Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | Comments |

Document Why We Believe

by Newsweek

Thanks to Blue Monster 65 for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/165678

Belief in the paranormal reflects normal brain activity carried to an extreme.

It wasn't immediately obvious to Walter Semkiw that he was the reincarnation of John Adams. Adams was a lawyer and rabble-rouser who helped overthrow a government; Semkiw is a doctor who has never so much as challenged a parking ticket. The second president was balding and wore a powdered wig; Semkiw has a full head of hair. But in 1984, a psychic told the then medical resident and psychiatrist-in-training that he is the reincarnation of a major figure of the Revolution, possibly Adams. Once Semkiw got over his skepticism—as a student of the human mind, he was of course familiar with "how people get misled and believe something that might not be true," he recalls—he wasn't going to let superficial dissimilarities dissuade him so easily. As he researched Adams's life, Semkiw began finding many tantalizing details. For instance, Adams described his handwriting as "tight-fisted and concise"—"just like mine," Semkiw realized. He also saw an echo of himself in Adams's dedication to the cause of independence from England. "I can be very passionate," Semkiw says. The details accumulated and, after much deliberation, Semkiw went with his scientific side, dismissing the reincarnation idea.

But one day in 1995, when Semkiw was the medical director for Unocal 76, the oil company, he heard a voice in his head intoning, "Study the life of Adams!" Now he found details much more telling than those silly coincidences he had learned a dozen years earlier. He looked quite a bit like the second president, Semkiw realized. Adams's description of parishioners in church pews as resembling rows of cabbages was "something I would have said," Semkiw realized. "We are both very visual." And surely it was telling that Unocal's slogan was "the spirit of '76." It was all so persuasive, thought Semkiw, who is now a doctor at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in California, that as a man of science and reason whose work requires him to critically evaluate empirical evidence, he had to accept that he was Adams reincarnated.

Perhaps you don't believe that Semkiw is the reincarnation of John Adams. Or that playwright August Wilson is the reincarnation of Shakespeare, or George W. Bush the reincarnation of Daniel Morgan, a colonel in the American Revolution who was known for his "awkward speech" and "coarse manners," as Semkiw chronicles on his Web site johnadams.net. But if you don't believe in reincarnation, then the odds are that you have at least felt a ghostly presence behind you in an "empty" house. Or that you have heard loved ones speak to you after they passed away. Or that you have a lucky shirt. Or that you can tell when a certain person is about to text you, or when someone unseen is looking at you. For if you have never had a paranormal experience such as these, and believe in none of the things that science says do not exist except as tricks played on the gullible or—as neuroscientists are now beginning to see—by the normal workings of the mind carried to an extreme, well, then you are in a lonely minority. According to periodic surveys by Gallup and other pollsters, fully 90 percent of Americans say they have experienced such things or believe they exist.

If you take the word "normal" as characteristic of the norm or majority, then it is the superstitious and those who believe in ESP, ghosts and psychic phenomena who are normal. Most scientists and skeptics roll their eyes at such sleight of word, asserting that belief in anything for which there is no empirical evidence is a sign of mental pathology and not normalcy. But a growing number of researchers, in fields such as evolutionary psychology and neurobiology, are taking such beliefs seriously in one important sense: as a window into the workings of the human mind. The studies are an outgrowth of research on religious faith, a (nearly) human universal, and are turning out to be useful for explaining fringe beliefs, too. The emerging consensus is that belief in the supernatural seems to arise from the same mental processes that underlie everyday reasoning and perception. But while the belief in ghosts, past lives, the ability of the mind to move matter and the like originate in normal mental processes, those processes become hijacked and exaggerated, so that the result is, well, Walter Semkiw.

Raised as a Roman Catholic, Semkiw is driven by a what-if optimism. If only people could accept reincarnation, he believes, Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites might stop fighting (since they might be killing someone who was once one of them). He is dismissive of the idea that reincarnation has not been empirically proved. That was the status of everything science has since proved, be it the ability of atoms to vibrate in synchrony (the basis of the laser) or of mold to cure once-lethal infections (penicillin). Dedicated to the empirical method, Semkiw believes the world is on the brink of "a science of spirituality," he says. "I don't know how you can't believe in reincarnation. All it takes is an open mind."

On that, he is in agreement with researchers who study the processes of mind and brain that underlie belief. As scientists began studying belief in the paranormal, it quickly became clear that belief requires an open mind—one not bound by the evidence of the senses, but in which emotions such as hope and despair can trump that evidence. Consider the Tichborne affair. In 1854, Sir Roger Tichborne, age 25, was reported lost at sea off the coast of Brazil. His inconsolable mother refused to accept that her son was dead. Twelve years later a man from Wagga Wagga, in New South Wales, Australia, got in touch with her. He claimed to be Sir Roger, so Lady Tichborne immediately sent him money to sail to England. When the claimant arrived, he turned out to be grossly obese, E.J. Wagner recounts in her 2006 book "The Science of Sherlock Holmes." Sir Roger had been very thin. Sir Roger had had tattoos on his arm. The claimant had none. He did, however, have a birthmark on his torso; Sir Roger had not. Although Sir Roger's eyes had been blue, the claimant's were brown. Lady Tichborne nevertheless joyfully proclaimed the claimant her son and granted him £1,000 per annum. Lawsuits eventually established that the claimant was an impostor.

