posts for any comments I could use in a negative way against you, while ignoring other posts that might work against my argument. Unless you have said elsewhere, and often (post your 3rd conversion) that Jesus is irrelevant, your cherry-picking comment is unfounded.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

Reload Comments | Back to Top