Letting hope run roughshod over the evidence of your eyes, as Lady Tichborne did, is surprisingly easy to do: the idea that the brain constructs reality from the bottom up, starting with perceptions, is woefully wrong, new research shows. The reason the grieving mother did not "see" the claimant as others did is that the brain's sensory regions, including vision, are at the mercy of higher-order systems, such as those that run attention and emotions. If attention is not engaged, images that land on the retina and zip back to the visual cortex never make it to the next stop in the brain, where they would be processed and identified and examined critically. If Lady Tichborne chose not to focus too much on the claimant's appearance, she effectively blinded herself. Also, there is a constant back-and-forth between cognitive and emotion regions of the brain, neuroimaging studies have shown. That can heighten perception, as when fear sharpens hearing. But it can also override the senses. No wonder the poor woman didn't notice those missing tattoos on the man from Wagga Wagga.

The pervasiveness of belief in the supernatural and paranormal may seem odd in an age of science. But ours is also an age of anxiety, a time of economic distress and social anomie, as denizens of a mobile society are repeatedly uprooted from family and friends. Historically, such times have been marked by a surge in belief in astrology, ESP and other paranormal phenomena, spurred in part by a desperate yearning to feel a sense of control in a world spinning out of control. A study reported a few weeks ago in the journal Science found that people asked to recall a time when they felt a loss of control saw more patterns in random noise, perceived more conspiracies in stories they read and imagined illusory correlations in financial markets than people who were not reminded that events are sometimes beyond their control. "In the absence of perceived control, people become susceptible to detecting patterns in an effort to regain some sense of organization," says psychology researcher Bruce Hood of the University of Bristol, whose upcoming book "Supersense: Why We Believe in the Unbelievable" explores the mental processes behind belief in the paranormal. "No wonder those stock market traders are clutching their rabbit's feet"—or that psychics and the paranormal seem to be rivaling reality stars for TV hegemony ("Medium," "Psychic Kids," "Lost" and the new "Fringe" and "Eleventh Hour"). Just as great religious awakenings have coincided with tumultuous eras, so belief in the paranormal also becomes much more prevalent during social and political turmoil. Such events "lead the mind to look for explanations," says Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptics Society and author of the 1997 book "Why People Believe Weird Things." "The mind often takes a turn toward the supernatural and paranormal," which offer the comfort that benign beings are watching over you (angels), or that you will always be connected to a larger reality beyond the woes of this world (ghosts).

As science replaces the supernatural with the natural, explaining everything from thunder and lightning to the formation of planets, many people seek another source of mystery and wonder in the world. People can get that from belief in several paranormal phenomena, but none more so than thinking they were abducted by aliens. When Susan Clancy was a graduate student in psychology at Harvard University, she was struck by how ordinary the "abductees" she was studying seemed. They were respectable, job-holding, functioning members of society, normal except for their belief that short beings with big eyes once scooped them up and took them to a spaceship. They are men like Will, a massage therapist, who was abducted repeatedly by aliens, he told Clancy, and became so close to one that their union produced twin boys whom, sadly, he never sees. Numerous studies have found that abductees are not suffering from any known mental illness. They are unusually prone to false memories, and tend to be creative, fantasy-prone and imaginative. But so are lots of people who have never met a little green man.

Some 40 percent of Americans believe it's possible that aliens have grabbed some of us, polls show, compared with 25 percent in the 1980s. What makes abductees stand out is something so common, it's a wonder there aren't more of them: an inability to think scientifically. Clancy asked abductees if they understand that sleep paralysis, in which waking up during a dream causes the dream to leak into consciousness even while you remain immobilized, can produce the weird visions and helplessness that abductees describe. Of course, they say, but that doesn't apply to them. And do they understand that the most likely explanation of bad dreams, impotence, nosebleeds, loneliness, bruises or just waking up to find their pajamas on the floor does not involve aliens? Yes, they told her, but abduction feels like the best explanation. Larry, for instance, woke from a dream, saw shadowy figures around his bed and felt a stabbing pain in his groin. He ran through the possibilities—a biotech firm's stealing his sperm, angels, repressed memory of childhood sexual abuse—and only then settled on alien abduction as the most plausible. The scientific principle that the simplest explanation is most likely to be right is, well, alien to abductees. But again, an inability to think scientifically is exceedingly common. We are more irrational than we are rational; emotions drive voting behavior more strongly than analysis of candidates' records and positions does. The universal human need to find meaning and purpose in life is stronger and more basic than any attachment to empiricism, logic or objective reality.

Something as common as loneliness can draw us to the paranormal. In a study published in February, scientists induced feelings of loneliness in people by telling them that a personality questionnaire they filled out revealed that, by middle age, they would have few friends and be socially isolated. After this ruse, participants were more likely to say they believed in ghosts, angels, the Devil, miracles, curses and God than were participants who were told their future held many friendships, found Nicholas Epley, of the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

That we are suckers for weird beliefs reflects the fact that the brain systems that allow and even encourage them "evolved for other things," says James Griffith, a psychiatrist and neurologist at George Washington University. A bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe, a region toward the top and rear of the brain, for instance, distinguishes where your body ends and the material world begins. Without it, you couldn't navigate through a door frame. But other areas of the brain, including the thinking regions in the frontal lobes, sometimes send "turn off!" signals to this structure, such as when we are falling asleep or when we feel physical communion with another person (that's a euphemism for sex). During intense prayer or meditation, brain-imaging studies show, the structure is also especially quiet. Unable to find the dividing line between self and world, the brain adapts by experiencing a sense of holism and connectedness. You feel a part of something larger than yourself. This ability to shut off the sense of where you end and the world begins, then, may promote other beliefs that bring a sense of connection, even if they involve alien kidnappers.

Other normal brain functions can be hijacked for spooky purposes, too. Neither the eyes nor the ears can take in every aspect of an object. The brain, therefore, fills in the blanks. Consider the optical illusion known as the Kanizsa triangle, in which three black Pac-Man shapes sit at what could be the corners of a triangle, their open mouths pointed inward. Almost everyone "sees" three white lines forming that triangle, but there are in fact no lines. What does the "seeing" is not the eyes but the brain, which habitually takes messy, incomplete input and turns it into a meaningful, complete picture. This drive to see even what is not objectively there is easily hijacked. "Perceptually, the world is chronically ambiguous and requires an interpretation," says Stewart Guthrie, professor emeritus of anthropology at Fordham University and author of "Faces in the Clouds." And suddenly you see Satan in the smoke from the World Trade Center. "We see the Virgin Mary in a potato chip or Jesus on an underpass wall because we're using our existing cognitive structures to make sense of an ambiguous or amorphous stimuli," says psychologist Mark Reinecke, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University.

Scientists mean "see" literally. Brain imaging shows that the regions that become active when people imagine seeing or hearing something are identical to those that become active when they really do see or hear something in the outside world. This holds true for schizophrenics (their visual cortex becomes active when they hallucinate people, and their auditory cortex when they hear voices, in ways that are indistinguishable from when they perceive real people and voices) and for healthy people engaging in mental imagery (think of a pink elephant). It is not too far a step for mentally healthy people to see or hear what they are thinking intensely about. Christina Puchalski, director of the George Washington Institute for Spirituality and Health, felt her dead mother's presence "with me in a very deep and profound way, emanating from a certain direction," she says. "Maybe if you're thinking very strongly about that person, your mind is creating the sense that he is there."

A more common experience is to see patterns in coincidences, something that also represents a hijacking of normal and useful brain function. You think about the girl at the party last Saturday and—bam!—she calls you. You think about the girl who chatted you up in class—and never hear from her. Guess which experience you remember? Thanks to the psychological glitch called confirmatory bias, the mind better recalls events and experiences that validate what we believe than those that refute those beliefs.

But why? Why do we remember the times we thought of someone just before she texted us and forget all the times we had no such premonition? When the mind was evolving, failing to make an association (snakes with rattles are to be avoided) could get you killed, while making a false association (dancing will make it rain) mostly just wasted time, Michael Shermer points out. "We are left with a legacy of false positives," he says. "Hallucinations become ghosts or aliens; knocking noises in an empty house indicate spirits and poltergeists; shadows and lights in a tree become the Virgin Mary."

The brain also evolved to recoil from danger, and the most frequent sources of danger back in the Stone Age were not guns and cars but saber-toothed tigers and other living things. As a result, we are programmed to impute vitality to even inanimate threats, as Bristol's Hood has demonstrated. When he gives a speech about irrational beliefs, he holds up an old cardigan and asks who would be willing to wear it in exchange for about $40. Usually, every hand in the audience shoots up. But when Hood adds that the sweater was once worn by a notorious murderer, almost every hand disappears. "People view evil as something physical, even tangible, and able to infect the sweater" as easily as lice, Hood says. "The idea of spirits and souls appearing in this world becomes more plausible if we believe in general that the nonphysical can transfer over to the physical world. From there it's only a small step to believing that a thunk in an empty house is a footstep."

There is a clear survival advantage to imputing aliveness and asking questions later. That's why, during human evolution, our ancestors developed what is called a hypersensitive agency-detection device, says Benson Saler, professor emeritus of anthropology at Brandeis University. This is an acute sensitivity to the presence of living beings, something we default to when what we perceive could be alive or inanimate. "Whether it's a rock formation or a hungry bear, it's better to assume it's a hungry bear," says Saler. "If you suppose it's a rock formation, and it turns out to be a hungry bear, you're not in business much longer." Defaulting to the "it's alive!" assumption was "of such considerable value that evolution provided us with greater sensitivity to the presence of living agents than we needed," says Saler. "We respond to the slightest hint or indication of agency by assuming there are living things present. Developing ideas about ghosts and spirits is simply a derivative of this hypersensitivity to the possibility" that a living being is present, and too bad if it also produces the occasional (or even frequent) false positives.

The belief that minds are not bound to bodies, and therefore that ghosts and other spirits exist here in the physical world, reflects a deep dualism in the human psyche. No matter how many times neuroscientists assert that the mind has no existence independent of the brain, "we still think of our essence as mental, and of our mind as being independent of body," says Fordham's Guthrie. "Once you've signed on to that, existence after death is really quite natural." This dualism shows up in children as young as 2, says psychologist Paul Bloom of Yale University: kids readily believe that people can exchange bodies, for instance, and since ghosts lack material bodies but have minds and memories, belief in dualism makes them perfectly plausible. At the even more basic level of perception, the brain is wired for faces, says Northwestern's Reinecke. "Even in the first weeks of life, infants tend to perceive angles, contours and shapes that are consistent with faces," he says. There's Mary on the potato chip again.

All of which raises a question. If the brain is wired so as to make belief in the paranormal seemingly inevitable, why are there any skeptics? And not just "any," but more assertive, activist ones. Groups such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the Skeptics Society and the James Randi Educational Foundation all work to debunk claims of the paranormal. A growing number of scientists and others now proudly wear the badge of "skeptic," just as more scholars are coming out as atheists, like Richard Dawkins did in his 2006 book "The God Delusion" and as Christopher Hitchens did in his 2007 tome "God Is Not Great." The growing numbers and assertiveness of skeptics (and public atheists) reflects the fact that they "have long felt like we belong to a beleaguered minority," says Shermer, who was once a born-again Christian. Their more aggressive attitude provides a sense of mission and community that skeptics, no less than believers, crave. It takes effort to resist the allure of belief, with its promise of fellowship, community and comfort in the face of mortality and a pointless, uncaring universe. There must be compensating rewards.

One such compensation, it is fair to say, is a feeling of intellectual superiority. It is rewarding to look at the vast hordes of believers, conclude that they are idiots and delight in the fact that you aren't. Another is that skeptics believe, or at least hope, that they can achieve at least one thing that believers seek, but without abandoning their principles. Skeptics, no less than believers, think it would be wonderful if we could speak to dead loved ones, or if we ourselves never died. But skeptics instead "seek immortality through our … lasting achievements," Shermer explains. "We, too, hope that our wishes for eternity might be fulfilled." Too bad that as they fight the good fight for rationality, their most powerful opponent is nothing less than the human brain.

With Karen Springen in Chicago and Kurt Soller in New York

Comments 1 - 40 of 40 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #274135 by notsobad on October 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm

 avatarsee:
Ghost Lusters: If You Want to See a Specter Badly Enough, Will You?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ghost-lusters-if-you-want

Other Comments by notsobad

2. Comment #274155 by Frankus1122 on October 29, 2008 at 4:51 pm

 avatarnotsobad,

The last line of the article you linked to:

"I'm a scientist," Persinger says. "I don't believe in anything."

That made me smile.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

3. Comment #274174 by Drool on October 29, 2008 at 5:25 pm

 avatarFrom notsobad's article:
...believers "psych each other up. Sitting in pitch darkness you hear noises, which are common in these old houses, but believers see and hear things that just aren't there..."
And hence the basis of the show Most Haunted.

Other Comments by Drool

4. Comment #274187 by Mango on October 29, 2008 at 5:43 pm

 avatarThe decline of organized religion in W. Europe has not diminished the number of people using tarot, astrology, psychics, and such. It does seem that the human brain is not naturally wired for scientific thinking. Although a good education usually helps.

Other Comments by Mango

5. Comment #274193 by Frankus1122 on October 29, 2008 at 5:58 pm

 avatarComment #274187 by Mango,

You would have to think though that if it were to be proven that the spooks we 'see' are really electrical misfirings of the brain that would settle the problem of belief in non-existent beings.

Who am I kidding?

But still, if the information in this article was more widely known wouldn't that help? I mean we used to think the Sun went around the Earth. We now know differently although our language still reflects the old way of thinking.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

6. Comment #274196 by Mango on October 29, 2008 at 6:03 pm

 avataryes, Frankus1122, if this article were more widely read it may help -- that's inclusive of what I meant by education.

Other Comments by Mango

7. Comment #274205 by NewEnglandBob on October 29, 2008 at 6:12 pm

 avatar
But one day in 1995, when Semkiw was the medical director for Unocal 76, the oil company, he heard a voice in his head...



Doctor, heal thyself!

Get thee to an insane asylum, quickly!

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

8. Comment #274230 by ivellios on October 29, 2008 at 7:09 pm

 avatarThis just in...OUR BRAINS MAKE SHIT UP!

No kidding. It's called imagination and I see it in my 2 and 3yo kids.

Other Comments by ivellios

9. Comment #274277 by Blue Monster 65 on October 29, 2008 at 8:48 pm

 avatarFrankly, I was just amazed that this article appeared in Newsweek! They're normally very pro-religious beliefs, so this was a pleasent surprise.

The question remains, though, how many readers will take it to heart ... or head? Judging by the comments on the Newsweek site ... not many. Sigh ...

Scott

Other Comments by Blue Monster 65

10. Comment #274332 by Dispiracist on October 30, 2008 at 1:50 am

 avatarThe resemblances here are uncanny. Not only does my brother live in Wagga Wagga, I know someone named Tichbon and I am clearly subnormal in not believing in reincarnation. This obviously means something important - all I have to do now is come up with some bizarre connection that explains these incredible coincidences.
Ideally something that boosts my sense of superiority.

My initial preference is that I’m Jimi Hendrix reincarnated. But I’ll have to learn to play guitar to be sure.

Other Comments by Dispiracist

11. Comment #274454 by Animavore on October 30, 2008 at 4:58 am

 avatarA couple of comments on this from the newsweek website.
"Posted By: chadmichael @ 10/30/2008 1:17:52 AM
Comment: This is a terribly biased piece of journalism that oozes with souless intellecual pomposity. Who are we to assume that our manmade scientific method is some universal dogma from which all of existience must be judged' Isn't that just another form of religion'"

Eh... no chad. It isn't.


"Posted By: ArrowMare @ 10/30/2008 6:21:47 AM
Comment: Greg the Third and chadmichael, well-said! This article is a bit inductive. It brings up a host of paranormal ideas and only addresses those for which it has a scientific explanation. A close friend and I were once using a homemade Ouija board and were communicating with a "spirit guide" that told us information about past lives. Afterward I shrugged it off, saying that it was all just my mind and hers working together, and that it gave me answers about Ancient Egypt because I was fascinated by Ancient Egypt. I thought I had explained it all away. Then she looked me in the eye and said, '''But have you ever thought about WHY you were interested in Ancient Egypt in the first place'''' I still have no solid answer other than, '''it sparks my imagination.''' Her theory was that my interest in Egypt was inspired by a past life. Interesting food for thought. Thanks for the article!"

Em.. we have a perfectly rational explanation for Quija boards. And the second part shows that you read but didn't understand the article.

Other Comments by Animavore

12. Comment #274464 by JanChan on October 30, 2008 at 5:24 am

It was all so persuasive, thought Semkiw, who is now a doctor at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in California, that as a man of science and reason whose work requires him to critically evaluate empirical evidence, he had to accept that he was Adams reincarnated.

Wow, they're handing out degrees in medicine to anyone these days.

But funny thing is why is no one ever a reincarnation of, oh let's say, John Adams servant, or someone else that we never heard of? Surely if this thing is so common, shouldn't more than just people in our history books get reincarnated?

Other Comments by JanChan

13. Comment #274477 by CaptainMandate on October 30, 2008 at 5:40 am

 avatarJanChan

that's a good point. of course the funny thing is, being a reincarnation of someone famous means you can verify your claim because there's historical evidence that they, er... liked rice pudding as well or whatever passes as proof these days.

I think you need a fair amount of egotism to allow yourself to become so self deluded though so you're hardy going to be the reincarnation of a pleb now are you'

I notice reincarnations of dead murderers and tyrants are in short supply as well. I'd like someone to admit to being the reincarnation of Fred West. I wouldn't judge them, as long as they were sorry for what they did in their past life

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

14. Comment #274487 by CaptainMandate on October 30, 2008 at 5:44 am

 avatarMango #6

good point but I think if most people read the article there'd still be a majority responding with "well this just proves there is a god/afterlife/higher purpose...."

I'm begining to see a pattern in the responses of believers

then again I would, I'm programmed to :D

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

15. Comment #274494 by epeeist on October 30, 2008 at 5:51 am

 avatarComment #274464 by JanChan
Surely if this thing is so common, shouldn't more than just people in our history books get reincarnated?
Have you heard of the "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

Other Comments by epeeist

16. Comment #274503 by nalfeshnee on October 30, 2008 at 6:03 am

 avatar

I think you need a fair amount of egotism to allow yourself to become so self deluded though so you're hardy going to be the reincarnation of a pleb now are you?


Quite correct, but the funny thing is, to the outside observer it looks just the other way: this guy (or gal) is so self-effacing that they would rather have us believe they are someone else.

I mean, it's one thing to want to be a prince or a king. It's another to literally be that person - thus removing one's own personality.

And I love the comments about people not being reincarnations of no-one anyone's heard of.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

17. Comment #274513 by Roger Stanyard on October 30, 2008 at 6:18 am

 avatar"Perhaps you don't believe that Semkiw is the reincarnation of John Adams."

Nah, I couldn't possibly believe that.

Napoleon Bonaparte, British Centre for Science Education.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

18. Comment #274517 by CaptainMandate on October 30, 2008 at 6:23 am

 avatarwell that's the thing with egotism, nalfeshnee. it's something people with low self-esteem suffer from

the other thing I noticed is how these beliefs are self-affirming; noticing that this person in history was a very passionate person, JUST LIKE ME! was known for their wit, JUST LIKE ME! THAT'S JUST THE SORT OF THING I'D HAVE SAID! etc etc

now nothing will convince me that reincarnation actually exists but I'd feel more sympathy for the reincarnated if they made connections from historical texts such as "X... was renound for his terrible flatulence and was often considered the workplace creep, particularly by his female colleagues but was in general quite harmless due to being quite slow-witted and physically quite puny"

hmmm it can't be coincidence, surely'!!

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

19. Comment #274535 by oasis-al-reason on October 30, 2008 at 7:02 am

 avatarSuch a pleasurable feast of an article. At every sentence my mind keeps saying "of-course, its obvious". How can it not be so to fundies?

I have just printed it out a few copies to distribute out at a dinner party tonight. Certain to cause a heated debate!

Thank you, keep them coming.

Other Comments by oasis-al-reason

20. Comment #274554 by Gregg Townsend on October 30, 2008 at 7:31 am

 avatar
A bundle of neurons in the superior parietal lobe, a region toward the top and rear of the brain, for instance, distinguishes where your body ends and the material world begins. Without it, you couldn't navigate through a door frame. But other areas of the brain, including the thinking regions in the frontal lobes, sometimes send "turn off!" signals to this structure, such as when we are falling asleep or when we feel physical communion with another person (that's a euphemism for sex).
Interesting! I’ve frequently had the sensation of being “beyond myself” or “connected” to a partner during sex. I always figured it was some sort of natural physical overload of brain activity or chemicals or whatever (I’m no scientist). It is fun to read something scientific that confirms (at least partially) my intuition.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

21. Comment #274676 by GordonHide on October 30, 2008 at 10:01 am

Have you ever noticed the way these reincarnation types always turn out to have been someone of note? You don't get too many of them saying "Yes, I am the reincarnation of a dark ages shit shoveller from Wapping".

Other Comments by GordonHide

22. Comment #274683 by God fearing Atheist on October 30, 2008 at 10:15 am

 avatarI heard that Derren Brown "palm read" (or similar), a group of people, and give each a written profile. There was 70% agreement with his statements. The "profile" was the same for everyone.

http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

23. Comment #274714 by zeroangel on October 30, 2008 at 10:41 am

 avatar
One such compensation, it is fair to say, is a feeling of intellectual superiority. It is rewarding to look at the vast hordes of believers, conclude that they are idiots and delight in the fact that you aren't.


Heh. Yup.

But funny thing is why is no one ever a reincarnation of, oh let's say, John Adams servant, or someone else that we never heard of?


Remember this movie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Your_Life

I got a kick out of the scene where Albert Brooks’ character finds out that one of his past lives was “lunch” (a primitive rain forest dweller about to be eaten by a beast of some kind).

I also liked that movie K-PAX:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-PAX_(film)

The part where he said something about long ago scientists on his world discovered that the universe constantly contracts and expands replaying everything in exactly the same way. So, be sure and get it right because you are going to repeat your same exact life for all eternity. *smile* heh

Interesting! I’ve frequently had the sensation of being “beyond myself” or “connected” to a partner during sex. I always figured it was some sort of natural physical overload of brain activity or chemicals or whatever (I’m no scientist). It is fun to read something scientific that confirms (at least partially) my intuition.


Yes. I thought the same thing about that particular passage. Very interesting.

Other Comments by zeroangel

24. Comment #274747 by Blue Monster 65 on October 30, 2008 at 11:01 am

 avatarI've also noted that we don't often have two or more people claiming to be the same historical figure.

That would cause some problems at a dinner party, wouldn't it? On which side of which Christ would you care to sit? ;)

Scott

Other Comments by Blue Monster 65

25. Comment #274778 by ColdFusionLazarus on October 30, 2008 at 11:17 am

 avatarThe point of the article seems to be that we are all susceptible and that we should almost be surprised that any of us are skeptics or atheists. Perfectly normal, clever people see a connection and believe in alien abduction or miraculous help from god. It's not sufficient for me to feel superior and say, "Shit! What a bunch of thickoes" I suppose it would be better to say, "There but fot the grace of no-god go I"

The other thing is that these people don't accept a plausible scientific explanation. I sometimes wonder about this. Scientists and people asserting scientific explanations can come across as Authority Figures. There's almost something healthy in rebelling against this and seeking your own explanation or accepting the advice of the guy at the bar. Go Sarah Palin!

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

26. Comment #275085 by Dispiracist on October 30, 2008 at 6:44 pm

 avatar
16. Comment #274503 by nalfeshnee on October 30, 2008 at 6:03 am

so self-effacing that they would rather have us believe they are someone else

I’ve always suspected that’s why many people get involved with acting. Many successful actors appear to have psychological problems, but if that’s the driver of their career choice then it’s a wonder than there’s any who are relatively sane.

And it isn’t limited just to the thespian tradition, I’ve always suspected that many of the CEOs and Boards of Directors in companies (unsuccessful) that I’ve worked for were really actors – just working off someone else’s script and looking the part.

It goes beyond the communist tradition of expressing extreme self criticism, which merely eliminates the individual. Reincarnation goes even further by replacing them with something else. All remnants of the memory of the lost individual are obliterated by the idea of reincarnation.

I’d be interested to hear if anyone knows which famous historical characters are now the most popular reincarnation delusions. The cliché from comedy shows always used to be Emperor Napoleon, with lunatic asylums swamped by hundreds of slightly non-standard versions of all shapes and sizes, like an Elvis impersonation convention.

Other Comments by Dispiracist

27. Comment #275220 by jo5ef on October 31, 2008 at 1:20 am

As pointed out, the article states the bleeding obvious, though eloquently.
I've been thinking about this point for some time: why are there skeptics at all?
I think the reality is that there are just varying degrees of skepticism; i'm pretty skeptical myself, but i think even the most skeptical among us must admit that they harbor at least some irrational beliefs (can you figure out what yours are?). After all, the alternative is to believe that your beliefs on everything are completely correct - a bit like believeing that the earth is the centre of the universe.

Other Comments by jo5ef

28. Comment #275227 by decius on October 31, 2008 at 1:49 am

 avatarComment #275220 by jo5ef
You seem a bit confused about this issue, allow me to clarify a few points.

I've been thinking about this point for some time: why are there skeptics at all?


Because wild claims unsupported by evidence are made all the time and are often uncritically reported by gullible media. Medieval superstitions such as astrology are still dominating the lives of many people along with more modern absurdities (e.g. alien abductions). Scepticism is the rational response to this state of affairs.

I think the reality is that there are just varying degrees of skepticism;


Just to clarify, we are talking here of Scientific Scepticism, not Epistemological or Philosophical Scepticism.

Scientific scepticism is a method, or if you prefer, an epistemological position - either one adheres to it, either one doesn't. It simply states that claims or propositions lacking empirical evidence should be assumed as false until proved otherwise. It also invites investigation into such claims until empirical verification can be achieved.


i'm pretty skeptical myself, but i think even the most skeptical among us must admit that they harbor at least some irrational beliefs (can you figure out what yours are?)
.

There isn't such thing as a "pretty sceptical person". If you harbour irrational beliefs of any sort, you are not applying a method that, if followed correctly, works perfectly in weeding out irrationality. Your sceptical inclination can however be sharpened through reading about the subject and a modicum of self-discipline.

After all, the alternative is to believe that your beliefs on everything are completely correct -


It's not a matter of "beliefs". We start with a null hypothesis, and we rely on scientific consensus and empiricism to decide what should be accepted as proved, we suspend our judgement on what is plausible but not yet proved, and we dismiss what has been already debunked.

Therefore a sceptic isn't someone who arrogantly claims to be always right, rather someone who won't easily fall for bad arguments, demands high-quality evidence and won't accept any claim at face value.

If you need more information, feel free to ask.

Other Comments by decius

29. Comment #275447 by Watts_Pete on October 31, 2008 at 7:40 am

" The scientific principle that the simplest explanation is most likely to be right is, well, alien to abductees."

Imho that is not an accurate description of what is usually called Occam's Razor. The principle is merely that the simpler explanation is to be preferred, for the simple reason that there is no reason to choose a more complex explanation when a simpler one will suffice. As it happens it is possible that a more complex explanation ismore likely to be wrong as it includes more elements which individually can be wrong invalidating the whole hypothesis.

However imho one ought to avoid using the "probably the correct one" interpretation. Ironically because one can apply an intellectual razor to it, in that a simpler explanation, in the absence of significant evidence to the contrary, is to be preferred in any case. In addition, the "probably the correct one" interpretation is often fallaciously used, in itself, of being evidence in favor of a simpler explanation (it isnt).

Imho OR is often used incorrectly in the Social Sciences, where the phrase "for every event there is a simple explanation, and it's wrong." is probably a better guide. OR works well for relatively simple phenomena in Physics and Chemistry. The complexity of humans and human groups is different. "Alcoholism is caused by a genetic defect" is a simpler hypothesis than "Alcoholism in a biopsychosocial disorder with multiple contributory factors." but imho that makes it less, not more likely to be the correct one.

Other Comments by Watts_Pete

30. Comment #275452 by Bonzai on October 31, 2008 at 7:47 am

 avatarWatts

mho OR is often used incorrectly in the Social Sciences, where the phrase "for every event there is a simple explanation, and it's wrong." is probably a better guide. OR works well for relatively simple phenomena in Physics and Chemistry. The complexity of humans and human groups is different. "Alcoholism is caused by a genetic defect" is a simpler hypothesis than "Alcoholism in a biopsychosocial disorder with multiple contributory factors." but imho that makes it less, not more likely to be the correct one.


No, I am afraid you misunderstand. OR means "all else being equal" pick the simplest explanation. In the social sciences, single factor explanations and multiple factor ones are not equal, models involving multiple factors usually fit the data a lot better.

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #275457 by decius on October 31, 2008 at 7:51 am

 avatarComment #275447 by Watts_Pete

The principle is merely that the simpler explanation is to be preferred, for the simple reason that there is no reason to choose a more complex explanation when a simpler one will suffice.


Sorry to be pedantic, but we need to be precise for the sake of the many visitors of this site.

You are paraphrasing the principle according to its popular understanding, but this version is not entirely correct and can actually be misleading.

The principle states:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem


which translates into:

Entities must not be multiplied without necessity


In other words, in order to explain a given phenomenon, the least new assumptions (or the fewest assumptions possible) should be made.

It is in fact a principle of parsimony and not of simplicity, even though one generally implies the other.

Other Comments by decius

32. Comment #275461 by CaptainMandate on October 31, 2008 at 7:57 am

 avatar"I’ve always suspected that’s why many people get involved with acting. Many successful actors appear to have psychological problems, but if that’s the driver of their career choice then it’s a wonder than there’s any who are relatively sane."

I spent some time acting (never successful) and I hope I'm not the sort to start believeing I'm reincarnated but I think it's wrong to draw that conclusion because a lot of actors have psychological problems. That's no different to saying going to hospital causes injury.

Acting is a very healthy pastime as it gives you a chance to explore the idea of being someone else in a safe environment. in itself it's a form of therapy so I think that's why people with certain psychological problems may be drawn to it.

Acting is more than pretending you're someone else, it's bringing your own experience to a situation or part so most actors have a psychological advantage over many other people simply because they've spent time in examining their own psyche.

what I think is more the case is that many successful actors are comfortable talking about their psychological problems (Stephen Fry is a good example). I expect the vast majority of what we'd consider under analysis a "problem" go undetected in normal life because most people are not comfortable facing up to their own psyche

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

33. Comment #275465 by MPhil on October 31, 2008 at 8:04 am

 avatarIn Occam's Razor, it's the "necessity" part that is all-important. The overall economy (parsimony) of belief-structure is given when both the internal relations between theories and theory elements are economically constructed, that is coherent and modest in existential commitment and when certain external factors are given, i.e. the fact that these theories and theory nets have actual intended models and where we discover new applications of the theory.

A change of underlying background assumptions is only warranted when there is an anomaly between what is observed and what the theory states. This means that an anomaly is the set-theoric disjunction of intended and actual models: A situation that should be explained by the theory or theory network is not actually explained by it.

And even then, we have to be careful - the only guideline to adjusting our beliefs rationally is which change results in a more economical belief-structure, given the observations we have made (although these are always also theory-laden). In pragmatic effectiveness, broadness of explanation, state of corroboration, internal coherence and the quality to allow "seamless" integration into a specific framework of background assumptions (at best in turn warranted by corroboration).

That is the essence of scientific belief-formation - epistemically stable and pragmatically progressive. That's the best we can do - and a scientific worldview with some philosophical extensions into a coherent scheme does the trick very well.

This is, as I see it, a matter of epistemology and philosophy of science. And the position just outlined is compatible with ontological naturalism/materialism.

Other Comments by MPhil

34. Comment #275467 by Red Foot Okie on October 31, 2008 at 8:14 am

 avatarI thought this was a very good article, especially since it brings up the superior parietal lobe.

I think that neuroscience is revealing some fascinating and rather disturbing things about how our brains (and thus, us) actually work. It is no wonder that the latest thrust of ID is into the gaps of neuroscience, since it is showing the hows, whys, and sources of our superstitions.

Other Comments by Red Foot Okie

35. Comment #275699 by zeroangel on October 31, 2008 at 12:10 pm

 avatar
This means that an anomaly is the set-theoric disjunction of intended and actual models: A situation that should be explained by the theory or theory network is not actually explained by it.


Being as how most people I deal with on a daily basis don't talk (or write) quite like this, I wonder if I should feel proud for actually understanding what that meant. *smile*

I wonder what it's like to have a beer with this guy.

EDIT: I remember a guy I went to school with who was studying Bio-chem. He refered to drinking beer as "experimental neuro-farmicology with methyl-hydroxides"

Other Comments by zeroangel

36. Comment #275770 by Watts_Pete on October 31, 2008 at 3:18 pm

I have fallen foul again of the feature of this site that if you take too long typing it your comment disappears into the ether. Suffice it then to say that I knew that Occam's Razor is traditionally stated as:

'Entities must not be multiplied without necessity.'

(although apparently the phrase, in Latin or English, appears nowhere in William of Occam's writings)

...and I do understand it.

This is what remains of my original comment that I have salvaged, which indicates why this is imho a poor formulation of the concept of scientific parsimony, which is best, imho, described in terms of simplicity:

"Intelligent Design" advocates repeatedly make the mistake that God-based hypotheses are more parsimonious than naturalistic ones - e.g. the 'precision' of fundamental constants in Physics, allowing the development of life in our universe, being designed by a God is they say more parsimonoius than hypothesising the existence of multiple universes with different values of the constants so that in some, including ours, life is possible. ( The so-called Multi-Verses hypothesis to explain why our own universe is so well-suited to the evolution of life). We only assume one entity, God, they say, whereas the multi-verse hypothesis invokes almost limitless ones - millions of universes. This fails on two grounds - we know the existence of one universe, our own, but have no direct evidence of a god. Once we have seen a horse, an explanation involving millions of yet unseen horses is more parsimonious than one invoking a single unicorn if we have never seen one. The OR principle is effective to make this point if we emphasise that it is kinds of entities that we try to keep small, rather than absolute numbers. However, the second failure of the god-design hypothesis is that the 'god' entity is itself at least going on infinitely complex, and hence is not actually an explanation at all. In order to reject God-based or other hypotheses on this kind of grounds, we need a principle of parsimony that not only refers to *types* of 'entity' but also the degree of *complexity* of the entities. Hence, imho, if the classic OR does not refer to preferring simplicity, perhaps we should replace it with a formulation that does.

I also wrote material referring to the application, and mis-application of OR in the Social Sciences which would indicate, hopefully, that I understand it there too, but you'll have to trust me on that.

Other Comments by Watts_Pete

37. Comment #276240 by polestar on November 1, 2008 at 3:58 pm

 avatarFrom the article: Semkiw says: "I don't know how you can't believe in reincarnation. All it takes is an open mind."

This is a clear and present case of pink unicornism or if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out (with thanks to the link at http://richarddawkins.net/article,3272,If-You-Open-Your-Mind-Too-Much-Your-Brain-Will-Fall-Out-Take-My-Wife,Tim-Minchin).

Other Comments by polestar

38. Comment #276281 by Koreman on November 1, 2008 at 4:51 pm

 avatarReligious texts are easier to read. Believe or else.

Other Comments by Koreman

39. Comment #277759 by sane1 on November 4, 2008 at 5:43 am

 avatarNice article. Good approach. Goodness, we are so susceptible to superstition and paranormal beliefs. Now leave me alone, I need to go pray for Obama to be elected.

Other Comments by sane1

40. Comment #290247 by jo5ef on November 24, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Wow, i just rechecked this and noticed Decius's emphatic rebuttal of my comment. Well Decius, i'd just like to say, i stand by my comment, i don't think i'm confused at all (although I freely admit that my opinions, like those of all other humans, aren't always arrived at purely by the application of scientific skepticism). However i do think you've completely misinterpreted what i was trying to say. So in your own words, if you need more information, feel free to ask. In the meantime perhaps you could clarify this for me: are you saying you have no beliefs or opinions, or only correct ones?

Other Comments by jo5ef
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE